goodbye ccp. 12 accounts unsubbed as of now. i feel bullshitted for my time i invested but **** happens

To everybody complaining about isboxer I hope your ready to strap a miner to your ass because mineral prices are going to spike.

I wonder how exactly this will change anything. CCP can not detect the software, so how will CCP know if it's being used? Exactly.

Fleet Warp would fall under these guidelines. Also the signing of drones to another player would fall under this outline. One account broadcasting a single action to more than one accounts. Food for thought.

speaking of things that should be in the client, here's an idea players might want to get behind. it involves expanding the automation within the client to support all fleet roles that will be eliminated as a result of this ban. I am accused several times in the thread for trolling, but it is a very serious suggestion.

basically, the FC and other fleet command positions will have full control of their leadership tree.

oddly enough, I was about to install ISBoxer for the first time today. I woke up to the TMC article about this announcement.

you could say I'm feeling right as rain right now.

to anyone concerned about the loss of control without ISBoxer: the days of 50-boxing may be gone, but 10-boxing is very doable without ISBoxer, it just takes practice.

You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.

Mining Sucks, if someone wants to use isboxer to mine it should be fair game.

no comment. but this is what i was thinking. curious if ISBoxer author will pull the plug on EVE or decide to make ISBoxer smarter, cuz that's all it would take. If you know what ISBoxer is capable of, you'd know there's no way for EVE to detect ISBoxer.

a lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Multiboxing is the best way to play EVE.

the cries about "a multiboxer killed me" are bullshit. when you undock you sign off on whatever you encounter in space.

You can very easily randomize the delay using most software solutions.

Too bad I'm talking strictly about hardware macros

Suggestion: learn how to read.

I do have to say that if mirrored input broadcasting isn't detectible and dealt with quickly and automatically this is going to be a very rough and annoying process relying on players policing each other with a silly amount of witchhunt and accusations going on between players that shouldn't be happening. If you cannot stop it without players reporting each or micro scoping players manually to detect it then this entire policy change is a load of uselessness and exercise in futility. Since botting is still a problem and identifying bots and reporting them is still a problem I am doubtful, but please prove me wrong.

I get <10ms lagtimes when manually alt-tabbing hard and using keybinds. It all comes down to the granularity of the logs in question as to whether it can be done or not.

People complaining about others using programs like is-boxer are those that are too lazy to use scouts to check if there are 30 man gangs

And how short is said window? Is it a fixed window? Is it sliding scale based on complexity of command? How granular are the logs? Is there an appeal process?

It ain't trivial, but its not insurmountable. It's also possible, to with practice, get reaction times that seem impossible, especially with combination commands, like keybinds with voice control and good ole-fashion keymashing

So now legit players will have to fly around and muse to themselves: "gee, I sure hope I don't look like someone broadcasting inputs just because I'm pressing my F keys very consistently." Nice. Instituting blanket punishment on people who only seem like they're breaking the rules is always the enlightened solution.

The issue isn't that people breaking the rules will be caught; the issue is that innocent people will be caught for false positives. You have, just a few posts ago, admitted to that yourself.

you do realize isboxer isn't band just the repeater in isboxer is been band. and the dev of isboxer has said he will remove it for the eve setup of isboxer so players that use it cant get band right? or are you just trolling?

As someone who can read and understand English very well, no-one can understand what you are trying to say.

Because if this is their intent with this change, they're not going to stop here. It means they view freighter ganking as the problem, and not ISBoxing.

You're saying that it's a problem, but you're not aying why it's a problem, and that's the issue. So maybe you should tell us, and while you're at it, also tell us why one player using multiple accounts to gank someone is bad, but one player using multiple accounts to run pve content isn't.

Nothing is being automated in a freighter gank.

Good job on avoiding the question like a pro, though.

There's no automation. Input broadcasting isn't automation.

this shows how little you know, you have proably never tryed Isb boxer. And to make this Clear. i have never ever seen an isb boxer catalyst fleet. So i dont know what this is about, propaganda to get it away? I dont know. But saying that its botting or totaly automated in background is just pure wrong.

neautral reppers i suppose ;) (Your resubbed accounts)
Oh, well. Smart bombs're quite smiple. so it wont even stop afther the update i suppose.

First off all, i would appriciate if you quoted all what she said instead off a little part off it.

And if you think its just automated in back ground With isb boxer. then you're wrong.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5217251#post5217251
Well, here you was spreading Your own opinion before this announcment was made.
So ''all i care about is CCP's attitude in this matter'' dont seem right?

you can Warp them With 1 click ! fleet Warp, lol.

There is no need for People to stop using isb boxer, but the brodcast thing is whats going to be an no,no.

No wonder one of my ganker friends laughed at this.

To me, ISboxer = bot I see no difference. So apparently it's not a EULA violation to bot because BOTS STILL ROAM FREE after countless reporting.

The EULA only applies if it's enforced.

The graph is 100% accurate. I suggest you pick up an economics 101 textbook and read the first few pages of the first chapter.

However, the fact that CCP is doing this to target (and this is just my own hypothesis) suicide-ganking is troubling.

Suicide-ganking is the only new activity being targeted by these rules. Mining and ratting, the two activities that benefit from iSBoxer, were already being illegally botted most of the time when ISBoxer was in the picture. Since botting is illegal (and very much punishable), introducing this change would be meaningless unless suicide-ganking (and fringe cases like multi-bombing) are being targeted.

The majority of people using ISBoxer for those things are automating the processes anyway. Implementing this new rule to punish the minority of ISBoxers who are actually there and manually controlling their input, while the botters go unpunished (as they always were), seems a bit moot to me.

Go to a null-sec system with lots of NPC kills, and observe the behavior of the locals. Or go to pretty much any system within 5 jumps of a hub, and observe the miners in the belts. Feel free to ask them what they use.

The intentions of this policy are to punish anyone who uses ISBoxer for pvp activities

, since as we've just established those using it for pve are already breaking the rules by botting, but go unpunished.

In which case, the ISboxers seem to have no grounds for complaining about the new CCP rules?

There are other software solutions that can accomplish the same thing. CCP can't "ban" software, so they ban the act.

The problem is that the act they're banning now is much less severe than the one that's been banned since day 1, and that they've done nothing about.

This is no surprise. Your stance against the presence of various "disagreeable" forms pvp in this game is widely known.

You think I keep a Rolodex of all the bots I've encountered or something? All I know is that any I've ever reported have never been banned. Even those that outwardly admitted to me that yes, they were botting.

CCP is rather indirectly removing the ability to gank with ISBoxer and rapidly deploy a fleet for ISBoxer PVP while allowing us to continue to PVE (albeit it makes 0.0 anom ratting the current choice of where-to-earn-isk with the jump changes) to our hearts content.

Most, if not all, of the ISBoxers were willing to accept a blanket ban on ISBox PVP, or repeaters with PVP, because there's too many ways around this repeater ban

because some idiot was hauling 20b in a freighter and got ganked

, or because some fleet got bombed

all the while CCP ignores the raw facts that if you're hauling 20b in a freighter in highsec, you will get ganked.

And if you're sitting AFK on a gate or anywhere in space in nullsec for any measurable period of time, you will get bombed.

This maneuver by CCP is pointless

Not just that this is good, but this won't hit bombers harder at all, this won't even affect bombers, since hey, for most bomber pilots nothing changes with this since we don't use 3rd party software... :D

You can bind alt+tab, followed by a set of commands to one button.

Apparently it's not, as long as each shortcut controls input to only one client.

6 CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct

Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.

You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
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.

But even if it's made to be illegal, it can still be circumvented by using more binds. For example:

- Keypad_0 is bound to alt+tab (this is completely legit, and CCP can't do anything about this at all, ever)
- F1 is bound to double-click
- F2 is bound to cloak
- F3 is bound to bomb

Now all one has to do is hit Keypad_0 + F1 8 times, Keypad_0 + F2 8 times, etc etc. Completely legit, since all you'd be doing is rebinding your input device keys for comfort. A person should be able to hit 8 successions of 2 keys with 2 hands about as fast as 1 with 1 hand.

Updated solution: you can bind things as continuous input (hold the key to continuously send commands). Then you just need to hold down one key while pressing the other.

Incorrect. I've mentioned precedent multiple times, and for some reason, you've chosen to ignore it each time.

lol, what?

It's not accelerated, it's doing the same thing from a more convenient place.

You hate multiboxing because you lack the motor skills to do it? You can't afford it so it's not fair?

You just assume it makes our 10 man fleet as good or better than yours. Unless you are complete scrubs our 10 man isboxer fleet is not better than your 10 man human fleet in terms of character management.... not even close.

I'm gonna want a t2 tearbucket for January 2nd.

In theory yes, that is possible if all the funds were channeled to the main character. In practice that may have happened but usually skill costs, ammo costs and general main costs prohibit that. As stated keeping 10 toons is 10 times more expensive than keeping 1 toon. When you're talking an end game ship (you can't go any further), it is actually easier to fast track it on a single character and plex that toon.

We're not talking theory here.. there are no "what if s" or "he COULD do that" . CCP has made a decision and many (too many) have a misconception of what is really happening on our side. Our side is the exact same as yours... we just have more toons doing it.

If it costs you xxx to replace a ship... it costs us the same. Skill books and time are the same only compounded. No biggie.

What does that 3rd party software automate for me?

Does it auto-target for me?

Does it automatically pilot my ships for me

in ways that eve doesn't already do?

You don't like it because it's not something you want to do and because you don't want to do it in your mind that means it's not to be done.

actually not really. I have been running 5 toons for quite a while mining in fleet. cycling through all five of them is less than a few seconds. This changes the game slightly but not by much.

Example: 10 toons mining. ISboxer's broadcast feature is prohibitive because who whats 10 toon hitting the same rock at the same time?

10 toons in pvp vs a larger ship... yes you want all 10 to target the same ship at the same time. Thus CCP rules.

There is an advantage to ISboxer .. yes. That's why it was designed O_o. This advantage WAS open to all players. Those that didn't use it shouldn't cry. Those that did.. also should have seen this coming.

It's been a good run, guys. See you in Star Citizen.

Macros are not banned. Speaking of 5 year olds, way to make your point.

LMAO see you have no clue how it works for me.

Broadcasts are no more so just take them out of the mix. This means moving forward i won't be:

1. broadcasting dock/jump/enter wormhole
2. broadcasting launch drones

Oh my!

No it doesn't pilot my ships for me ... squad warp and fleet regroup do that for me both of which are not isboxer features.

Comparing aimbots to isboxer is another ******** comparison.

I'm sorry I like to use multiple accounts to achieve better results. Nothing in the EULA against that.

If CCP were to introduce a text-based minigame that you must play in order to dock in a station, people would complain. Sure, it adds to the "realism" and whatnot, but in the end it isn't necessary. The automated docking system makes life simple for you. Same thing with broadcasting keys and and mouse strokes. It's nice that we were able to use them, but removing them just adds a little minigame that we must play.

Mass reporting of people who are not breaking any rules is a easy way to get banned yourself. Keep that in mind.

I can't say much about bombing as I've only participated in 2 bombing runs with Bombers Bar. But from what I learned about those massive bombing runs that removed an entire fleet was that they were AFK on a station/gate or stuck in a drag bubble 50km off a gate, not that they were somehow unable to react because of the bomber pilot himself. While I don't bomb myself, I would have understood CCP's reasons against multibox bombing.

Every time you use "ISBotter" you further prove your ignorance as to what ISBoxer is, and the difference between an ISBoxer and a bot. It's two different things that both use a similar mechanism. To put it in layman's terms, you're calling a Hummer an Italian luxury car simply because they both have wheels and an engine.

Aimbots use the program's code as a weapon, automatically centering your crosshairs on the designated part of your enemy, most popular being the head, when the aimbot program calculates that you have line-of-sight on the target. ISBoxer does nothing of the sort.

Macros do no violate the EULA.

It's related, trust me. If you can't understand it, may I suggest you go back to middle school and learn critical thinking skills before attempting to play grown-up online. ISBoxer was never considered itself a violation of the EULA, and it still isn't. Stop thinking that everyone who uses ISBoxer is a bot.

Again, ISBoxer does not != botting. If you want to see bots, there was a video of a guy using a stealth bomber to go into deep Russian space and observed obvious bot behavior. Bots do not require input from a player to run. ISBoxer does.

I will be willing to bet you 1b isk that there will be fleet-welps to bomber wings in the future. You're trying to attribute rare instances of player error to ISBoxers. Please watch the video "Hello TEST, Meet Bombers Bar". You will see over 120 ships get destroyed by NON-BOXERS.

I'm of the rare opinion that CCP needs to either repeal their inane changes, or go all the way and ban all such programs because there are hundreds of work-arounds that will cause headaches for the GMs.

For the thousandth time, the accelerated gameplay clause is on a PER. TOON. BASIS.
CCP themselves have stated this.

You're right, it IS really simple. I'll say it slowly so you can understand.

The. Accellerated. Gameplay. Clause. Is. On. A. Per. Toon. Basis. Not. A. Per. Human. Basis.

You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.

Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.

No, it will only be against the terms of service in January.

I'm not much of a forum poster but this change of policy affects me so heavily I have to say something about it. I'm part of a small corp of 8 real world people who can make a difference in the game thanks to our ability to field several toons at the same time. Our real life work involves shift patterns that prevent us from sharing regular times to be able to play the game together, so we have grown to appreciate the time playing the game together when we can.

How many times did you organize bombing runs that wiped out fleets?
My guess is... hm... ZERO!
You have no idea what you're talking about. Get educated first.

Why should people that are offending the EULA get a refund? It was their own choice to offend the EULA because at that point there were no consequences apart from what is happening now, namely the message that there will be consequences in the future.

Not pretending much. Or do you not see that is pretty dubious to sell a product, take real money for it, and immediately change policy before the term expired? do you think you would accept this from any other product you buy? how about a car? you would like to buy a new car but find out when you get it home that it will be illegal to drive that model in a month?

Alt Tabbing isn't multiplexing or manipulating hardware to perform SIMULTANEOUS inputs to multiple sessions..
This is legit.

Basically, as long as the peripheral doesn't get any data from the game and is only used to broadcast commands it's not automation.

CCP has stated countless times in the past that the "accelerated gameplay" clause was on a PER TOON BASIS.

For all of your statements it is blatantly obvious you have never used this program yet you continue act as if your the worlds foremost authority. You have no clue what Isboxer is, therefore your opinions are worthless. IF a person wish to debate a point that person should educate themselves before making wild and misleading accusations.

GS

What? No it hasn't. Unless you're referring to the new clause in which case I'll simply laugh you out of court.

From a multiboxer in 2010:
https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs

CCP told him even back then that their main issue was the AUTOMATION of the gameplay. If CCP was getting too many petitions regarding actual multiboxers vs bots and gave up, then I must seriously question the quality of their GMs if they cannot tell the difference (or if indeed, they don't have the proper tools to tell the difference. Hint: Multiboxers chat with a "main" character. Bots are silent and never speak.) then the community should not be punished for this failure.

you just keep posting and posting here (not that there is anything wrong in that), for anyone who have used isboxer do understand (more likely if they have tried/done their research) And people should do some research before they (''yell'' ''rage'') out about something they dont know anything about, and please dont quote only (1/4 off what i Write) because everything is relevant.

1. Just because they use it doesnt mean it's against the rules. Derpaherp.

2. You've been grasping at straws without the knowledge of what the program does. You see some dude in local with "Jonny 1-8" and immediately assume he's a bot. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please watch some videos regarding how to setup ISBoxer and EVE, instead of watching the end-product and thinking "a 5 year old can do this". The ruling clearly explained in user-friendly terms that ISBoxer was allowed because it did not let him get up from his keyboard and get a smoke while the program kept flying him around and doing stuff.

It was never against the rules. The most you could argue was that using it to automate flying without any input was and always is against the rules.

I'm accusing you of grasping for a reason, ANY reason, that ISBoxer repeating should be banned or was against the rules.

"Muh feelings" and "muh AFK battleship got bombed" don't count.

The accelerated gameplay clause had been explained by CCP numerous times in the past to be referring to a per-toon basis.

There has also been a lack of knowledge for the general public on the difference between a bot and a multiboxer; the biggest difference is that the multiboxer is sitting behind the keyboard and can adjust to sudden situations like someone ragebumping him with a machariel, while the bot is a "dumb program" running over and over without anyone behind the keyboard.

No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.

I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.

I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.

You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.

It wasn't. Lax talks to devs in order to make sure his tools aren't in violation of the EULA. CCP did nothing but ban a specific part of the program. If it was against the EULA, they would have banned it outright. But since it isn't, they didn't.

A ratting carrier bot or a mining bot is very different from someone behind the keyboard controlling multiple accounts. Stop trying to say they're the same thing when one requires a person to continually input commands and one doesn't.

As I thought, you have no problem comparing a Honda Civic to a Formula 1 car. You first claimed that the clause was on a per human basis,

and when you were informed otherwise, you then changed your claim to say that ISBoxer improves the rate for each toon by comparing someone who has invested billions of isk into his fits, hours of tweaking into his setup, and months in training, to a kitchen sink fleet. You are grasping at straws and moving your goalposts.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you have isboxer doesn't mean you're accelerating anything on a single account basis. It doesn't make your ship fly faster it doesn't fire it's weapons with a shorter cycle time. There is absolutely nothing there to accelerate an account.

There was also nothing automated by the isboxer program. Every command has to be issued by a person at the keyboard.

There was nothing in the EULA that was being violated by isboxer or other repeater based systems. That's why they had to make this thread and amend the EULA to begin with. So despite your delusions CCP clearly saw that their own EULA as it stood wasn't banning the repeaters and thus changed it.

Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.

It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay.

Except you're wrong in that you have to target much slower then normal when isboxing because clients desynch easily. You have to do everything in game slower then you would if you had multiple boxes or were alt tabbing. So on a per account basis you're actually moving slower then you would controlling one account.

You don't magically cycle your guns quicker you don't magically reload faster or anything like that. Your coming up with a ridiculous definition for accelerated gameplay that would ban anyone using more then one computer or for using SSDs and such.

I paid money because it has a far superior windows management features AND resource management features compared to the stock setup. That alone is worth the piddly sum that he charges.

Human commands are the source of all the inputs. If you had any clue about how operating systems work you'd realize how stupid your statement is. Technically through your definition every single key command given is automated as it's translated from hardware through the OS to the targeted program.

First page. If CCP felt the EULA covered this clearly then they wouldn't of made this post.

Okay it's clear you're just a troll. No one can be this unintentionally dense.

So anyone reacting quicker then you is cheating. Anyone who has alts is cheating. Anyone with a faster computer is cheating. Anyone that has more then one computer is cheating. etcetcetc

Despite me and others clearly telling you otherwise you continue to spout this ignorance. I control my clients just as well without isboxer as with. The only difference is I can run teh clients smoother with isboxer.

This thread changes the EULA hence all the conversation. I would expect there to be changes the actual ingame EULA once CCP figures out how they are going to enforce this incredibly vague change.

No, it wasn't. You're trying to argue semantics that have already been argued and responded to by CCP stating it wasn't. Stop trying to say it is when a DEV told people it isn't.

One could, with a leap of logic the size of a carrier. With your same leap of logic, we can also carpet-ban drone assist and drone boats simply because they *may* drone assist.

You're attempting to compare (for example and in simple terms) a kitchen sink lowsec roam fleet to a HAC fleet of very skilled pilots who have very good skills and reaction times, with interdictors and EWAR support.

"Based on our EULA and Policies we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed."

We are talking about multiboxing, as you are saying that under certain circumstances it is not allowed. This is currently not the case. The most common use of ISboxer was multiboxing and since tool assisted multiboxing had no individual rules it simply falls under the rules of all multiboxing, which is that it is explicitly allowed.

Actually it's about broadcasting tools. The use of automation tools is and has been a bannable offense.

Multiboxing, including tool assisted multiboxing has not been and currently is not a bannable offense.

]No, they have classified them separately as per the op and acknowledged that they can and have had separate rules but will not do so going from January forward, or until the next time they should change their minds.

I never said the players will earn more isk per toon over the boxer. I said they'd earn equal isk per hour per toon.

I'm comparing an ISBoxer to a fleet of 10 people. Each fleet still has to lock each target and shoot at them. The ISBoxer doesn't have an advantage of being able to kill them any faster, and indeed must sometimes wait for webs to take effect while non-boxers don't as they can move themselves around in a site.

I'm comparing 10 human beings with 1 account each to 1 human with 10 accounts. If your fleets cannot focus fire, you have my sympathies.

You point out that ISBoxer removes human error, when it comes with it's own version of human error. If I mess up while boxing, that mistake gets replicated 10 times over. Additionally, if a player in a non-boxed fleet disconnects, he can only lose one ship. If a boxer disconnects, he can lose them all.

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

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

Once again, accelerated gameplay for each character is not proven and has been deemed nonsense by Devs in the past.

Right now you're comparing someone making 0 mistakes with ISBoxers with what you perceive to be "human error" in a 10-fleet, which is not good practice when attempting to compare the two.

I'll ignore the first part since I told you before where you can find it.

What is your definition of "human interaction" and "overhead"? I'm used to "overhead" being related to housing and supply costs, so I'm curious to see what you mean for EVE.

Many boxers including myself acquired ISBoxer because of the broadcast functionality. It makes it easier to move through systems, swap ships, fix skillqueues, and countless other things.

If we're going to argue semantics, EFT/PYFA can be considered tools to give a player an advantage because they don't have to waste ISK buying and selling modules that do not fit, or ship hulls that don't have the required stats.

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

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

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

I agree to you the change was made for a reason but it doesnt change a thing for multiboxers.
Example what one multiboxer linked me the last time i confronted him whit that : http://isboxer.com/wiki/Round-robin
Only meaning that they have an delay by now ? Im not even sure why miners whit less then 10 boxes are complaining becuase only the undock and the first actiavation of the lasers will be multicastet the rest will be done whit VIdeo FX.

I have friends, but they're not active enough,

and its still the player who click to make it happend tho, if no input from player and it uncloak and fire bomb without no human intervention = botting. But thats not the case With isboxer + brodcasting.

and it is not easy at all. and ''then why should you be allowed to have more than one ship to take him on with'' This have been allways allowed anyway, as far as i know. And why not? everyone can do it. And there are limitasions what an human can possibily Control before it get totaly unnefective'etc (to some extends)

and 1 player who Control a lot off accounts need to lay a lot off time, a lot off isk (becous for each charater he need to buy 1 ship too) and its not like thats free. So if that player do mistakes'etc the loss can be Huge, compare to not having to worry about more than 1 ship. Yeah..

After reading 80+ Pages of sophisticated argument explaining that ISboxing offers zero advantage over multiboxing/alt-tabing multiple instances of the client, I got to wonder why that piece of software ever existed.

Show me where in the definition of Input Automation it mentions "multiple instances"

I couldn't give a damn about ISBoxer but I would still like to know if using keyboard / mouse software to map multiple keyboard commands to 1 key is still allowed.

I even raised a petition asking for clarification and the reply I got was basically, if you are unsure, stop.

I do not see why it is so difficult to give a simple yes and no to a easy question.

Thats the point ! The tool itself it isnt banned and its not a multiplexing command. Every Command its done by the player so each weapon activation is a input for the person itself and its not breaking the new rule.

Remember :
"Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game."

It is not broadcasting u are chaning windows whit a button and giving out an command.

1. No

2. Its the player input, and it's totally fine at the moment.

3. You are not to believe, i see that you have never used / researched it if you dont see what im talking about.

4. Does not an player who use shitload of time and their own time and Money deserve an advantage(more than players who spend like 0 time, sure) like the industrial giant producers With 40-50 accounts, they have no issue With it.

and a Clear advantage over players With just one? Yeah? Eve is not fair, like. And an heavy skilled character is an Clear advantage, for having multiple accounts.
And that's fair, Because they can, And its nothing stopping the industrial manufacturers/reashearces. and nothing is stopping anyone else for trying doing it.

Not bannable atm, and i Control my charaters mutch themself too, like activating Shield booster(s) , (where it's needed, dragging in drones if some take damge. So, Yeah.

What I'm trying to figure out is...why were all of you who claim that ISBoxer gives such a huge advantage not using it? It was explicitly allowed by CCP and costs less than a single EVE subscription.

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

It explains that its not botting if an player is at the keyboard doing the commands. Automation without an player at the keyboard doing a **** = booting.

even if it's through synergy or whatever. if an player send the inputs its not botting.
That was my point to him.
Even if it's going to be banned or not, its still not botting. just against the upcoming eula changes.

Even if they are not directly affected or not. some peopel dont have anything better to do (i dont talk about everyone) But there're some people like that...

Bull. It wasn't "wrong." It was explicitly allowed. Also, this is EVE. People playing EVE do everything they can to get ahead.

lol, 11 accounts, + drones = assist 50 drones + the person who drones was assisted to = 55 drones. = you die <3. With 2 click, f1 for civ gun, and f for main charater drones <3

Not to spoil your ranting or anything, but CCP did in the first post clearly differentiate between Input Automation and Input Multiplexing.

While both now illegal, they are still vastly different things. The first is almost the definition of botting, the latter isn't and will never be botting no matter how you want to spin it.

If Multiplexing an input was botting, how would you explain away me duct-taping say 8 mice together and controlling 8 clients that way? Am I suddenly a bot?

As a side note for thought, the fact you can't click on 2 or more clients at once is really down to UI design of your OS, not EvE. I've seen some custom semi-transparent UI designs (think focusless windows) on intergrated information systems that allow you to click through stacked windows.
Now lets pretend I find a way to do this in Linux or WIndows, and I can stack 10 semi-transparent clients on top of eachother perectly aligned. (Yes visually it will look horrible)
Now I remove the concept of window focus from my OS (So the OS no longer only interacts with the top window, but now everything in the stack) when I click an EvE client that click effects them all.

At this point am I still input multiplexing? No extra software is duplicating my input, its just me natively clicking 10 eve clients at once. Splitting hairs I know, but if this was how we'd grown up being used to working with an OS UI would we even be having this argument now?

and I don't see how given the end result is the same that you'd be fine with the mouse idea but not ISBoxer.
The fact that you and most people championing this policy change just seem to have a stick up your butt about ISBoxer and don't actually care about what it does (as you yourself just admitted by not caring about the mouse thing.) is what gets to me.