These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1621 - 2014-11-27 23:59:59 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.

As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7.


Those can happen to the 10 man fleet too.

What we are talking about is that players themselves screw up, or are even working against the group.


Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1622 - 2014-11-28 00:05:34 UTC
Tappits wrote:
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)

Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?

You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client

You know...the ones that have the negative stigma

....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?


Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast


Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already.
Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.)

EULA says it's illegal.
However CCP have indicated they aren't likely to ban you if it's just 'press one button, activate all hardeners at once'. Even though it violates the EULA as written.
Since they are more concerned about more serious behaviour.

But, since it violates the EULA as written CCP can easily change that at their discretion if they find it is causing detection overlaps with ISBoxing and Botting.
Partly why I imagine this change is being made is because it will also make it easier to detect Bots in operation.

And Nolak, you are just making yourself look very very sad with your constant arguing in circles, splitting hairs and other pedantic arguments here. Really, we got your point 40 pages ago, it's time to just let it go.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1623 - 2014-11-28 00:05:48 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
There are many things that can go wrong with a boxer's fleet. You can have crystals fail to reload, guns can "false cycle", you can get jammed and miss your web, you can start targeting your alts, you can fail to lock a target and mess up your webs and thus have to unlock everything and re-lock, etc.

As for the claim of people needing to find a fleet, there are no less than 14 VG groups listed in Incursion Public MOTD. There are probably more out there that declined to be listed. There are also HQ fleets that are running near 24/7.


Those can happen to the 10 man fleet too.

What we are talking about is that players themselves screw up, or are even working against the group.


Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.


Sure, now lets ask which is more likely:

10 people play perfectly, vs.

1 guy 10 accounts and ISBoxer plays perfectly?

I'd say that the ISBoxer guy is going to have the higher probability and that will translate into higher earnings.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1624 - 2014-11-28 00:07:21 UTC
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1625 - 2014-11-28 00:08:22 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tappits wrote:
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)

Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?

You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client

You know...the ones that have the negative stigma

....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?


Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast


Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already.
Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.)

EULA says it's illegal.
However CCP have indicated they aren't likely to ban you if it's just 'press one button, activate all hardeners at once'. Even though it violates the EULA as written.
Since they are more concerned about more serious behaviour.

But, since it violates the EULA as written CCP can easily change that at their discretion if they find it is causing detection overlaps with ISBoxing and Botting.
Partly why I imagine this change is being made is because it will also make it easier to detect Bots in operation.

And Nolak, you are just making yourself look very very sad with your constant arguing in circles, splitting hairs and other pedantic arguments here. Really, we got your point 40 pages ago, it's time to just let it go.


Okay, technically it is a EULA violation, but you can do the same since you'll have 2 maybe 3 hardeners...anybody with 2 hands can turn them all on at the same time....without violating the EULA...unless having 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 2 hands, etc. is a EULA violation....which I doubt.

Lets not take things to the absurd in an attempt to justify automation that actually does use a 3rd party software.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1626 - 2014-11-28 00:16:38 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Okay, technically it is a EULA violation, but you can do the same since you'll have 2 maybe 3 hardeners...anybody with 2 hands can turn them all on at the same time....without violating the EULA...unless having 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 2 hands, etc. is a EULA violation....which I doubt.

Lets not take things to the absurd in an attempt to justify automation that actually does use a 3rd party software.

Sure, this is likely why CCP have indicated why they aren't going to ban for that. Like I said.
But it doesn't make it 'legal'. It simply makes it overlooked.
Which means it can't be used as an excuse to then build up to worse forms of automation by saying 'well if that's legal why isn't this'.
And makes it clear that Macro's aren't permitted.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1627 - 2014-11-28 00:19:59 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.


again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter??
As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1628 - 2014-11-28 00:28:55 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.


again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter??
As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,.


I agree with this as well. I think the more accurate comparison is not 10 players vs. 1 ISBoxer with 10 accounts, but 1 ISBoxer 10 accounts vs. 1 non-ISBoxer 10 Accounts.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1629 - 2014-11-28 00:40:23 UTC
FYI, PLEX prices in JITA 849,999,999.97.

Maybe CCP is also doing something to drop PLEX prices, but the coincidence is...rather remarkable.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1630 - 2014-11-28 00:43:03 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.


again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter??
As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,.


Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.


Teckos Pech wrote:
Sure, now lets ask which is more likely:
10 people play perfectly, vs.
1 guy 10 accounts and ISBoxer plays perfectly?
I'd say that the ISBoxer guy is going to have the higher probability and that will translate into higher earnings.


Each time an ISBoxer makes an error it is compounded 10x over, so your argument is moot at best, trolling at worst.
EVE is not the game to argue probability in.
Hicksimus
Torgue
#1631 - 2014-11-28 00:43:45 UTC
On one hand I was enjoying the insane PLEX prices and incredibly low relative costs of items lately but this is for the better as ISboxer was murdering certain aspects of EvE in the same way that bots were 3-4 years ago. Once again CCP is cracking down and I'm damn glad for that because if you want new people to play you don't need a long time player multiplexing 20 accounts doing noob activities. Ex. Running 20 T1 barges with T1 drones in highsec......

Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1632 - 2014-11-28 00:48:18 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Right. Assuming everyone targets the same ships and F1's at the same time and that NEITHER FLEET MAKES A MISTAKE, there is no arguable difference between the ISK per toon in an ISBoxxed fleet and a shiny fleet.


again, why are you comparing 10 guys to 1 guy with isbotter??
As the original question to answer was whether isbotter provides accelerated gameplay and increased isk/h for a multiboxer or not, you should compare a multiboxer with and without isbotter support. There you go.,.


Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.


Teckos Pech wrote:
Sure, now lets ask which is more likely:
10 people play perfectly, vs.
1 guy 10 accounts and ISBoxer plays perfectly?
I'd say that the ISBoxer guy is going to have the higher probability and that will translate into higher earnings.


Each time an ISBoxer makes an error it is compounded 10x over, so your argument is moot at best, trolling at worst.
EVE is not the game to argue probability in.


That is the best you got? Trolling? Please, the answer is trivial to anyone with passing familiarity with statistics, mathematics, etc. The 10 man fleet is more likely to make an error.

And I bet somebody at CCP pointed out this problem, and pointed out to using the alternate scenario of 10 accounts ISBoxer vs. 10 Accounts non-ISBoxer. When they looked at that it was obvious...ISBoxer conveys a substantial advantage. Then they talked to the CSM and that was the last nail in the coffin.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1633 - 2014-11-28 00:55:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.

people are not attempting to bend, they simply point out how the accelerated gameplay is achieved - by eliminating human interaction overhead of manual control over all multiboxed clients, which is a huge advantage in terms of speed and accuracy, compared to someone who is not utilizing tools of such kind.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1634 - 2014-11-28 01:07:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
That is the best you got? Trolling? Please, the answer is trivial to anyone with passing familiarity with statistics, mathematics, etc. The 10 man fleet is more likely to make an error.

And I bet somebody at CCP pointed out this problem, and pointed out to using the alternate scenario of 10 accounts ISBoxer vs. 10 Accounts non-ISBoxer. When they looked at that it was obvious...ISBoxer conveys a substantial advantage. Then they talked to the CSM and that was the last nail in the coffin.


Yes, since you do nothing to attempt to defend your points besides rehashing and moving goalposts.

The most likely scenario was someone was afk hauling 20b in a freighter, got ganked, and then bitched in alliance chat and at the GM in his petition and posted a tear-filled thread in GD. CCP saw this, or a CSM did, and they are now on some moral crusade against ISBoxer claiming that it's as bad as the botting carriers.


Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.

people are not attempting to bend, they simply point out how the accelerated gameplay is achieved - by eliminating human interaction overhead of manual control over all multiboxed clients, which is a huge advantage in terms of speed and accuracy, compared to someone who is not utilizing tools of such kind.


Once again, accelerated gameplay for each character is not proven and has been deemed nonsense by Devs in the past. Right now you're comparing someone making 0 mistakes with ISBoxers with what you perceive to be "human error" in a 10-fleet, which is not good practice when attempting to compare the two.
Rox DaFoxx
Doomheim
#1635 - 2014-11-28 01:22:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rox DaFoxx
While I understand why this is being done and the effect on PvP game play can be a negative one,

As a disabled gamer who runs PvE missions can not quickly swap tabs, the avvailability of broadcasting instructions between my alts using ISboxer is the only way I can multibox my missions or travel through systems easily, especially with the longer distances involved with the new burner missions

Please keep in mind this tool just makes life a little bit easier for people like me when making a final decission on this issue ty
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1636 - 2014-11-28 01:53:57 UTC
EVEMon allows "accelerated game play" by allowing people to more efficiently plan skill queues and check market order status across multiple characters without logging in.

EFT/Pyfa allow "accelerated game play" by allowing theorycrafting of fits for free without having to set them up in game.

Obvious conclusion is that EVEMon, EFT, and Pyfa should all be banned.

EVE has always had a rich set of metagame tools which are available to everyone who wants to use them. ISBoxer was one such tool. It's third party software that makes the game easier and more fun for people who choose to use it. Oddly enough, though, so many people choose not to use it that it becomes not allowed.

Personally I think I'll start a crusade against EFT/Pyfa and the like. People who use them are at a huge advantage compared to people who don't, and therefore they should be banned.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1637 - 2014-11-28 02:19:26 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
That is the best you got? Trolling? Please, the answer is trivial to anyone with passing familiarity with statistics, mathematics, etc. The 10 man fleet is more likely to make an error.

And I bet somebody at CCP pointed out this problem, and pointed out to using the alternate scenario of 10 accounts ISBoxer vs. 10 Accounts non-ISBoxer. When they looked at that it was obvious...ISBoxer conveys a substantial advantage. Then they talked to the CSM and that was the last nail in the coffin.


Yes, since you do nothing to attempt to defend your points besides rehashing and moving goalposts.

The most likely scenario was someone was afk hauling 20b in a freighter, got ganked, and then bitched in alliance chat and at the GM in his petition and posted a tear-filled thread in GD. CCP saw this, or a CSM did, and they are now on some moral crusade against ISBoxer claiming that it's as bad as the botting carriers.


Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

Because people were attempting to bend the accelerated gameplay clause to suit their own hatred of ISBoxer, even when devs explained in previous threads that they were wrong. There is nothing a 10-boxer can do that a fleet of 10 people can't do just as well if not better. The best example of this is the video of the guy multiboxing a fleet of Harbingers in PVP and losing all of the hulls.

people are not attempting to bend, they simply point out how the accelerated gameplay is achieved - by eliminating human interaction overhead of manual control over all multiboxed clients, which is a huge advantage in terms of speed and accuracy, compared to someone who is not utilizing tools of such kind.


Once again, accelerated gameplay for each character is not proven and has been deemed nonsense by Devs in the past. Right now you're comparing someone making 0 mistakes with ISBoxers with what you perceive to be "human error" in a 10-fleet, which is not good practice when attempting to compare the two.


Moving goal posts...I've been arguing the same point for the last 20 pages. You may think this is clever, but such deception only undermines your own credibility.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1638 - 2014-11-28 02:20:45 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
EVEMon allows "accelerated game play" by allowing people to more efficiently plan skill queues and check market order status across multiple characters without logging in.

EFT/Pyfa allow "accelerated game play" by allowing theorycrafting of fits for free without having to set them up in game.

Obvious conclusion is that EVEMon, EFT, and Pyfa should all be banned.

EVE has always had a rich set of metagame tools which are available to everyone who wants to use them. ISBoxer was one such tool. It's third party software that makes the game easier and more fun for people who choose to use it. Oddly enough, though, so many people choose not to use it that it becomes not allowed.

Personally I think I'll start a crusade against EFT/Pyfa and the like. People who use them are at a huge advantage compared to people who don't, and therefore they should be banned.


Maybe it did, but here's the thing: it was free. Download it, put in the API key, get the same benefit. ISBoxer has a fee for the platform. That makes it a big difference.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#1639 - 2014-11-28 02:28:34 UTC
Rox DaFoxx wrote:
While I understand why this is being done and the effect on PvP game play can be a negative one,

As a disabled gamer who runs PvE missions can not quickly swap tabs, the avvailability of broadcasting instructions between my alts using ISboxer is the only way I can multibox my missions or travel through systems easily, especially with the longer distances involved with the new burner missions

Please keep in mind this tool just makes life a little bit easier for people like me when making a final decission on this issue ty


I would really talk to ccp and ask for an exception to this.

I'd love to talk to you more about your disability and help you anyway possible to work around this policy change by CCP.

Please send me a pm, I'll mail you now either way.

Legacy - An EVE Online Blog

Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast

EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1640 - 2014-11-28 02:34:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Moving goal posts...I've been arguing the same point for the last 20 pages. You may think this is clever, but such deception only undermines your own credibility.


I may have confused you with the other guy. I'm sorry if I did, but I'm fairly sure I explained why you were wrong as well in one of my previous posts.