These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sentenced 1989
#1541 - 2014-11-27 13:00:48 UTC
Challenged wrote:

I doubt many players will quit over it, but the amount of accounts subscribed may take a dip.

I have 14 subscribed accounts (im too bad at eve to plex them), as of next month that will drop down to 3, possibly 2, depending on what activities I plan on doing. That's a $1400 - $1900 loss for CCP annually from myself alone.

I never used them for bombing, or to gain advantages in pvp apart from bashing structures.

I believe CCP probably have already factored an ballpark figure of how much money may be lost from this, and since they are going forward, it is probably not high enough to affect them long term.

I find it annoying, but not game breaking. By the looks of replies here overall it's a pretty unpopular thing in general, so probably for the best of the game.


That is loss for them yea, unless you sell your toons who are then again going to be payed.
And if you don't, you won't be buying plex which will cause some increase in supply, causing plex to go a bit down in price (10 accounts ins' that much, but lets assume there is 5.000 of cases like this). Since you will then get less ingame ISK for a plex, you might decided to buy more plexes from CCP, in the end evening it out. So yea, generally they won't lose much money if any at all.

The Incursion Guild

Epic Arc Guide
Leorajev Aubaris
Blue Goat Ltd.
#1542 - 2014-11-27 13:17:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Leorajev Aubaris
Mierin Arthie wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.

How does this policy update regard the usage of KVM switches to control multiple computers from one mouse/keyboard?

As I read it you can still use a KVM switch (as long as it does not send the same command simultanously to all connected computers).

Seandals wrote:
What if we used wooden dowels: https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/_/rsrc/1300193073723/home/closeup2.jpg ?

This one had me laughing. :D
But still falls under:
CCP Falcon wrote:

We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware.
Bagatur I
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1543 - 2014-11-27 13:23:46 UTC
Jared Noan wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:


This includes, but isn’t limited to:

• Activation and control of ships and modules
• Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
• Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
• Interaction with other characters

Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience:



Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence.

You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I.


Fleet warping is a game feature, as in it is in the freaking EVE client, as in it is NOT an external hardware or 3rd party software, and it is being used as intended!
EVE community brags how EVE is hard and only the smartest gamers survive and it weeds out the dumb ones, and yet this thread is full of people like you Roll
Bagatur I
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1544 - 2014-11-27 13:26:27 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:
While I can't say I agree with CCP's decision in this regards, I do understand it and I do respect it.

I will miss the ice mining, but it appears to be time to lay off my "employees" and go find something else worthwhile to do within New Eden.


and what stops from mining with one account? or alt-tabbing a couple?
if you could finance 10 accounts with 10 ISboxed miners, you should be able to finance 1 account with manual mining?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1545 - 2014-11-27 13:30:29 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
This is the wrong place to be asking for a refund. File a petition and do it that way. Shouting for a refund here is not going to get you anywhere


Please don't do this. The answer is no and you will slow down response times to people with actual problems
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#1546 - 2014-11-27 13:38:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
This is the wrong place to be asking for a refund. File a petition and do it that way. Shouting for a refund here is not going to get you anywhere


Please don't do this. The answer is no and you will slow down response times to people with actual problems



He is still going to get his official answer from there faster than from this thread. And as it is quite simple answer he's going to get, it shouldn't make the waiting time that much longer.


I am failing to see how this is such a big problem for everybody? English isn't my native language and I still understood Falcons post. Multiboxing is still perfectly legal. You just cannot control your fleet with one button.

Wormholer for life.
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1547 - 2014-11-27 13:41:30 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
This is the wrong place to be asking for a refund. File a petition and do it that way. Shouting for a refund here is not going to get you anywhere


Oh yes it will. It will get me to tell them they need to stop being such f*cking morons.

Asking for refunds because your 'gameplay method' (read: cheat) was banned with plenty of warning in advance. How dare you.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Terino
Widgit Inc
#1548 - 2014-11-27 14:01:08 UTC
Bagatur I wrote:

and what stops from mining with one account? or alt-tabbing a couple?
if you could finance 10 accounts with 10 ISboxed miners, you should be able to finance 1 account with manual mining?


Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1549 - 2014-11-27 14:02:35 UTC
Terino wrote:

Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit.


if you Alt-Tab its not simultaneous.
Terino
Widgit Inc
#1550 - 2014-11-27 14:28:12 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Terino wrote:

Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit.


if you Alt-Tab its not simultaneous.

That's what I said...
I'm sure that is how I read it
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
#1551 - 2014-11-27 14:31:38 UTC
Terino wrote:
Bagatur I wrote:

and what stops from mining with one account? or alt-tabbing a couple?
if you could finance 10 accounts with 10 ISboxed miners, you should be able to finance 1 account with manual mining?


Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit.

And this is what he said. He is actually saying 'do this instead of that because this is legit'

View real-time damage statistics in-game

>EVE Live DPS Graph application forum thread

>iciclesoft.com
Square PI
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1552 - 2014-11-27 15:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Square PI
Heckar Ottig wrote:
I have 2 questions about this change of policies.

First.
I have 2 accounts and rarely use them simultaneously, but I am wondering will it be ok to use software like OnTopReplica to broadcast mouse clicks to a single account at a time. I'll elaborate: I can cut out part of the window of account 2 and put it on top of account 1 window. Then I can use the "Click forwarding" feature to transmit the click to account 2 while still having account 1 window active. It's still one click - one action on a single account in game, it just removes the annoying alt tabbing part, it's not possible to broadcast to multiple accounts with OnTop, only to one window it has replicated and I still have to click mods in account 1 to activate them.
I consider it just a way of window management, but a CCP response on that would be nice.

Second.
This has been asked a lot already. Fancy gaming peripherals and binding all resist mods to one button.
I found a GM post from 2011 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249
It says right there:
Quote:
1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard
This really depends on the exact useof those keyboard macros. General guideline: Automating gameplay: bad. Turning on all your hardeners with one key press: fine

CCP please provide update on this policy, activating non-grouped modules on a single account with 1 key - yes or no.
............................


About 1.)
From what i see there should be no problem with this.
I am using Synergy for my System. It is really helpfull and makes it easier to use more than one computer. But it is basicly only a bigger desktop where you still use the one mouse and keyboard on several PCs.

2.)
It is always the same. The question is what can the hardware do and what are you using of this.
You can write macros with the G15. And with these you can automatize really alot. The question is when is to much and becoming illigal.
It is no problem to set a marco to turn on several modules at once, or all your weapons. But it will become a problem when you make a "target asteroid, mine, dock, unload, undock, warp, target asteroid" macro.
Or you can set hotkeys on the G15 to automatic repeat. Even this might already be a problem. You can easy make a Spam macro for local chat with this.
Boob Titski
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1553 - 2014-11-27 15:26:09 UTC
does it mean we dont get those annoying patches anymore every 6 weeks cuss CCP will have less monizz cuss how many accounts are funded though multiboxing ? (multiboxing like key broadcast)(i guess its way more than those 10% mentioned earlier)

on the other hand: it means CCP would care more about players than their own wallet which is a milestone in gaming history.
also it will be possible again to see the local in only 1 screen.

at first i wanted to ***** about that nerv but now ... AWESOME CCP !!!
Volcane Nephilim
Tortured Pixels
#1554 - 2014-11-27 15:31:18 UTC
Do people really think CCP made a decision like this without being able to analyse the economic impact of the alt not being paid?

You can be fairly certain they are able to detect input broadcasting - else how will they enforce it in Jan?

You can be fairly certain they already have this capability in the client and platform you use today

They already know exactly how many alts are being used in this manner and they can guess most of them will unsub as a result of this policy change

Devs don't make revenue impacting changes on their own without talking to the accountants, they ran the numbers, they know what will happen and decided based on numbers that this is an acceptable loss of income.

You have *every* person who play the game in this manner whining on this thread, and there really arent that many of you. Don't let the door hit on you on the way out you really will not be missed.
Square PI
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1555 - 2014-11-27 15:33:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Square PI
I can already see the news for the future:

BBOD (big ban of the day).
Today we stroke again. This time 21 trillion ISK were destroyed by banning another botter. We are on the right path to make EVE a better world and increased the value of the ISK.

Your Mittani CCP.
Bagatur I
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1556 - 2014-11-27 15:33:16 UTC
Dazamin wrote:
Can we remove squad / wing / fleet warps too?


you can remove your brain, because apparently you are not using it Lol
Bagatur I
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1557 - 2014-11-27 15:39:16 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Just wanna throw this out there to start, I am always amazed how players can support actions taken to shrink their player base. That actually like seeing people quit and their game shrivel. I laugh every time. With that said...



This seems like a far more harmful action to be taking without concurrent buffs within the game. I personally do not ISBox, yet can see it's necessity within a game with a shrinking player base for market stability. Think about it's primary use: Mining. Can you tell me that you think that when this starts being enforced that mineral prices will not begin to skyrocket? Do you believe that ship, module, ammo, and drone prices will not go up in turn? Simple case of supply and demand people. This will not cut off your supply entirely, but it will completely remove a large percentage of your suppliers. I would assume most players who make use of this program are strongly contemplating unloading their characters and leaving entirely.

While most of us can say that the multiboxing suicide ganks and bombers are annoying.. and may be glad to see their frequency decline (they will NEVER stop unless ccp wants to kill this game entirely).. this action is too broad without a patch hitting concurrently increasing the mineral payouts of refining modules and ore. CCP is removing a large portion of the game supply without supplementing it with anything. More players will not start mining until the prices are already increasing making the profits worth their time to change their professions. By that time the damage has been done and while the market will stabilize it will be much higher than what we currently see.

CCP this is too broad an action. Some people are upset about the pvp related actions of that segment of the player base. Those you see crying now about multiboxing miners don't seem to understand what they actually contribute to the game or are simply bandwagoning trolls who do understand but just like to watch the world burn.



I'll end with this I really have no horse in this game. Just wanted to throw that out there and maybe open some eyes.


stopped reading there. how is this shrinking the player base? if ISboxers dont quit, instead of ONE player running 10 accounts you will have still ONE player running 1 count. no shrinking. if ISboxers quit, a player OUTSIDE of player base is removed, because they mainly ISbox so that they didnt have to play with other players. no loss here either.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#1558 - 2014-11-27 15:41:45 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:

You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.


yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault.


Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.


Actually, that statement was superseded when CCP published its Third Party Policies page. The page has already been updated with the latest information provided in the opening post, but using the wayback machine, the last paragraph under "Client modification" used to read:

Previous Third Party Policy on Client Modification wrote:

We do not endorse or condone the use of any third party applications or other software that modifies the client or otherwise confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or for purposes beyond its intended use, or if the application or other software violates other parts of the EULA, we may fully enforce our rights to prohibit such use, including player bans. Please use such third party applications or other software at your own risk.


The multiboxing application referred to above was ISBoxer. So for over a year, (the wayback machine shows the same language on the page back in June 2013) CCP posted in writing that ISBoxer violated the prohibitions against client modification (6A2, 6A3, and 9C) but that they were not going to enforce the EULA. However, CCP warned that they could enforce these provisions of the EULA in the future and to use the software "at your own risk."

Well, CCP has decided to start enforcing these provisions, and gave everyone 5 weeks notice. Even then, CCP is only banning the functionality that violates the EULA, which means that ISBoxer is not banned, just using some of the optional features is.

I have the feeling that giving over 30 days notice for the change was due to legal reasons.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Bagatur I
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1559 - 2014-11-27 15:41:51 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
I don't understand why this has to apply to mining or ratting. You're going to lose hundreds of subscriptions over this CCP. What a terrible decision this is.

Please place an exception where broadcasting commands to mine rocks, shoot rats, jettison cargo, etc. is all permitted.


CCP please dont. cheating is cheating, whether you use it get numerical advantage in pvp or financial advantage.
Heckar Ottig
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1560 - 2014-11-27 15:48:08 UTC
Square PI wrote:

2.)
It is always the same. The question is what can the hardware do and what are you using of this.
You can write macros with the G15. And with these you can automatize really alot. The question is when is to much and becoming illigal.
It is no problem to set a marco to turn on several modules at once, or all your weapons. But it will become a problem when you make a "target asteroid, mine, dock, unload, undock, warp, target asteroid" macro.
Or you can set hotkeys on the G15 to automatic repeat. Even this might already be a problem. You can easy make a Spam macro for local chat with this.


Well the mining situation is a bit straight forward, some piece of your macro code has to check if your cargo is full or are your mining lasers are running, that's a logical operation and is considered automation. Also unloading your cargo can only be performed with mouse gestures (is it?), putting it in the macro is 100% automation. Pressing all f buttons simultaneously doesn't have any if/when/while logic behind it.
Basically, as long as the peripheral doesn't get any data from the game and is only used to broadcast commands it's not automation.