Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:38:00 -
[271] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote: Let me know one day when you're running a business of you're own, how that works out for you. Or, when you've learned to live without money. Until then, don't even pretend like CCP's greed is a thing worth discussing in comparison to easily more than 90% of other companies out there, or is anything near a factor here, because if it was, they wouldn't ban anything.
Part of maintaining a consistent income from a product like this is reputation. Reputation means ...
im not blaming them for anything, I just want to keep clear the facts that CCP allows botting/automation because of money not because isbox is not an automation tool. With all consequences for their reputation... Nothing else. |
Remiel Pollard
Stirling Iron Society A Rather Intimidating Group of Individuals
2734
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:42:00 -
[272] - Quote
The way I see it, this is one of those issues that is always going to exist because new players that don't understand EVE and its rules will keep bringing it up. Every new wave of new players, there's gonna be a new 'ban ISBoxer' thread on the forums because new people don't get it. If they continue to not get it, then eventually they'll become vets that don't get it, and the game is full of them as well. Bottom line is, you just don't get it, but mostly because you're new. You'll continue to not get it if you're not very good at absorbing new information. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20248
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:42:00 -
[273] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:If I use my keyboard to create a "macro" off of one keystroke that does 9 more keystrokes, equaling a total of 10 keystrokes from 1 initial, that's wrong.
Yet if someone uses a 3rd party, downloaded piece of software where they use 1 keystroke and it gets repeated 19 times to 19 other accounts equaling 20 keystrokes, it's allowed.
On one hand, automation is bad. On the other, it's OK. GǪbecause one is actual automation of gameplay and the other is not.
Quote:It's a biased choice where cheating is being allowed since CCP profits from it. If it were a matter of profit, CCP would allow far more things than multiboxing. The notion that it's about profit becomes downright silly and ignorant when you look at the thousands of accounts they close down on a regular basis.
The profit argument simply does not gel with reality, nor does the argument that multiboxing provides any kind of advantage. If it did, it would be on the ban list as well, but since it only ever does the same as the same amount of accounts can already do (actually less, since there is no individual flexibility in action) it stays off that list.
Robert Caldera wrote:I just want to keep clear the facts that CCP allows botting/automation because of money not because isbox is not an automation tool. Just one problem with that GÇ£factGÇ¥: CCP does not allow botting/automation, not even for money. They ban botters and players using automation tools by the thousands. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Prince Kobol
1453
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:42:00 -
[274] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote: Let me know one day when you're running a business of you're own, how that works out for you. Or, when you've learned to live without money. Until then, don't even pretend like CCP's greed is a thing worth discussing in comparison to easily more than 90% of other companies out there, or is anything near a factor here, because if it was, they wouldn't ban anything.
Part of maintaining a consistent income from a product like this is reputation. Reputation means ...
im not blaming them for anything, I just want to keep clear the facts that CCP allows botting/automation because of money not because isbox is not an automation tool. With all consequences for their reputation... Nothing else.
Until you are able to tell the difference between a bot and IS Boxer any argument you make is invalid. |
Remiel Pollard
Stirling Iron Society A Rather Intimidating Group of Individuals
2734
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:43:00 -
[275] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote: Let me know one day when you're running a business of you're own, how that works out for you. Or, when you've learned to live without money. Until then, don't even pretend like CCP's greed is a thing worth discussing in comparison to easily more than 90% of other companies out there, or is anything near a factor here, because if it was, they wouldn't ban anything.
Part of maintaining a consistent income from a product like this is reputation. Reputation means ...
im not blaming them for anything, I just want to keep clear the facts that CCP allows botting/automation because of money not because isbox is not an automation tool. With all consequences for their reputation... Nothing else.
Except that they don't allow botting or automation by modification. It's in the EULA. Maybe try reading it one day. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
Prince Kobol
1453
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:45:00 -
[276] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:If I use my keyboard to create a "macro" off of one keystroke that does 9 more keystrokes, equaling a total of 10 keystrokes from 1 initial, that's wrong.
Yet if someone uses a 3rd party, downloaded piece of software where they use 1 keystroke and it gets repeated 19 times to 19 other accounts equaling 20 keystrokes, it's allowed.
On one hand, automation is bad. On the other, it's OK. GǪbecause one is actual automation of gameplay and the other is not. Quote:It's a biased choice where cheating is being allowed since CCP profits from it. If it were a matter of profit, CCP would allow far more things than multiboxing. The notion that it's about profit becomes downright silly and ignorant when you look at the thousands of accounts they close down on a regular basis. The profit argument simply does not gel with reality, nor does the argument that multiboxing provides any kind of advantage. If it did, it would be on the ban list as well, but since it only ever does the same as the same amount of accounts can already do (actually less, since there is no individual flexibility in action) it stays off that list.
I agree with everything expect the part about ISboxer giving an advantage.
It gives me an advantage when mission running with my alts.
It significantly lessens the amount of micro management and increases my efficiency.
I am able to run missions quicker which in turns allows me to earn more LP then I would be doing by having to control x number of accounts separately. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20248
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:48:00 -
[277] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:I agree with everything expect the part about ISboxer giving an advantage.
It gives me an advantage when mission running with my alts.
It significantly lessens the amount of micro management and increases my efficiency.
I am able to run missions quicker which in turns allows me to earn more LP then I would be doing by having to control x number of accounts separately. Do you earn more than any other group of people running the same number of accounts? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
ImYourMom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:54:00 -
[278] - Quote
what the hell as isboxer got to do with botting? isboxer is not a botting program at all. isboxer is just about having multi accounts showing on one screen really and the ability to control them.
there is nothing wrong with it, you are still playing the game, you cant go afk and it does it all for you. So if i have 10 accounts do you expect someone to have 10 screens?
isboxer is the best thing to happen for multiboxing. nothing wrong with it at all. ITS NOT A BOTTING PROGRAM!
now they may use another program to do the botting but thats not isboxer. |
Erin Crawford
39
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:04:00 -
[279] - Quote
I doubt very much that CCP banning / disallowing the use of Isboxer would have anything to do with 'cheating,' "increased efficiency," automation, etc... It all comes down to CCP getting more $$$ from more active accounts used by a single player. And if they're not getting more $$$ then they can use said active accounts to promote how popular the game is and how many 'active players' they have.
Endlessly discussing and nitpicking over the EULA is pretty much pointless: CCP will probably only ban / disallow use of Isboxer once they start losing $$$ - then and only then. Simple. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1533
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:05:00 -
[280] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:If I use my keyboard to create a "macro" off of one keystroke that does 9 more keystrokes, equaling a total of 10 keystrokes from 1 initial, that's wrong.
Not only is it not "wrong", its not against the eve online rules. Looping your macro unattended while you sleep at night on the other hand is botting and an EULA violation.
Today's schools really need to teach critical thinking and reading comprehension, the lack of it is on ugly display in this topic.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
|
Prince Kobol
1453
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:06:00 -
[281] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:I agree with everything expect the part about ISboxer giving an advantage.
It gives me an advantage when mission running with my alts.
It significantly lessens the amount of micro management and increases my efficiency.
I am able to run missions quicker which in turns allows me to earn more LP then I would be doing by having to control x number of accounts separately. Do you earn more than any other group of people running the same number of accounts?
It doesn't matter and is completely irrelevant.
I am able to earn more with ISBoxer then without it and for most people that is wrong.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20248
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:12:00 -
[282] - Quote
Erin Crawford wrote:It all comes down to CCP getting more $$$ from more active accounts used by a single player. Then why do they ban accounts by the thousands if they use tools that do break the rules for automation?
Prince Kobol wrote:It doesn't matter and is completely irrelevant.
I am able to earn more with ISBoxer then without it and for most people that is wrong. No, it is very much relevant, because that's where we get into the whole GÇ£accelerated rateGÇ¥ bit.
If your 5 accounts (or whatever) earn the same as any other 5 accounts, you're not getting anything at an accelerated rate. You're getting what one might expect from that amount of accounts. Just because you get to keep it all to yourself doesn't mean it's wrong GÇö it just means that you have a very strong consensus between those 5 accounts on where the ISK should be spent, but really, that's also no different than how any other 5 accounts could be organised.
If anything, it's the individual perspective that is irrelevant; what matters is how much and how quickly n accounts can produce compared to n accounts. If your software does more, there's a problem; if it doesn't, there's not. If (as is the case with all multiboxing) there's less, there's definitely no problem. And yes, it will be less because those accounts all performing the same action can't respond to their individual situation and that reduces efficiency. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
95
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:16:00 -
[283] - Quote
You know i play on linux. And its quite easy for me to set up my window manager to behave the same as isboxer without isboxer, its called a decent window manager that well Windows lacks. That is i can manage many windows at once. This is not a bot. There is also Synergy that permits me to use one mouse and keyboard across many computers, I have 2 computers at home with this and 4 at work (+ 2 laptops).
So you would ban multicomputers as well? Linux users with more than one account?
Or perhaps you think everyone should just have one account? Since well you don't want to have many so no one else should and its not fair? That is really what its about isn't it. You don't want anyone to have multiple accounts.
Because it sure isn't about isboxer.
[Edit] Oh and i have just one account. I really don't mind the multiboxers. Each to his own. People need a hobby and all that. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1050
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:20:00 -
[284] - Quote
@OP: Because CCP makes more money when mass-multiboxers can play their game since they tend to have tens (one or two) of accounts. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking.
Proposed change for ECM - Not chance based - not max target reduction based |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20248
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:23:00 -
[285] - Quote
Altrue wrote:@OP: Because CCP makes more money when mass-multiboxers can play their game since they tend to have tens (one or two) of accounts. Same question here: if that's true, then why do they ban accounts by the thousands if they use tools that break the rules for automation? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Icylce
The Chosen 0nes DARKNESS.
18
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:42:00 -
[286] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Do you earn more than any other group of people running the same number of accounts?
The answer is simple. Yes you do.
ISBoxer may not be botting but without doubt it provides automated actions for mutltiple acounts. Are u breaching EULA whe you are using ISBoxer? Lets find out together!
"B. By CCP for Breach or Misconduct
(1) Suspension of Account
Without limiting CCP's rights or remedies, CCP may immediately, and without notice, discontinue or suspend access to the System through your Account, and any and all other Accounts that share the name, phone number, e-mail address, internet protocol address or credit card number with the discontinued or suspended Account, in the event of (i) a breach of the EULA (including the Rules of Conduct) by you or any user under your Account; or (ii) unauthorized access to the System or use of the Game by you or any user under your Account."
Player is responsible for any ingame actions on any account he owns. Behaviour that breaches EULA on any of your accounts may result in ban to all your accounts. This is understandable. U sanction the prohibited behaviour and not just the account.
Now to the ISBoxer itself:
"CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
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. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
Is it a third party software?
Yes it is
Does it facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play?
As stated above. All actions in game will be credited to the player, not ONLY to the account. Now does the player gain ingame wealth at accelerated rate compared to "ordinary Game play"? While individuall ability of player to micromanage numerous accounts at once may be different, the effectivness of micromanagment decreases with increasing number off controlled acounts. Now compare it with ISBoxer. Does the effectivness decrease with increased number of accounts? No it doesnt.
ISBoxer does provide one player with increased advantage, because u do gain wealth (in absolute numbers not per account) in game faster than regular player using same number of accounts as u BUT without utilizing ISBoxer.
So usage of ISBoxer for multiboxing with goal to gain wealth in game is indeed forbidden by EULA. If CCP chooses not to enforce this part of EULA against selected group of ppl utilizing this program, its just bad company policy. Best course of action from CCP would be to ban ISBoxer usage or to update EULA. |
Erin Crawford
39
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:46:00 -
[287] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Erin Crawford wrote:It all comes down to CCP getting more $$$ from more active accounts used by a single player. Then why do they ban accounts by the thousands if they use tools that do break the rules for automation?
To be honest, I didn't know that CCP is banning accounts by the thousands. And if they are, then great! I'm glad they are.
However, I just suspect that CCP may be turning a little bit of a blind eye towards any such activity if they can earn $ from it - for as long as possible or until it becomes a huge issue.
My guess is they would be far swifter and harsher in banning any activity that even remotely came close to breaking any rules if they weren't earning anything from it.
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1533
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:50:00 -
[288] - Quote
I suspect paying someone to ban active players instead of concentrating on bots and RMT isn't smart business. Funny how ban zealots always think GM's work for free and are there to enforce their personal opinions of what's right and wrong. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
2404
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:54:00 -
[289] - Quote
Sorry, but please explain to a non-miner why these multiboxing fleets are bad and if they are, why they cant be ganked into the dirt like anyone else? *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20249
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 08:57:00 -
[290] - Quote
Icylce wrote:The answer is simple. Yes you do. How do you manage to earn more with (say) 5 accounts than you do with (say) 5 accounts?
Quote:Are u breaching EULA whe you are using ISBoxer? No. So sayeth the authors and arbiters of the EULA, and the EULA has already received an update to make this clear. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
435
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:03:00 -
[291] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:Sorry, but please explain to a non-miner why these multiboxing fleets are bad and if they are, why they cant be ganked into the dirt like anyone else?
People in the belts feel "cheated" and jealous when a huge 6+fleet of similarly named toons flies out of station in perfect synchronicity and lock-step to super-hoover especially ice in record time and efficiency.
I'm "mostly" ok with this. Its not as easy as some people think to maintain and control that many accounts. Takes a lot of setting up. You also have some serious associated PLEX costs.
As to ganking, the economics of it don't really balance out in high-sec. Mining modules and even the ships are actually surprisingly cheap, and the amount of ore any given mining ship (orcas notwithstanding) holds at any given time isn't really worth all that much.
These aren't multi-billion mission running ships. I haven't actively scanned many mining ships, but I doubt there are many loonies who actually use the very expensive faction mining modules. They are very expensive, and increase yield only slightly.
So ganking these mining-fleets really boils down to the luls, not much profit, if any, in it. And the security status hit. Furthermore the profits they generate through steady, regular ice grinding are so high that any gank is written off as a small expense and the material lost is replaced in a few hours of uninterrupted mining. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:08:00 -
[292] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪbecause one is actual automation of gameplay and the other is not. what is automation and what is not is not upon you or CCP, its a well defined term and you can google for it.
Tippia wrote:If it were a matter of profit, CCP would allow far more things than multiboxing. The notion that it's about profit becomes downright silly and ignorant when you look at the thousands of accounts they close down on a regular basis. where can I look at those "thousands of closed accounts". Link your source. There is no obvious reason why they allow isboxer, aside of profit. Because they would be otherwise banned.
Tippia wrote:The profit argument simply does not gel with reality, nor does the argument that multiboxing provides any kind of advantage. If it did, it would be on the ban list as well, but since it only ever does the same as the same amount of accounts can already do (actually less, since there is no individual flexibility in action) it stays off that list. if if wouldnt give any kind of advantage noone would use it. The advantage is simple, it allows you to control entire fleets by 1 person which he wouldnt be able to handle in an effective manner.
Tippia wrote:Just one problem with that GÇ£factGÇ¥: CCP does not allow botting/automation, not even for money. They ban botters and players using automation tools by the thousands. here again, your source about banned accounts? I have yet to see a banned isboxer, they dont enforce their automation policy upon isboxers, because of profit they cash in from those. |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
2405
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:09:00 -
[293] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: People in the belts feel "cheated" and jealous when a huge 6+fleet of similarly named toons flies out of station in perfect synchronicity and lock-step to super-hoover especially ice in record time and efficiency.
Which they do when they form their own one-player per ship minin fleets anyway. But yes, I accept they get jealous. A friend of mine who mines in a proc gets jealous when a mck turns up so I totally get that. I dont sympathise, but I understand it.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:As to ganking, the economics of it don't really balance out in high-sec. Mining modules and even the ships are actually surprisingly cheap, and the amount of ore any given mining ship (orcas notwithstanding) holds at any given time isn't really worth all that much...... So ganking these mining-fleets really boils down to the luls, not much profit, if any, in it. And the security status hit. Furthermore the profits they generate through steady, regular ice grinding are so high that any gank is written off as a small expense and the material lost is replaced in a few hours of uninterrupted mining.
Ganking them has virtually nothing to do with economically crippling them.
Its much much much more abotu making them have to go to the effort of replacing their ships.
Surely they dont all have 100 fully fitted macks, 20 orcas and 5 freighters on stand by to replace losses.... do they? Maybe they do. But anyway, in terms of the game, I cant see how a 1 man 20 ship fleet is any different from 20 manned ships all doing the same thing. So yeah, jealousy. I can buy that. *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
2405
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:11:00 -
[294] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote: what is automation and what is not is not upon.... CCP
Yeah but it is though. In their game, which they own, they can call ships bananahammocks if they like.
However, you dont seem to be wanting to discuss the topic. You seem to want to argue semantics with Tippa, which is similar to tellin a cat it should bark. *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
435
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:13:00 -
[295] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:Ganking them has virtually nothing to do with economically crippling them.
Its much much much more abotu making them have to go to the effort of replacing their ships.
In high-sec, it has everything to do with it.
They can replace the hardware in a matter of minutes. Because Ice-Belts are so predictable, the in-system stations quite frequently have modules/ships for sale even cheaper than the regional hub does.
Furthermore, the fleets have some not-inconsiderable drone support.
Its just not "worth" it to gank them in high-sec. And even on the luls part, the mass miner doesn't suffer more than a tiny annoyance and loss in profits that he can very easily catch up in a few hours of mining. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:14:00 -
[296] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Until you are able to tell the difference between a bot and IS Boxer any argument you make is invalid. you are unable to recognize the obvious fact that the 19 chars, running behind your main one and replicating its actions, are in fact automated bots. You play 1 char, 19 others are acting on their own, controlled by isbox. You dont steer them directly, they are steered by software copying your actions but yet they are not controlled by you, thus they are automated copycats.
Remiel Pollard wrote: Except that they don't allow botting or automation by modification. It's in the EULA. Maybe try reading it one day.
they dont allow automation per EULA, in same time they dont enforce same EULA upon isboxers which are automating tools per common definition.
Tippia wrote:Then why do they ban accounts by the thousands if they use tools that do break the rules for automation? your source? they dont, you see it in case of isboxers running around.
Tippia wrote: No, it is very much relevant, because that's where we get into the whole GÇ£accelerated rateGÇ¥ bit.
I explained the accelerated part in this thread already, go back and read it. Its actually pretty obvious.
|
Nidal Fervor
State War Academy Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:14:00 -
[297] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Batelle wrote:Because its a really good example of something that can be done without ISboxer. theoretically everything can be done without isboxer, point is it makes it a lot more efficient and in many cases realistic. So its a good thing? If gameplay is going to be allowed, it may as well be fun/pleasant.
One could argue that botting makes unpleasant game play less unpleasant. Botting is against the rules because of the advantage the software provides. Isboxer should be no different.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
746
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:15:00 -
[298] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:Robert Caldera wrote: what is automation and what is not is not upon.... CCP
Yeah but it is though. In their game, which they own, they can call ships bananahammocks if they like. However, you dont seem to be wanting to discuss the topic. You seem to want to argue semantics with Tippa, which is similar to tellin a cat it should bark. it is not upon CCP to define what is automation and what is not. It is however upon them to decide whether they allow forms of it or not, which they do in case of isboxers. |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
2405
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:16:00 -
[299] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:Ganking them has virtually nothing to do with economically crippling them.
Its much much much more abotu making them have to go to the effort of replacing their ships. In high-sec, it has everything to do with it. They can replace the hardware in a matter of minutes. Because Ice-Belts are so predictable, the in-system stations quite frequently have modules/ships for sale even cheaper than the regional hub does. Furthermore, the fleets have some not-inconsiderable drone support. Its just not "worth" it to gank them in high-sec. And even on the luls part, the mass miner doesn't suffer more than a tiny annoyance and loss in profits that he can very easily catch up in a few hours of mining.
It depends on how you measure worth.
They dont have infinate ships.
When was the last time you had to replace a ship (x20) only to lose it again? And again? And again?
Of course Im sure they all have Mining Permits and there would be no need for that to happen *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20250
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 09:16:00 -
[300] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:what is automation and what is not is not upon you or CCP Yes it is. They define the scope of the terms they use to describe what is and what isn't allowed in the game. Multiboxing does not count as automation in the eyes of the EULA, same as how nonconsensual violence does not count as griefing. And the definition they use is very simple: if it's 1:1 input from player to client, then it is not automation. If some piece of software starts sending commands to the client without player input, then it is.
Quote:where can I look at those "thousands of closed accounts". Link your source. Look up any of the bot banning sprees they've gone on from Unholy Range (2009) and onwards. So if it were about the money, how do you explain that accounts get banned by the thousands?
Quote:if if wouldnt give any kind of advantage noone would use it. The advantage is simple, it allows you to control entire fleets by 1 person which he wouldnt be able to handle in an effective manner. GǪwhich is an advantage over yourself, not other players. Again, it's still just 5 (or whatever) accounts doing the same thing as any other 5 accounts.
Quote:I have yet to see a banned isboxer GǪbecause it doesn't break the rules, unlike automation tools, which get people banned in such large amounts that it impacts server performance and monthly population averages(!). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |