Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
319
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 06:56:00 -
[91] - Quote
Kanexus wrote:why should ccp care...they making money through plex or sub paying...as you can see they wont respond to a thread like this. every mmorpg has a problem with botting...they know who the botters are and if they dont they are really dumb. all t hey gotta do is go to the ice zones and watch patterns. imagine if u owned a game and wanting to make money but someone was multiboxing 20 accounts at once....u ban him u lose all that money...and imagined if like 100 people did that...thats alot of money to lose.now if they were botting and selling the isk for real cash im sure they would squash it.
The opnly reason why it's accepted is because of $$$.
How do you call automated the act having you one character do the same thing over and over again but not the act of having an act repeated by a software an unlimited amount of time with a single interaction?
It's still some ******* code doing the job for you either way unless you want to pretend you can alt+tab 100 different client within a second.
Funny stuff: by default, alt+tab bring you back to the previous window instead of getting you to the next one wich totally increasing the amount of needed keypress to control more than just a few accoutn by a crazy ammount. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2439
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 06:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:If CCP objects to the use of a macro to automate a certain number of commands on a single client, then they should also object to the use of a program that duplicates a single command to the same number of clients.
So if it's okay to duplicate a command across 30 clients, then I should be able to use a macro to automate 30 commands for one.
There is a huge difference between the two though. One of them is botting, the other is not. Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
319
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 06:59:00 -
[93] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:If CCP objects to the use of a macro to automate a certain number of commands on a single client, then they should also object to the use of a program that duplicates a single command to the same number of clients.
So if it's okay to duplicate a command across 30 clients, then I should be able to use a macro to automate 30 commands for one. There is a huge difference between the two though. One of them is botting, the other is not.
Thats splitting hairs. We have some code repeating an action over and over again vs. some code reapeating the same action multiple time.
There is indeed a difference between the 2 but the basic is still the same, the job of a player is done by some god damn code.
Posting after drinking is bad... |
Dusty Meg
Bioco Industries Bioco Empire
72
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 07:34:00 -
[94] - Quote
ISboxer and these programs have been fully allowed by the Gm team already, so this thread is useless.
GM Lelouch wrote:Hello there,
To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.
Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).
An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!
Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.
I hope this clears up this matter.
Best regards, Senior GM Lelouch EVE Online Customer Support
Source http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274
And for the record, Yes I use Isboxer, there are more features and uses for that program for this game then just the key broadcasting. The video FX ability on the program so that you can show only what is needed on each account is incredibly usefull such as my old set up http://oi47.tinypic.com/wgqpnn.jpg . That changed but I havnt got any fresh screenshots.
So your wanting to ban multi-boxeing will drive alot of people out of this game and destroy the market, most of the minerals that come into this game is through multiboxers and most of the plexs that come out of this game is from multiboxers, so whatever noise you make (which wont be loud enough) is dufunct as the GM team has already rulled that these programs are completly fine.
Creater of the EVE animated influence map http://www.youtube.com/user/DustMityEVE |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
778
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 07:47:00 -
[95] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:If CCP objects to the use of a macro to automate a certain number of commands on a single client, then they should also object to the use of a program that duplicates a single command to the same number of clients.
So if it's okay to duplicate a command across 30 clients, then I should be able to use a macro to automate 30 commands for one. There is a huge difference between the two though. One of them is botting, the other is not. Thats splitting hairs. We have some code repeating an action over and over again vs. some code reapeating the same action multiple time. There is indeed a difference between the 2 but the basic is still the same, the job of a player is done by some god damn code. Posting after drinking is bad... of course there's a difference, and the difference is that instead automating code, you're sending input to several clients at once.
an input that it's not automated, thus not botting. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Cloora
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
112
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 08:22:00 -
[96] - Quote
I use Synergy because I only use 5-7 accounts at once and they are all different ships. Also because I'm cheap and Synergy is free. I have no problem with these 100 character fleets using one person on ISBoxxer and neither does the GMs at CCP. Good for them.
All you people asking for this to be stopped are derping. http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com
|
Kogh Ayon
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
115
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 08:33:00 -
[97] - Quote
I have no interest in whether it is botting.
We should care about the reason to make a new law, rather than look at an existing law that made for a reason to make a new law. Especially in this case many people looking at the word and definition about botting, why should we care about what the dictionary says? The law comes by the force of authority and the benefit for authority(sorry ccp but it's the truth) and does not comes by the dictionaries.
The reason that CCP bans botting is that it hurts the games very much and cause serious imbalance between players, and make people not happy then eventually make the game less interesting and less profitable.
Will the command spam tools cause this effect at a similar level? Personally I don't like multibox-tools but I have to admit it is not something will run 12 hours a day and really requires people to log on with human appearance, so it should hurt the game much less than macro scripts.
Of course you can argue with the point above but please spend less time on the argument about the definition of "botting", CCP is a company not the stupid local court. |
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
113
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 08:52:00 -
[98] - Quote
Beckie DeLey wrote:EVE needs a hard cap on only one instance of the exe running at the same time to seriously crack down on this. There's way too much automation going on. Yeah, this is going to hurt a few guys with their scout/cyno alts, but then again they can just find a corp to fly with if that bothers them.
but sure, outlawing ISBOxer etc is a fine first step towards actual people playing the actual game with actual other people..
lol, this would only hurt poor people who can't afford several computers ... |
Sir Munphf
Colonizing and Terraforming of Planets
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 09:16:00 -
[99] - Quote
No, there is really no reason to ban multiboxing software. Why?
Tell me the diference of "multiboxing" 3rd party tool for 4 accounts versus 4 computers commanded by ONE set of wifi keyboard/mouse in same frequency?
Really no difference, if you dont count a bit bigger bill for electricity....
Edit: also, try to compare for example 4 "real! PCs and 4 virtual PCs - - |
Ohanka
223
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 09:17:00 -
[100] - Quote
I support this product and/or service.
Crapposting. |
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14033
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 09:26:00 -
[101] - Quote
So far not seeing any reason to ban multiboxing, or the progs used.
Seeing lots of misunderstanding and silly suggestions. Like thinking the progs make it the same as botting. No it does not. Oh and the great idea to ban keyboards with lots of keys. That was a special one.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Quit Whining
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 09:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
This thread is over already, as it's been clearly pointed out, the GMs have already ruled that it's fine.
The whining needs to end, those players that are able to field multiple gaming rigs and manage 30 accounts are clearly superior humans to the whining masses.
HTFU and deal with it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
3906
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 09:39:00 -
[103] - Quote
Multiboxing isn't botting, and neither are programs that duplicate commands across multiple clients.
It becomes botting when a single command, to EVE or otherwise, sends more commands to an EVE client than it was designed to allow.
So if I have multiple clients open and I click on a gate in one and press "warp to" and have a program that duplicates this command across all clients, that's not botting. If I have one or more clients open and I set a destination and a program automatically has my ship warp to zero and jump at every gate along the way, that's botting. Malcanis for CSM 8 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
216
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 09:50:00 -
[104] - Quote
Dante Uisen wrote:Kal Mindar wrote:Any program that allows 1 player to operate 30 characters, even just for movement, should not be allowed. Why are they allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences of not being able to manually move them all in time to prevent a gank. Yes, fleet warp should be a banable offense.
son of a ***** beat me to it :-P |
Joran Dravius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 10:37:00 -
[105] - Quote
RAP ACTION HERO wrote:ISBOXER is legal you morons. Obviously. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in asking for it to be, would there moron?
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Multiboxing isn't botting, and neither are programs that duplicate commands across multiple clients.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It becomes botting when a single command, to EVE or otherwise, sends more commands to an EVE client than it was designed to allow. You're contradicting yourself. Make up your mind. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
782
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:28:00 -
[106] - Quote
Joran Dravius wrote:RAP ACTION HERO wrote:ISBOXER is legal you morons. Obviously. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in asking for it to be, would there moron? James Amril-Kesh wrote:Multiboxing isn't botting, and neither are programs that duplicate commands across multiple clients. James Amril-Kesh wrote:It becomes botting when a single command, to EVE or otherwise, sends more commands to an EVE client than it was designed to allow. You're contradicting yourself. Make up your mind. ok let me tell this again.
you, a person, are sending single input commands to a computer. doesn't matter how many computers it is because YOU, something made of flesh and bone, is controlling a computer. a multiboxing program allows you, a person, made of flesh and bone send the same command signal made by a keyboard to several programs. you, a flesh and bone person.
botting does this without a human's input, with higher efficiency, or faster than a human can achieve. so basically, in a total extrapolation of the rules of EVE, it is not botting as far as someone made of flesh and bone, and not a program is manning the controls. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
GreenWithEnvy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:31:00 -
[107] - Quote
NO |
Denarus Arran
Point Precision Tactical Narcotics Team
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:38:00 -
[108] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:
I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.
It's not your job to determine what breaks the EULA, it's CCP's. Also, does anyone want to write a poem for me? I like Haikus. PEWPEWPEW |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
564
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:38:00 -
[109] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I'm on the fence somewhat, i've never used anything like that but have considered trying it after seeing the isboxer Drake vid on youtube.
At the same time, I can see the argument that it's bad for the game. I know a dude who Isboxer'd 4 Ravens in null sec Forsaken Hubs and made obscene isk, and have heard the stories of the "100 man solo mining fleet" lol.
The counter-counter argument is that these tycoons would unsub their 100 ship mining fleets if they couldn't use them...
Hell, as it is I guess it's ok since the player is at the keyboard, but i don't really like it.
Then you have those scrubs telling everyone "if you can't make 100M isk farming lvl4's you're dumb" and "high sec is far too profitable".
Well if those guys play it with one character, maybe 2 and without isboxer, they would probably change their minds about how profitable some areas in the game are and how bad some changes can be for a regular "normal" player.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
878
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:41:00 -
[110] - Quote
Kal Mindar wrote:With the recent news of the Eve-uni multi box botting scandal, I think it is time to ban multi box programs. Any program that allows 1 player to operate 30 characters, even just for movement, should not be allowed. Why are they allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences of not being able to manually move them all in time to prevent a gank. A click is a click and any program that duplicates one is not following the spirit of action vs. consequence that this amazing game is based upon.
I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.
While I know a lot of miners use multi-boxing (Orca + Hulk fleets), I still have to agree with this. Because all sentiments aside, considering that other thread on how CCP security wiped out several billion ISK from EvE Uni accounts because they supected someone of macro use (market profiteering)... it looks to me like a double-standard is happening here.
Either CCP needs to just give up & allow multi-boxing & the macros that make it possible, or enforce their rules on them all equally.
I know that, as a miner, this may be betraying my own "side" but I feel that integrity must rate higher. That some people would get banned and others overlooked when both are essentially doing the exact same thing - this is patently unfair. EvE Forum Bingo |
|
Ris Dnalor
L'Avant Garde Happy Endings
449
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:41:00 -
[111] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kal Mindar wrote:Why are they allowed to hit 1 button and insta warp 30 characters to safety instead of dealing with the consequences of not being able to manually move them all in time to prevent a gank. Simple: because nothing is being automated GÇö it's all direct player input.
replication is a form of automation. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1599
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:42:00 -
[112] - Quote
Someone with alot of money can afford to buy a set of high end gaming rigs and control them all at once with the proper hardware or software.
All because he has alot of money.
In a way, its Pay to Win. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Remiel Pollard
Intergalactic Trade and Harm
1344
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:49:00 -
[113] - Quote
Google Voices wrote:"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play." Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows. I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply.
/signed
Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
GreenWithEnvy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:54:00 -
[114] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Google Voices wrote:"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play." Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows. I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply. /signed Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported.
Does this mean that we have to go back to taped-together mice and keyboard with dowels over them? Because that convinced CCP pretty well last time to allow multiboxing SOFTWARE, because if they don't allow SOFTWARE people will just use HARDWARE. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1600
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:59:00 -
[115] - Quote
Google Voices wrote:"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play." Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows. I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply.
Thing is CCP seems to have said that use of Isboxer constitutes "Ordinary Game Play". As its their game they do get to define the term "Ordinary Game Play", and at present their definition allows click duplication.
But should it? Thats the real question: The definition of the term "ordinary game play". Recently CCP decided deploying drones in a fixed site and going AFK was not ordinary game play, so the definition does change. Its OK for the definition to change, after all the players change, technology changes, rules need to keep up.
So should click duplication be part of "Ordinary Game Play"? I beginning to think not. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Remiel Pollard
Intergalactic Trade and Harm
1345
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:07:00 -
[116] - Quote
GreenWithEnvy wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Google Voices wrote:"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play." Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows. I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply. /signed Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported. Does this mean that we have to go back to taped-together mice and keyboard with dowels over them? Because that convinced CCP pretty well last time to allow multiboxing SOFTWARE, because if they don't allow SOFTWARE people will just use HARDWARE.
Making it less convenient to break the rules? Sounds good to me. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1600
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:07:00 -
[117] - Quote
GreenWithEnvy wrote:
Does this mean that we have to go back to taped-together mice and keyboard with dowels over them? Because that convinced CCP pretty well last time to allow multiboxing SOFTWARE, because if they don't allow SOFTWARE people will just use HARDWARE.
No, hardawre methods would also be out. Just like botting. You could bot by having a second computer with a web cam looking at the screen of the first computer, use solenoids to click the keys and a pen plotter to move the mouse. It would still be botting. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14043
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:13:00 -
[118] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Making it less convenient to break the rules? Sounds good to me.
What rules are being broken?
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
782
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:16:00 -
[119] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Google Voices wrote:"3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play." Isboxer clearly breaks the EULA by facilitating the ability of a single person to use an army to facilitate the acquisition of items at an accelerated rate. You could not run 20 clients yourself at anywhere near the efficiency that Isboxer allows. I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply. /signed Yeah, this kinda makes the case for me. The rules are quite clear, and leave no room for interpretation in this case. Considering some of the questionable bans taken against players for doing far less that I have seen, I think it's time CCP start abiding by and enforcing their own rules. so... supported. ok, ban also players from using the extra features from the Sidewinder X4, Sidewinder X6, and the Logitech G19, G13, and many other gaming keyboards too. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:17:00 -
[120] - Quote
I do have to find amusement in all the people arguing semantics and morals in this thread.
Here's the long and short of it:
Money.
CCP exists to turn a profit; not to cater to you, or to entertain you, or to give you something to do in order to waste time. This may indeed be the method they use to part you from your money, but the money is the reason they exist. They are a business. Their EULA exists solely to maximize their income through protection of intellectual property, and customer retention.
Imagine for a moment that some of you got your way, and CCP disallowed any form of multi-client gameplay, and then suffered a subsequent loss of revenue due to multiboxers allowing their alt accounts to expire.
Can you honestly believe that CCP would suck it up and 'stay the course' based on some sort of principle? You truly expect that they would lose income, month after month, because the multiboxers took their money elsewhere, either directly or by no longer fueling the PLEX market? Or do you think they would roll back the decision, perhaps even reinforcing the legality of multiboxing software?
You might not like multiboxers, but I bet that CCP's bottom line does. Ten, or 20, or 100 accounts owned by the same person still have to be paid for somehow, and however that is, CCP turns profit, and we reap the benefits of an active Dev team. How many of you would have to quit the game entirely before you equal the subscription cost of even one of these hardcore multiboxers? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |