These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RUS Comannder
Writing Memoirs
#1681 - 2014-11-28 11:11:54 UTC  |  Edited by: RUS Comannder
Remiel Pollard wrote:
RUS Comannder wrote:
Altrue wrote:
RUS Comannder wrote:

I only have 12 accounts


That kind of quote makes me laugh



A long time ago when I started playing in 2004, no one knew this game would be around for long, so I specialized players to trade, to mine to pvp and to build. There was no Eve approved way to change one player to another person or even ot have three trained up to do three different jobs and just logon and logoff to whichever of them was needed you could not train more than one per account, and 15 buck for an account is nothing to me. If I had full use of the limbs I have, my monthly eve costs would not cover one green's fee where I used to play several time a week. Even though Ebay was then full of ships, characters and accounts, it was against the rules and I am a rule follower, not breaker.

So in the interest of time savings and meeting the tasks needed to be a well rounded player, I built a corp for myself, while having one player in a corp with 70 or so other friends.

Let me see if there is anything about you I can laugh about - oh wait, I don't do that.


I literally laugh at anyone that thinks they need more than one account to be a 'well rounded player'. To me, they're basically scamming themselves. I've never enjoyed a game more than EVE Online and I've only needed one account to do so.


**************************************************************************************
I celebtrate your happiness of playing with one character

Is it beyond you to be happy that I can be happy playing within the rules and being happy with 12 characters, as frankly, I would fall asleep playing with only one character. The adventure of hopping from character to character is exhiliarating to me. 12 is all I can handle, but there was a time when I thought 8 was as much as I could do.

I use ISBoxer to log in and do housecleaning activities. This change will not affect my style of play in any way.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1682 - 2014-11-28 11:20:10 UTC
RUS Comannder wrote:


**************************************************************************************
I celebtrate your happiness of playing with one character

Is it beyond you to be happy that I can be happy playing within the rules and being happy with 12 characters, as frankly, I would fall asleep playing with only one character. The adventure of hopping from character to character is exhiliarating to me. 12 is all I can handle, but there was a time when I thought 8 was as much as I could do.

I use ISBoxer to log in and do housecleaning activities. This change will not affect my style of play in any way.


This isn't what I'm addressing at all. Go ahead and have as many accounts as you want. It's entirely your prerogative, your wallet, your game time, and not my problem.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Darth Schweinebacke
Wings of Fury.
#1683 - 2014-11-28 11:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Schweinebacke
I am definetly happy that at least multiplexing will be gone, I would not go as far as calling it botting, but i definetly call it cheating.

I would have been happier if software like ISboxer would be complety forbidden, since as people have discribed even without multiplexing it is 3rd party software that allows you, to run your accounts a lot more efficient than it would be possible without it.

I run multiple clients myself, but would never even think of software that makes it easier. If I can not handle as many accounts without the help of 3rd party software I simply should just downsize my fleet. In my opinion using any kind of software that is able to directly interact with a game client is cheating.

For me there is no difference here to people who use aimbots, wallhacks or whatever in FPS games. And I have a real grudge against anything like that. First of all I do not see the point in playing a game, which is supposed to be a challenge and then using software to make it less of a challenge. That kinda completly defeats the purpose of playing games in the first place.

Secondly I have a problem with people who cheat, because my own gaming experience in the past was heavily influenced thanks to people who are willing to cheat:

Many years ago I used to play the good old counter strike and was a 1v1 League ESL player and did spend many hours training and because of that became really good at the game. Thanks to the fact that crap like aimbots even existed I got banned from 100s of public servers, just because I regularly got stats that were compareable to people using cheats. I worked really hard to get to that level, just to be thrown into one pool with that kind of people and that completly ruined the game for me.

And the situation here is not really different for people who multibox without the help of additional software. People can not see if you actually use that kind of software and will very fast make accusations against you. Surely I have the choice to ignore those accusations, but over time it becomes really tiring to be compared to people who actually cheat.

If you can train yourself to efficiently use 20 accounts that is totally fine with me. If you have to use 3rd party software to be able to do it you are simply cheating, for all I care ccp could even require people to run programms like punkbuster that will detect if certain software is running on my system or not and ban anyone who gets caught cheating.

And for people who will repy with things like: "It does not give you such a big advantage"... Do not even bother typing it, because no argument you will provide will convince me. If there is no advantage in using it, you would not use it and you would definetly not pay for it.
Insomiaa
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1684 - 2014-11-28 12:41:18 UTC
So i dont get it wrong i can ISBoxer still use to use Multiple Monitors for Multiple Clients as long as i pusch and klick for any client seperate ?
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1685 - 2014-11-28 12:44:08 UTC
Insomiaa wrote:
So i dont get it wrong i can ISBoxer still use to use Multiple Monitors for Multiple Clients as long as i pusch and klick for any client seperate ?


short answer : yes

Long answer: as long you dont use the broadcast (control all at same time in a way that 1 do all do) (easily explained, but it's much more advanced) :) (i know you know)
So, yeah.
Insomiaa
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1686 - 2014-11-28 12:49:23 UTC
So nothing changed :) Thanks for Awnser :)
Seven Seas
Jump 2 Beacon
OnlyHoles
#1687 - 2014-11-28 13:13:17 UTC
This thread has lost it's momentum.

PS... Hi Rawthorm :)
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#1688 - 2014-11-28 13:14:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg

It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms.

The 50 man isbotter had his freighter and orca bumped away, but said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec.

EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. This means they have the same detrimental effect on the game as botters. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago.

Part of what contributed to this is allowing people to pay for gametime with isk by purchasing PLEX from the market. It meant that some people created far more accounts than they would otherwise have made if they had to pay real money to subscribe each account. I wonder what would happen if CCP removed the ability to use plex to cover subscription costs. PLEX has many uses now, they could keep PLEX, but just remove the function PLEX has to add subscription time to your account. This would mean all players must contribute financially to EVE in order to play, in the form of subscription time. All the while, keeping the PLEX system in place with all its other uses as a means to generate extra income for CCP.
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#1689 - 2014-11-28 13:17:22 UTC
Seven Seas wrote:
This thread has lost it's momentum.

PS... Hi Rawthorm :)


It ever had momentum? P It was a done deal from post 1 P

Ps **Shakes fist**
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1690 - 2014-11-28 13:25:36 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg

It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms.

The 50 man isbotter had his freighter and orca bumped away, but said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec.

EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago.

Part of what contributed to this is allowing people to pay for gametime with isk by purchasing PLEX from the market. It meant that some people created far more accounts than they would otherwise have made if they had to pay real money to subscribe each account. I wonder what would happen if CCP removed the ability to use plex to cover subscription costs. PLEX has many uses now, they could keep PLEX, but just remove the function PLEX has to add subscription time to your account. This would mean all players must contribute financially to EVE in order to play it, in the form of subscription time, all the while keeping the PLEX system in place with all its other uses as a means to generate extra income for CCP.


When I see images like that, literally the first thing that pops into my head is, "target rich environment". I agree with the sentiment against the ease with which automated gameplay allows multiboxers to remove content from other players. I disagree with removing the game time function from PLEX though. The primary reason that exists is to nullify or mitigate the effects of RMT. It's a necessary evil, and a highly effective one too.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Seven Seas
Jump 2 Beacon
OnlyHoles
#1691 - 2014-11-28 13:33:27 UTC
"target rich environment" exactly.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#1692 - 2014-11-28 13:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
The following screenshot is a good example of why input broadcasting had to be banned: http://i.imgur.com/fJMNIWi.jpg

It is an image taken from a hi-sec anomaly. There was around 75 miners present, 50 of them controlled by one person using input broadcasting, with immersion breaking names such as isbotter1, isbotter2, isbotter3, all the way up to isbotter 50. 15 were controlled by another person using input broadcasting, the rest were some small groups of people and a few randoms.

The 50 man isbotter had his freighter and orca bumped away, but said this doesn't bother him, and continued to strip mine the belt dry in no time at all. He admitted to having a second 50 man group of skiffs, currently actively in nullsec.

EVE does not benefit from having this kind of player in the game. They drive other players out of content and out of the game, while contributing nothing financially themselves. Input broadcasting should have been banned a long time ago.

Part of what contributed to this is allowing people to pay for gametime with isk by purchasing PLEX from the market. It meant that some people created far more accounts than they would otherwise have made if they had to pay real money to subscribe each account. I wonder what would happen if CCP removed the ability to use plex to cover subscription costs. PLEX has many uses now, they could keep PLEX, but just remove the function PLEX has to add subscription time to your account. This would mean all players must contribute financially to EVE in order to play it, in the form of subscription time, all the while keeping the PLEX system in place with all its other uses as a means to generate extra income for CCP.


When I see images like that, literally the first thing that pops into my head is, "target rich environment". I agree with the sentiment against the ease with which automated gameplay allows multiboxers to remove content from other players. I disagree with removing the game time function from PLEX though. The primary reason that exists is to nullify or mitigate the effects of RMT. It's a necessary evil, and a highly effective one too.


True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?

PLEX has many other uses now, for instance, multiple character training is very useful and will probably increase in use if people have to pay for each account with real money instead of PLEX, as that would make it much more useful to have, if you can have 3 characters training on one account but pay real money for the account and 2 plex for the additional two characters being trained. This also can't be used abused by isboxers because they can't log in those characters all at once.

The main point of this is that if someone wants to play on 10 or 20 accounts they have to pay 10 or 20 fees. PLEX remains in game as a useful item, it will obviously lose some value, but not all, because it remains valuable due to some of its other uses, such as character transfers, and especially multiple character training.
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#1693 - 2014-11-28 13:50:43 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:

True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?


I don't doubt they'd still be useful, but the price would crash big time, and being worth less ISK, I'd imagine less people would purchase them from CCP.

Also, removing plex would suddenly make large numbers of alts the domain of the RL rich. At least with the ability to buy game time with ISK your status in RL doesn't become a factor in if and how you play.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#1694 - 2014-11-28 13:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
Rawthorm wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:

True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?


I don't doubt they'd still be useful, but the price would crash big time, and being worth less ISK, I'd imagine less people would purchase them from CCP.

Also, removing plex would suddenly make large numbers of alts the domain of the RL rich. At least with the ability to buy game time with ISK your status in RL doesn't become a factor in if and how you play.


Less people will purchase plex to sell on the market, true, and this will help to stabilize prices, I don't see prices getting too low. More people will purchase subscriptions to play, countering the reduction in plex purchases. It's hard to say which system would be better.

I wouldn't think it would be like that with only RL rich having alts. One player paying for one account could also purchase 2 plex from the market, so he has 2 extra alts. 3 accounts? 8 alts.
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1695 - 2014-11-28 14:10:43 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:


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.


Prob not...

In actuality people that have petitioned that they lost their ship(s) to boxers have had a very good success rate of getting them back. Maybe the CSMs were tired of the super ganks happening and declared it unfair. We'll never know the actual reason but the super gank seems the most plausible.
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#1696 - 2014-11-28 14:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Rawthorm
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Rawthorm wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:

True that is a purpose of PLEX, but if one function of PLEX is removed, yet PLEX remain in game and retain enough of their value, then won't PLEX still serve that purpose?


I don't doubt they'd still be useful, but the price would crash big time, and being worth less ISK, I'd imagine less people would purchase them from CCP.

Also, removing plex would suddenly make large numbers of alts the domain of the RL rich. At least with the ability to buy game time with ISK your status in RL doesn't become a factor in if and how you play.


Less people will purchase plex to sell on the market, true, and this will help to stabilize prices, I don't see prices getting too low. More people will purchase subscriptions to play, countering the reduction in plex purchases. It's hard to say which system would be better.

I wouldn't think it would be like that with only RL rich having alts. One player paying for one account could also purchase 2 plex from the market, so he has 2 extra alts. 3 accounts? 8 alts.


The in game ramifications are not really anything I'd worry about, but out of game I don't think every plex'd alt would magically become a subscription.

Take me for example, I have at any time 8 to 20 accounts active, most of them with plex. (Before anyone asks, I don't automate, multiplex, Isbox or so much as run a stored keyboard shortcut on any of them.) It's no ones business but mine that I decide to run this many, but I do it because I place a higher premium on my time than ISK.
If seeding a toon in a location to do a given activity prevents me having to run about the galaxy to change activity then that's what I do.

Dropping plex game time would instantly make most of those accounts unaffordable for me as I can't think of any game I'd want to pay £300 a month for.
Now granted that's my problem and you shouldn't care less, I imagine there are a lot of people in the same boat as me, even with far lower numbers of accounts. That's a lot less plex bought, less demand means lower price, lower price means less incentive for others to buy plex to sell in the first place.

End result is lost revenue for CCP and a whole bunch of players taking on a much smaller fraction of what EvE has to offer. Given that EvE is a fairly monotonous game as it is the last thing we want to do is further limit people's ease of access to content.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1697 - 2014-11-28 14:24:37 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


I was doing stuff where it wouldn't really help.

"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
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#1698 - 2014-11-28 14:48:17 UTC
Great announcement, surprised I missed it until now.

Also for those thinking about continuing hoping CCP won't notice, I don't think this would be hard to detect at all, just look for characters in the same system who are all pressing buttons at exactly the same time. Should be very easy to detect actually. Goodbye Isboxer.
Volcane Nephilim
Tortured Pixels
#1699 - 2014-11-28 14:48:34 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.

This is no different.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1700 - 2014-11-28 15:01:31 UTC
Volcane Nephilim wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

So if it was so powerful in your minds...why weren't you using it?


Everyone could bump titans with the cyno thing that later became an exploit. Obvious advantages to doing so but not everyone did, why? Because it was against the spirit of the game design.

This is no different.


Except it is. That was declared against the EULA because they couldn't figure out how to code jump bridges / jumping to take into account the POS code. A while back, you used to be able to warp a titan into a POS you didn't have the PW to, and it'd bump you out and anything in your way. Same thing with MJDs. They fixed those so you couldn't enter a POS unless you had the PW, even if you tried MJDing in.