Any program that allows 1 player to operate 30 characters, even just for movement, should not be allowed.

Yes, fleet warp should be a banable offense.

I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.

I guess the rules only apply when CCP says they apply.

*This* thread will go places.

IBTL?

Could someone dig up the pictures so often used to prove you don't need multiboxing programs?

Look, just because the op can't afford, refuses to use, has limited CPU to run, or just doesn't like multiple accounts and multiboxing tools does not give them the right to demand we all play by his rules. By this same logic, I could demand nul confers too much advantage so all null should become 1.0 space.

Don't be obtuse, that's quite obviously not what he was talking about. That is a supported, by design in game mechanic.

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.

http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/

Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it?

Hey look y'all, i found someone who uses the multiboxing software! I have leet detective skills!

Just because I support multi boxing, does not mean I am a user.

I support methadone use for heroine detox, but don't use either.

I support the right to bare arms in the US, but I don't own a gun.

I support the freedom of the press, but i'm not a journalust.

I support same-sex marriage rights, but I'm not getting one of those either.

http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/

Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it?

"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.

I thought he was being acute.

http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/

Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it?

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..

"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.

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.

Umm. No. My problem is with a program that takes 1 click and duplicates it 30 times. Again, why should they be allowed to warp all 30 hulks let's say, back to a pos with 1 click. How does this reinforce the main theme of action vs. consequence that this game is underpinned by?

Again, why should they be allowed to warp all 30 hulks let's say, back to a pos with 1 click.

I'm not going to weigh in on either side but you picked a really stupid example to use here.

People are correct when they say ISboxer or other similar software isn't necessary for multiboxing. Obviously there are no solutions for people using fifteen mice glued together....

Or CCP could just monitor for two or more clients in the same system that give the same commands at the same time more than 100 times in a row and issue warning and then bans. No collateral damage to honest players. And yes, it IS my opinion that players who multi-box in this manner (one input - multiple outputs) are dishonest. I don't know why, but I'm rather disgusted by people who put so much effort (elusively out of game) toward sating their greed. If you want 100 ships worth of income you need to control them individually.

I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.

ok let's put it this way: how are those 100 ships automated if there's still a user at the commands? granted he's like split over 100 ships, but he's there, unlike botting.

Not suggesting it is automated. I don't feel botting or automation is the only criteria for banning someone. No one should be confusing this for botting or other unattended playing. This is a proposal for a completely new set of standards by which to get rid of 'those people.'

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.

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.

One click should never move multiple characters unless CCP has specifically designed that into the game. Ie. Fleet warp.

Why not?

What impact does it have on risk vs. reward and action vs. consequence (apart from making the risks that much higher since a multiboxed fleet is that much easier to kill)?

That is the point. A mining fleet that can move in complete synchronicity is harder to kill them a mining fleet that requires individual clicks.

The multi box programs do more than fleet warp. They can engage, disengage asteroids, move ore to holds or cans, anything you do om one screen can be duplicated.

I am of two minds about this. Firstly it is obscene... I don't understand why anyone multi-boxes in this fashion anyway, it seems completely pointless.

Second, I don't see that it is of any harm. A 30 man mining fleet that is all being multiboxed may look like it's earning shed loads of ISK... but it isn't. That poor idiot is only getting the same amount per account as he would be if he were only running one account. He has to pay for all those accounts after all, and running 30 miners isn't going to get you the money for 30 plexes per month.

I could easily have overlooked something here. There is probably some obscure way of multiboxing to make obscene ISK, but I can't see it. If someone running 6 multiboxed accounts is running level fours and earning 50m per tick then he's only really getting 8m per account, which is alright... bout standard really. And he/she is paying CCP for all those accounts... So...More fool him really.

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..

One click should never move multiple characters unless CCP has specifically designed that into the game. Ie. Fleet warp.

Umm. No. My problem is with a program that takes 1 click and duplicates it 30 times. Again, why should they be allowed to warp all 30 hulks let's say, back to a pos with 1 click. How does this reinforce the main theme of action vs. consequence that this game is underpinned by?

EVE needs a hard cap on only one instance of the exe running at the same time to seriously crack down on this.

Nexus store needs to start selling popcorn. 5500 Aurum for my Avatar to hold a box of popcorn that's visible in our forum portraits would be so worth it.

Why not?

What impact does it have on risk vs. reward and action vs. consequence (apart from making the risks that much higher since a multiboxed fleet is that much easier to kill)?

I am of two minds about this. Firstly it is obscene... I don't understand why anyone multi-boxes in this fashion anyway, it seems completely pointless.

Second, I don't see that it is of any harm. A 30 man mining fleet that is all being multiboxed may look like it's earning shed loads of ISK... but it isn't. That poor idiot is only getting the same amount per account as he would be if he were only running one account. He has to pay for all those accounts after all, and running 30 miners isn't going to get you the money for 30 plexes per month.

I could easily have overlooked something here. There is probably some obscure way of multiboxing to make obscene ISK, but I can't see it. If someone running 6 multiboxed accounts is running level fours and earning 50m per tick then he's only really getting 8m per account, which is alright... bout standard really. And he/she is paying CCP for all those accounts... So...More fool him really.

http://technabob.com/blog/2010/04/11/eve-multi-boxing-rig/

Copy and paste the link. With large sums of money or spare equipment, you don't need a program to multi-box. Would you ban the above also simply because you can't do it?

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.

What I find funny about many eve players is their so nosey about other peoples game play, and they are concerned that the other player has more screen pixel items then they have.

Mmmmm, mommy Billys got more zero's then me, seriously if you want to be a imaginary winner too then multibox too so you can tell everyone you're a gizzionaire in a space game sheesh.

You'd run out of popcorn so fast though

/signed

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.

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.

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

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...

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..

Yes, fleet warp should be a banable offense.

ISBOXER is legal you morons.

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.

Obviously. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in asking for it to be, would there moron?




You're contradicting yourself. Make up your mind.

I, Kal Mindar, deem that multi boxing programs are a EULA breaking form of automation that undermines the integrity of this game.

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.

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.

Simple: because nothing is being automated GÇö it's all direct player input.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

/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.

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?

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.

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?

The first question is one I haven't FULLY researched but the general consensus is that removing bots actually increases CCP's income because we have more happy customers. The idea that we would want people to bot for $15 is a false one, though I could see why some people would leap to that conclusion.

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.

Even if everyone who multiboxed only had 1 extra account, imagine how much revenue you lose by people, we'll say 25% of the total account holders multibox, canceling their 2 accounts over not being able to multibox. That would be over 100k accounts gone. I would bet that the percent of multiple account holders is higher and I know that most have more than just 1 extra account.

That is exactly the same argument used by botters to justify botting. When CCP was asked "why kill bots when they pay you?" this was the reply:



So would killing multiboxed fleets controlled by key duplicators result in more happy non-key duplicating customers, and hence more money for CCP? Maybe...

...

The entire section of the EULA governing this is semantics; it's designed to foremost discourage revenue loss to RMT in the form of farming, and secondarily to promote customer retention by providing assurances of fair gameplay. Does botting in current iterations hurt the community? Yes, it does. Does it hurt CCP's bottom line? Yes, it does. Therefore it's disallowed.

If CCP believed they could make mad money from letting some people bot, while not also alienating that portion of their customer base that don't bot, and/or losing income to RMT 'gold farmers,' then you can bet botting would be allowed, too. CCP has to strike a fine line between disallowing all forms of multi-client play and thereby losing any potential income from it, and flying off the handle in the opposite direction, which discourages regular players altogether, also losing income.

Multiboxing software/alt-tab play is the fine line between those two things. I tab between two accounts regularly, because I usually have my trading/hauling account going in the background so that I don't have to keep logging in and out to do things with it. If I couldn't run them concurrently, then I wouldn't be paying for two accounts at all, since it would necessitate using twice the amount of playtime, which I do not have. I'd simply consolidate them onto the same account and save myself money. I pay for the convenience of two accounts that can do and train two different things at one time; remove that convenience, and you remove my personal incentive to pay for it.

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?

You are not using key duplication as your clients are doing vastly different activities. Its not like "press one key, 30 ships undock. Fleet warp to belt. Press one key, 30 ships lock the nearest roid. Press one key, 30 ships turn on ice miners" and so on. The OP was talking about key duplication being something that should be defined to not be "Ordinary Game Play" and hence banned.

That sounds like botting should be allowed as long as its not out in the open and they just spread out the impact ang just not destroy one areas market.

I bet botters use the H-E-L-L outta some PLEX thus raising the isk price, encouraging more people to buy game time and sell them on the market

Even if everyone who multiboxed only had 1 extra account, imagine how much revenue you lose by people, we'll say 25% of the total account holders multibox, canceling their 2 accounts over not being able to multibox. That would be over 100k accounts gone. I would bet that the percent of multiple account holders is higher and I know that most have more than just 1 extra account.

You make a point. I'll immediately, and voluntarily, cease using the macros on my G110. Anyone else care to step up and start playing by the rules? I see a lot of excuses, but not a lot of 'taking responsibility'.

"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.

Just because it's not 'botting' does not make it right.

/signed

I fully support this initiative.

Not to sound like Donna Summer, but I work hard for the money. Nobody should have EVE-as-EZ.

why should i be penalised just because i can afford more accounts than you?

You'd think this thinly veiled "EvE Uni botter banned and we're pissed off" thread would have died when CCP spelled out exactly what their stance was on the matter and fully detailed the reasons why.

Must be a slow day on the net for some folks.

weakest argument ever.

why should i be penalised just because i can afford more accounts than you?

let me put it this way. in simple terms, as if you were a five year old.

game designer says "we should not allow people to broadcast hardware inputs to multiple instances of our program

weakest argument ever.

why should i be penalised just because i can afford more accounts than you?

Because at that point you are just exhibiting OCD stupid behavior AND absolutely FLOODING THE MARKET with your over-abundance of materiel, and crashing the economy.

Especially if 'everyone' does it.

Games are supposed to be a challenge, not a Cake Walk!

Do something else with your time if you want 'fun gameplay'. Otherwise, why are you here exactly ?

and how is it any different if i employ a small chinese boy to do the same clicks .................r.

At this point I had to just stop reading as you are obviously just a Racist Troll.

Next.

My friend runs 5 accounts with Ishtars in nullsec.

Its stupid to let him duplicate one clients actions to the other 4 accounts and it shouldn't be allowed.

End of story.

However he pays 5 times more than I do and money talks.

You know those extra accounts and thx to isboxer, increase exponentially your IG income. This is a fact.
Less demand for plex drives prices down at an acceptable level the 'normal" player would actually buy it, plex price being driven down you need to sell +plex to get the same isk, how's this bad for CCP?

ships get too cheap, losses don't matter

ships get too expensive, nobody PvPs

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.

whine whine whine

then surely, after the loot and drone region changes we want more multiboxers to bring the prices back down to pre-drone/loot change prices?

or did losses not matter then?

This thread is over already, as it's been clearly pointed out, the GMs have already ruled that it's fine.

lol scrub goon whine about not able to gank 30 hulk. ROFLMAO

A lot of tears

it doesn't matter who clicks the button, the result is the same. 30 accounts mine 30 accounts worth of ore. it doesn't matter if it's me doing it with a multibox program, it doesn't matter if it's me with 29 chinese boys, it doesn't matter if it's me with 29 random hobos i pulled off the street. the fact remains, 30 pilots sit in a belt and mine.

I does matter whether those 15 caracals you are facing are firing at the same time or over a period of a few seconds: one means you're dead before logistics can rep you, the other means logistics can keep you alive through the incoming fire.

So yes, it does matter whether the account is controlled using 30 way replication of keystrokes versus 30 keystrokes being issued independently.

The OP was asking for a change in policy. If you were able to read the actual thread before posting in it, you'd know that.

Make smaller better.

Obviously. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in asking for it to be, would there moron?




You're contradicting yourself. Make up your mind.

Funny to see you say that since multiboxing actaully make smaller better. There is nothing more empowering of a single player than multiboxing. Why would you make friends to play with when you can, all by yourself, control a nearly limitless number of different character? Large groups would technically ebnefit from a rule stating every single individual character logged in game must be controled by a different end user because they have the manpower to control more account.

I'll believe multi-boxing is not in the same league as a bot when someone proves it is possible to effectively control many, many ships at the same time without ISboxer or similar software.

I don't care if it's done on a hardware level or software. The end result is the same. Actions in the game were executed because something did it instead of a player. The reason I and others are for the idea of making multi-boxing against the EULA is that it (multi-boxing) makes it possible for a player do all by himself what he could not do with no software to back him up.

HOWEVER!

With "ordinary game play" undefined, this is actually a confusing one. Intentionally obfuscating language constructed to give them the easiest/most ways out of a difficult situation. "Ordinary game play" could be construed to mean anything from "interacting directly with the client" to "interacting indirectly with thousands of clients".

Uh huh. It's totally likely that in a 100-man group, you'd have enough multiboxers to give them an advantage over the multiboxers in a 1000-man group, let alone a 10000-man one.

Small groups not only are better at multiboxing, they're just more ~skilled~ and ~elite~ at the game, such that clearly if the 100-man were to just fight the top 100 of the 10000-man they would clearly win.

I mostly meant in a ratio. A solo player multiboxing can pretty much triple his power by only adding 2 account and controling them with a multiboxing tool. A large group of lets say 100 people would each need to add 2 accounts for a total of 200 more accounts needed. They can definately pull it off but it's much more work to do so.

Also, the stupid myth of large corp/alliance/whatever are all bads needs to die.

Basically, aside from the amazingly sweeping "we can do anything, it's ours" clause, there's this wonderfully "precise" form of "anything we don't like, you can't do" clause.

---

Take, for example, the cute two-day old newbie who attempts valiantly to tackle a Nyx and gets smartbombed to death in his regime-issued rifter. Said newbie then is caught with 1billion ISK three days in. >__< Sorry newbie, I didn't mean to get you in trouble.

Note: There was such a newbie and they got somewhere from 500mil to 2bil isk, I can't remember. But they did not get into trouble (of course, you might say, but....)

Basically, aside from the amazingly sweeping "we can do anything, it's ours" clause, there's this wonderfully "precise" form of "anything we don't like, you can't do" clause.

---

Take, for example, the cute two-day old newbie who attempts valiantly to tackle a Nyx and gets smartbombed to death in his regime-issued rifter. Said newbie then is caught with 1billion ISK three days in. >__< Sorry newbie, I didn't mean to get you in trouble.

Note: There was such a newbie and they got somewhere from 500mil to 2bil isk, I can't remember. But they did not get into trouble (of course, you might say, but....)

The thing about vague language, is that while it gives CCP leeway, it also conveys an illusion of that same leeway to players. I'd love it if CCP was very, VERY specific about this particular usage in it's language. Whichever side that judgement falls on so be it, just very frustrating to have an official document such as the EULA convey two completely opposite messages.

also...

Showering valiant newbies with isk is a favourite past-time of mine, I can't believe this could be true >_<

If all newbies were forced to somehow make enough isk to get into their own ships, I think this would greatly "help" cull the massive horde of GSF newbies that are just about to (or already are) get into an "amazing" spaceship exploding game.

I think the GSF gifting is only really making the starter isk making time much less painfull. At some point the newbie will be able to earn his ship anyway but a 2 day newbie can't do it from the start. Since it helps many people join the game AND make them stay since they can jump to the enjoyable part of the game, I think it's exactly what this game need more of. If more corp were to recruit tons of newbie and leading them right in the heat of the game, the growth of the game would probably be bigger. You'd think most corp would try to copy or at least do a similar recruitement scheme. GSF is the proof that it work but people hate goons with such a passion they can't "lower" themself to the point of doing like them.

That's sort of the point when people are poking at the "accelerated" part of the EULA restrictions. Because that is exactly accelerating their gameplay. The vagueness allows almost anything to be whacked.

But yeah, EVEO forums, screaming about the sky falling down (because servers don't crash anymore/as often thanks to things like TiDi) is a tradition and a pastime.

The gameplay is accelerated but it's players doing the acceleration not some external code. A program is not enabling something that a single player would normally be able to do. I would have no problem with people running any number of instance of the EVE client as long as they ahve to interact with all of them independently. There would be no automation at that point. It would be a royal pain in the ass but thats not my problem.

ISBoxer command duplication is very very different. That is taking one command at a time and duplicating it to multiple clients. Not through automation but through duplication.

ISBoxer just makes the job of running multiple accounts more practical. not necessarily easier (have any of you complainers looked in to the preparation required?). There is nothing wrong with that.

Good point. Though it mostly says what, third party programs?

Like when Powers Sa broadcast about a particularly :shobon: newbie and asked everyone to give him isk, just after an op, there were like maybe 500 people that could have send newbie isk. By broadcast, I of course mean on Jabber, a ... third party program/application.

EDIT: Also note that an "automated" Directorbot is used to send a broadcast to the appropriate people, be it all-all, thetasquad, capswarm or even the secret supercap group.

Did the jabber by itself get on the 500 pilots wallet to make a donation or were the 500 pilots frenetically mashing thier right click on the vallian newbie's name so they could select "send ISK" and then enter an amount?

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 command duplication is very very different. That is taking one command at a time and duplicating it to multiple clients. Not through automation but through duplication.

Does the document in question make a distinction or does it simply note that "acceleration" involving "third party programs" is prohibited?

Ordinary game play does not allow you to contact players that have logged off EVE online. Unless they check EVE gate, of course.... hm. But certainly not with the ease that Jabber does. And it certainly facilitated informing the players that a shobon newbie had to be drowned in isk (currency).


I, too, can constantly be an irritating ******* advocating against my own alliance's newbies. Someone is gonna commissar me for this.

One wonders, if you had (probably separate) logistics, you could handle the F1 work via multiboxing. Because after all, apparently fleets are just "target the primary and press F1" righttttttt~~~~?

Edit. I removed some stuff because it would just be showing off for the person in question. However, given how ISBoxer is legal. I will state, that why drop the logi from the program? It can hand non mirrored ships you know. Not all your toons have to be in the drake. [/i]

Time for a multiboxing Caracal/Scythe fleet.

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.

i see it this way: the fact that input duplication is even CONSIDERED to be used from players shows that some game mechanics are far to simple, repetitive, illogical or allow linear profit scaling with the number of participants.

if you mine in real life you are not 10x as efficient if you send 10x as much personal into a mine... just to pick mining as example. (stacking penalty on asteroids would be the quick fix for mining at least)

i see it this way: the fact that input duplication is even CONSIDERED to be used from players shows that some game mechanics are far to simple, repetitive, illogical or allow linear profit scaling with the number of participants.

if you mine in real life you are not 10x as efficient if you send 10x as much personal into a mine... just to pick mining as example. (stacking penalty on asteroids would be the quick fix for mining at least)

How is a software analysing your input and replication them for you to X other clients at the same time not an automation? If there was only a duplication of command, you clicking the lock button to lock a roid for example would only cause the eve client to tell you you are already targetting that roid. The automation make sure all the separate command are sent to the right instance of the client running instead of all at the same one as would happen if the multiboxer software was opnly making an exact duplicate of the input you did.

Unless you ahve a way to send command to a software without first telling the computer to start interfacing to that instance instead of the one you were previously focusing on.

so long as the software doesn't make each instance more powerful than any other instance, then its fine. one miner mining 10m/h, compared to a boxer mining 10m/h times 6 accounts, its still 10x6, it not 60m. if the software made one account do that, then yeah we have a problem, but as it is, it does nothing but exalt how in eve everything increases linearly. don't hate the player, hate the game.

You are of course excluding the case where the (bot) miner mines 10, maybe 20 hours a day (if they're dumb and/or want to donate 317 billion worth of raw ice to a space-important organization) whereas a normal player would collapse after trying that for a week, let alone a month or more.

Since you mention isk/hr, and usually bots have lower isk/hour than people do...

a boxer is not a bot... he is there mining just like any other miner

No.

This person is over-minning, flooding the market with product, and killing the game economy.

oh wow, so now we should have quotas on mining?

those two things are wrong.

multiboxing software that modifies input based on game states via something like OCR is automation.... thing is, you wont find any multiboxing software that does that. so, if you think that's what boxing software does, you need to step away from this discussion right now, because you are basing your argument in incorrect information.

the only thing multiboxing software will do is allow you to tell which clients receive the input, and to switch the clients that will receive the input... you have to make an input telling the software to do so. even making inputs happen in order to different clients must come from individual hardware events. such as hitting F1 and making drake 1 fire, F1 again, making drake 2 fire, etc. each requires a hardware event.

there are many more complex methods of controlling other clients, but no one uses them in eve, because you don't have to. from the moment you realize that the interactions in game can be done using only the Overview, you can just zoom out the view and never look at your ship again. all you need is the overview, sort it by name or type, and all overviews become duplicates, regardless of your distance to the objects.

in fact, the only feature people use of multiboxing software is broadcasting, unlike wow where the dynamic environment makes broadcasting completely impossible. EVE is incredible easy to replicate on all instances, say you have 20 drakes, so long all of them target at the same speed, cycle weapons at the same speed, fire at the same range, fly at the same speed, all the ui are pixel perfect copies of each other, and stay close together by orbiting the same anchor (by using a fleet option im sure 90% of the people in this thread don't know about, called "Regroup fleet"). they will work just like if you were flying one drake.

either download the damn thing and try it or shut up, don't make boxing software to be something its not, just to make an argument.

also the argument of accelerated income is the same idiocy of a wow player crying because 5 shamans detonated his por character with 5 lavabursts... so long as the software doesn't make each instance more powerful than any other instance, then its fine. one miner mining 10m/h, compared to a boxer mining 10m/h times 6 accounts, its still 10x6, it not 60m. if the software made one account do that, then yeah we have a problem, but as it is, it does nothing but exalt how in eve everything increases linearly. don't hate the player, hate the game.

ohhhh... yes...

finally someone said it.

making a distinction between accounts and players. linking, all accounts to the player that plays them. this is even worse than limiting the clients to one, or connections from the same IP to one.



do you have an idea of how many people just went for supporting this so called "ban" to hating it with passion? thank you for making my job easier.