EVE Search - Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 169 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 785	Posted - 2015.03.18 12:37:52 - [4231] - Quote Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: I consider the input broadcasting part of input broadcasting to be cheating. In the same way that I consider a player who rugby tackles in a game of football a cheat. Eve is a game, it has rules and the people who won't play by those rules need to be banned so the other players can enjoy playing the game without them. I do hope you realize that input broadcasting was only recently ruled a cheat, and only because CSM corebloodbrother pestered CCP long enough to get them to change it. And you still haven't told me why input broadcasting is cheating other than an appeal to authority fallacy. Additionally, from a simple video of "rugby tackle" they appear to be legal in football, or at least the ones demonstrated in the video I watched. Quote: I imagine you get negative responses because you lie about what other people say. That has a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way. [Citation Needed]. Please tell me where I "lied". As for why input broadcasting breaks the EULA. Its simple, CCP says it does and they have a lot more information about the subject than either of us. If you disagree lobby CCP to change their minds. Picking arguments and lying on their forums is not going to help. Quote: So you have no proof. Rumor mongering on the forums is against the rules by the way Absence of evidence on these forums does not equal evidence of absence, especially with CCP's ban on posting tickets, GM correspondences, and other such information. Quote: I used to afk camp multi-boxer in nullsec whilst I went to work. I still have some of them on my contacts lists and most of them are still active. The only one that replied to my enquiry confirmed he still uses Isboxer. So CCP does not just ban people if they use Isboxer. They only ban people who use Isboxer to cheat. Actually they just banned a 5-boxer who uses ISBoxer to swap windows and limit framerates while he was mining in a belt. Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good. I'm genuinely curious why you picked an argument with me over this. Don't you think people who break the EULA/TOS should be banned? Don't you think Eve is better without the cheats? The same applies to any game. If you play a sport, would you prefer to play against people who cheat or would you want he games authorities to remove them from the game so the majority that don't cheat can play together. [/quote] I "picked an argument", as you say, because I grew up in a system where if you didn't defend your beliefs, or couldn't articulate why you believe a certain way, then they held no value and could be dismissed. Is it so wrong to ask someone to justify or back up why they think a certain thing is "cheating"? As much as I hate it, you sound awfully like those who hate on fleet boosters in PVP because they consider it "cheating". I do think EVE is better without bots, and without hacks or market-updaters that operate in seconds. One reason I used to run my own FPS servers is because of the ability to remove hackers who evaded the detection programs. I however do not believe that ISBoxer's input broadcasting function is any of these, nor that it violates the EULA. I do not believe that it can be considered anything other than a tool to mimic multiple players in a fleet, with all of the downsides and very little of the advantages.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12173	Posted - 2015.03.19 02:00:58 - [4232] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it. Then stop doing it already. Clearly CCP disagrees with your self deluded interpretation of the EULA, and theirs is the only opinion that matters. Why are you lot so stubbornly dead set on cheating? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Archibald Thistlewaite III The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners 725	Posted - 2015.03.19 08:12:09 - [4233] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: [Citation Needed]. Please tell me where I "lied". Post 3826. You claimed I said Isboxer = cheating You lied. Post 3831. You claimed I made a strange statement regarding a change in CCP's anti-bot policy. You lied. You do realise that every time you go [citation needed] and then continue to be either unwilling or unable to provide any yourself you become a hypocrite. That's 2 not particularly pleasant personality traits you are displaying. Nolak Ataru wrote: I however do not believe that ISBoxer's input broadcasting function is any of these, nor that it violates the EULA. What you believe doesn't matter. Eve is a game and like all games it has rules. CCP decides those rules. CCP interprets those rules. CCP judges whether someone is breaking those rules. You don't have to like it but if you want to play the game you need to play within the rules. Nolak Ataru wrote: I do hope you realize that input broadcasting was only recently ruled a cheat, and only because CSM corebloodbrother pestered CCP long enough to get them to change it. [Citation neede] Actually don't bother as it makes no difference if you are still lying. If you believe a CSM has enough influence over CCP to change the rules of the game, then you are in a good position. Goonswarm typically gets a couple of good representatives onto the CSM each time. If your argument for allowing Isboxer is as strong as you think it is, then you should have no problem getting a CSM member to back you. You might want to stop the lying and hypocrisy if you contact them as no-one likes that sort of behavior. Nolak Ataru wrote: I do think EVE is better without bots, and without hacks or market-updaters that operate in seconds. One reason I used to run my own FPS servers is because of the ability to remove hackers who evaded the detection programs. I agree with you here. I too think Eve is a better place without the cheats. Although in a FPS game you can use your own server to remove the cheats you can't do that in Eve. The only way to remove cheats in Eve is for CCP to do it. So if you also think Eve is better without the cheats and that CCP is right to ban the cheats (You can not think one without the other due to the nature of Eve's single server model). Then why on earth did you start an argument over my first post? Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good.
Charadrass Angry Germans 206	Posted - 2015.03.19 09:20:11 - [4234] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it. Then stop doing it already. Clearly CCP disagrees with your self deluded interpretation of the EULA, and theirs is the only opinion that matters. Why are you lot so stubbornly dead set on cheating? Are you dumb or just blind? We are using Isboxer without input broadcasting and / or multiplexing. So there is currently NO banable offense using isboxer without those features. there is also no scope for interpretation as they clearly stated that only these functions are considered a banable offense. what we are trying to achieve here is: a statement why isboxer pilots getting banned without using these functions. if ccp comes up with a statement like: isboxer in total is a banable offense, than we have a clear answer. for some reason they refuse to do that. you are saying that ccp is clearly considering isboxer in total a banable offense. then tell me why aren't they writing that down here? clearly to read for everyone? why do they let this thread become a mutation without a single answer?
Archibald Thistlewaite III The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners 725	Posted - 2015.03.19 11:36:20 - [4235] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Actually they just banned a 5-boxer who uses ISBoxer to swap windows and limit framerates while he was mining in a belt. If you joined the forums and asked, you'd get evidence / proof that is unable to be presented here. Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it. I'm replying to this in another post because it has absolutely nothing to do with my first post you took exception to. I decided to take you up on your suggestion to look into the matter myself and have spent the morning going through posts on multi-boxing forums that claim they were banned and I think I may be able to help you understand why these people are falling foul of the EULA. EULA 6-2 wrote: 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. Link and emphasis is mine. Now, when I was looking for the evidence you say is out there I watched numerous video clips of people using Isboxer (and other similar software) and they all had one thing in common. They used the videofx (type of program) to modify the way the game is displayed in the eve client. CCP Falcon wrote: Examples of allowed Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are actions taken that do not have an impact on the EVE universe and are carried out for convenience: GÇó EVE Online client settings GÇó Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment) GÇó The login process emphasis mine again. I take what CCP Falcon says above to mean I can use those videofx programs to move the eve online client around my desk top. So instead of having say 4 monitors each with its own client, I can use one big monitor and have all 4 clients displayed next to each other. It would seem a lot of the Isboxers have taken what CCP Falcon has said to mean they can use videofx to cut out different parts of the client and overlay them onto a 'main' client. Which is falling foul of the EULA 6-2 about modifying content appearing within the game. Now this is just my interpretation of the EULA and my understanding of what CCP Falcon has said. Which of course carries no more weight than your own, so I have no intention of arguing with you about it. I just thought it was worth mentioning.
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 408	Posted - 2015.03.19 12:13:40 - [4236] - Quote I have removed one troll post. Quote: 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. ISD Decoy Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Charadrass Angry Germans 206	Posted - 2015.03.19 12:51:03 - [4237] - Quote You can't read correctly right? and i was thinking i am bad with english... you are allowed to use broadcast function of isboxer to login move windows in eve around. you are just not allowed to interact with broadcasts with the universe. what you can do is using video fx to get a better overview and btw: isboxer is not modifying eve. its just an overlay. like aero desktop from windows 7. it is like taking a webcam and displaying the result on another part of the screen. btw: nice skipping of my post.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 790	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:20:48 - [4238] - Quote Archibald: It seems I misinterpreted your statement regarding ISBoxer as a base, not it's features, and I apologize. We were playing within the rules as defined by one of CCP's Devs when we were using Round Robin Broadcasting, after he handed out a handy infographic gif that all-but-stated that RR was allowed. However, we've been banned for RR, so right now we're not exactly happy. I believe I tried to avoid that in the essay, as well as the incident with CCP Falcon, in order to make it more streamlined. As for corebloodbrother pestering CCP, here's your citation: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/csm-9-review/. Just CTRL+F and search for "ISBoxer". Archived version: https://archive.today/Gy1t2 And again, I do believe CCP should ban all the StealthMiners and auto-carrier-anom bots in the world. However I do not believe, and any dictionary currently published will support this, that ISBoxer does not fall under the definition of "cheat", "macro", "hack", or even "bot". If you use ISBoxer and write a script to auto-afk-run some clients, then yes, that is a bot. However, as with the tax analogy, not everyone who uses ISBoxer is botting, and that is called "guilty until proven innocent",something which was all-but-abolished somewhere around the 1800s or so. As for 6A2, ISBoxer interacts with the client only so far as to define parts of the window to "capture", much like a webcam or Fraps, or it's more powerful counterparts. It then projects these "captures" onto Windows Aero, not the EVE client. 6A2 would not come into effect unless you want to interpret it in such a way as to ban Operational Security fields (those black boxes in videos) to hide system names, chats, and fleet window, or to ban any sort of overlay such as we see in the likes of Mad Ani's streams. Additionally, such an interpretation would ban Pirates Little Helper, or this new third party tool that is being worked on (and by extension, endorsed) by a CCP Developer. I am still waiting eagerly to hear why you believe ISBoxer's input broadcasting, round robin, and rollover tools to be considered a "cheat".
Archibald Thistlewaite III The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners 726	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:25:24 - [4239] - Quote Charadrass wrote: You can't read correctly right? Correct. Charadrass wrote: and i was thinking i am bad with english... Correct. Charadrass wrote: you are allowed to use broadcast function of isboxer to login move windows in eve around. you are just not allowed to interact with broadcasts with the universe.. Correct. Charadrass wrote: what you can do is using video fx to get a better overview. CCP Falcon disagrees. He says you can use it to move the Eve online client around within your desktop. Charadrass wrote: and btw: isboxer is not modifying eve. its just an overlay. like aero desktop from windows 7. it is like taking a webcam and displaying the result on another part of the screen.. Correct I skipped your post because it had no value and wasn't directed towards me.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 790	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:28:17 - [4240] - Quote Just an FYI, Charadrass is a German national, and English isn't his first language.

Archibald Thistlewaite III The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners 727	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:45:35 - [4241] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: I am still waiting eagerly to hear why you believe ISBoxer's input broadcasting, round robin, and rollover tools to be considered a "cheat". I've answered that already, but since you apologised for lying I will tell you again. CCP says its cheating (as in breaks the EULA/TOS) source You may not agree with them but it makes no difference. You seem to like comparing a game to the real world, so maybe this will help you understand. Why do I think a motorist on a British motorway travelling at 80mph is speeding? Simply because the speed limit on British motorways is 70mph (or lower). It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. I can either travel at 70mph (or lower) or travel faster and risk a driving ban. As I said. I have no intention in arguing over whose interpretation of the EULA is correct, as its CCP's that actually matters. I just found it interesting that CCP Falcon specifically mentions using Isboxer in regards to "Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)". You notice he clarifies Eve online client within the desktop. The videos I've seen have all had bits of the client cut out and overlayed on top of another client within the desktop. Subtle difference but that's EULAs for you. Nolak Ataru wrote: Just an FYI, Charadrass is a German national, and English isn't his first language. So am I. It doesn't give him the right to be rude.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 790	Posted - 2015.03.19 14:02:22 - [4242] - Quote Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: CCP says its cheating (as in breaks the EULA/TOS) source You may not agree with them but it makes no difference. You seem to like comparing a game to the real world, so maybe this will help you understand. Why do I think a motorist on a British motorway travelling at 80mph is speeding? Simply because the speed limit on British motorways is 70mph (or lower). It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. I can either travel at 70mph (or lower) or travel faster and risk a driving ban. As I said. I have no intention in arguing over whose interpretation of the EULA is correct, as its CCP's that actually matters. I just found it interesting that CCP Falcon specifically mentions using Isboxer in regards to "Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating systemGÇÖs desktop environment)". You notice he clarifies Eve online client within the desktop. The videos I've seen have all had bits of the client cut out and overlayed on top of another client within the desktop. Subtle difference but that's EULAs for you. Actually there have been numerous studies put out that have affirmed that speed limits have a detrimental affect on preventing accidents. Something to do with what speeds you feel most comfortable with, if I remember correctly. In this instance, however, a more accurate analogy would be having years of studies, research, and raw evidence telling us the world is round, and CCP comes along and tells us the world is really flat, and they jail anyone who tries to prove that the world is indeed round. Appeal to authority fallacy, basically. Just because the government says something is so doesn't make it so. Additionally, your science teacher must be weeping for you if you refuse to think critically of whatever is said to you, and always "Listen and Believe" whatever people say. And finally, you skipped the whole "Windows Aero" bit which told you that VideoFX does not actually overlay stuff over the EVE client but onto Aero. Simple VideoFX has not been banned, and there's no real way to ban it as 1) It does not inject anything into the EVE client and 2) you cannot distinguish it from a player using multiple monitors, or from a player who resizes his windows in a single monitor.
Archibald Thistlewaite III The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners 727	Posted - 2015.03.19 15:03:03 - [4243] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Actually there have been numerous studies put out that have affirmed that speed limits have a detrimental affect on preventing accidents. Something to do with what speeds you feel most comfortable with, if I remember correctly. In this instance, however, a more accurate analogy would be having years of studies, research, and raw evidence telling us the world is round, and CCP comes along and tells us the world is really flat, and they jail anyone who tries to prove that the world is indeed round. Yes, you are right which is one of the reasons why German Autobahn doesn't (typically) have an upper speed limit. In fact you are more likely to get stopped by the police for going to slow if you are in the overtaking lane. But that doesn't change the fact in Britain you would be speeding and you risk a ban. Nolak Ataru wrote: Appeal to authority fallacy, basically. Just because the government says something is so doesn't make it so. Quite correct. In most countries the government and the court system are usually separated. A criminal saying I don't believe I committed a crime is not an excuse to commit said crime. Judges decide that sort of thing and in Eve CCP are the judges. Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, your science teacher must be weeping for you if you refuse to think critically of whatever is said to you, and always "Listen and Believe" whatever people say. And back to lying again.What makes you say I refuse to think critically of what is said to me. I'm very critical of what you are saying to me and I whilst I will always listen, I find you like lying so I choose not to believe you. Nolak Ataru wrote: And finally, you skipped the whole "Windows Aero" bit which told you that VideoFX does not actually overlay stuff over the EVE client but onto Aero. Simple VideoFX has not been banned, and there's no real way to ban it as 1) It does not inject anything into the EVE client and 2) you cannot distinguish it from a player using multiple monitors, or from a player who resizes his windows in a single monitor. Another lie, I didn't skip the 'windows aero bit' and you are right VideoFX has not been banned (just like Isboxer is not banned) but guess what? If CCP catches you using ANY program/hardware/kitchenware to cheat (ie;break the EULA/TOS) they will be within their rights to ban you. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. 1) So what. 2) Yes, but what are so many people doing. They are recording themselves. Your whole tirade against my post of support for CCP (which it turns out you agree with) seems to stem from your belief that the recent rule changes that affect multi-boxers shouldn't of occurred. You say a CSM corebloodbrother used his influence to get CCP to make that rule change. The solution is right there in front of you. As I said before, Goonswarm the alliance you are part of typically gets a couple of good people onto the CSM. They also tend to have influence over other CSM simply because of the size of player base that belongs to it. Take your proposal to one of those CSM members and see if CCP can be persuaded to change their ruling back. Picking arguments with people who make comments you actually agree with is not the way to garner support. Lying about what other people have written is not the way to garner support. Being hypocritical by asking everyone to prove every last statement they make (Citation needed etc) whilst being unable or unwilling to prove your own, is not the way to garner support. Now I'm going to re-post my message of support for CCP and then I'm going to leave this thread in your incapable hands. Keep up the good work CCP. Please continue to ban all the people who feel they have a right to cheat when playing a computer game, whether they use Isboxer or any other means to do so. Kick them out of the game for good.
Charadrass Angry Germans 206	Posted - 2015.03.19 16:47:47 - [4244] - Quote can we just agree on the fact, that ccp needs to post a clear statement about the usage of isboxer regarding the newest eula statements? we ( the isboxing community ) just asks for that. we dont want to violate the eula. thats why we stopped broadcasting and multiplexing with january the first. we are still flying with multiple boxes but without using the broadcast feature. we just want clarification about the future of isboxing without getting the damocles ban sword hanging over each isboxing player. if ccp states, that everything out of isboxer is considered violating the eula, than we stop doing that. but we need a clear statement. come on ccp. get out of the grey area. please...
ashley Eoner 459	Posted - 2015.03.19 17:55:50 - [4245] - Quote Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Your operating system can be used to cheat.. Christ almighty smarter trolls please. Yes and guess what. CCP don't ban people for using their operating system and they don't ban people for using Isboxer(or other multi-boxing software). They do ban people for using Isboxer to cheat(as in break the EULA/TOS) and I would expect them also to ban people if they use any other means to cheat. ashley Eoner wrote: Isboxer doesn't automated input without severe high level coding type modifications. You'd be better off using one of the readily available bot programs if you wanted to do that. CCP didn't ban anything outside of being "too good" at the game.. Once again, I only came here to post my support for CCP banning the cheats and to state I think Eve is better without them. If you disagree with that, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Being ok with playing the game with cheats, does not give you the right to start name calling. Except they are banning people if you're too efficient at using isboxer. Anything that gives "similar" results as a repeater is bannable now as per some of the GM responses. So if you're too quick with isboxer you're banned. At this point you might even get banned for being too quick in windowed mode. So you've created this wonderful strawman to bat down but you haven't even responded to a thing I typed out. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, even by a strict interpretation of the EULA, rollovers and round robin aren't in violation of the EULA, yet we keep getting banned for it. Then stop doing it already. Clearly CCP disagrees with your self deluded interpretation of the EULA, and theirs is the only opinion that matters. Why are you lot so stubbornly dead set on cheating? My issue is that GMs have straight said that if you're being too efficient it's bannable regardless of what you're using to multibox (windowed mode, isboxer, whatever).
ShadowandLight Trigger Happy Capsuleers Soviet-Union 355	Posted - 2015.03.19 20:21:32 - [4246] - Quote Team Security is giving a presentation on Saturday March 21st. I posted a discussion thread on Dual-Boxing.com http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/52086-Team-Security-EVE-Fanfest-presentation-1500-GMT-on-Saturday-March-21st?p=397290#post397290 EVE Online and Multiboxing Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12176	Posted - 2015.03.19 23:04:00 - [4247] - Quote Charadrass wrote: We are using Isboxer without input broadcasting and / or multiplexing. You claim. And personally, every single time I've asked for any proof of this supposed innocence, Nolak has spun so fast that he enters a different time zone. Besides, if you're actually telling the truth and people are still getting banned... why haven't you knocked it off yet? Why are you so dead set on this? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 792	Posted - 2015.03.19 23:30:19 - [4248] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Charadrass wrote: We are using Isboxer without input broadcasting and / or multiplexing. You claim. And personally, every single time I've asked for any proof of this supposed innocence, Nolak has spun so fast that he enters a different time zone. Besides, if you're actually telling the truth and people are still getting banned... why haven't you knocked it off yet? Why are you so dead set on this? Create an account on the dual-boxing forum, and ask there. There's a few in the giant banned thread there who have posted proof. If anyone's spinning, it's you. You still haven't given us a solid reason why ISBoxer's broadcasting or roundrobin functions should be banned yet besides appeal to authority fallacies. I'm sure that the British told the Indians and Ghandi "Why don't you knock it off?" before they finally left India.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12176	Posted - 2015.03.19 23:50:28 - [4249] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Create an account on the dual-boxing forum, and ask there. No. If they have posted "proof" there, it's just as easy to post it here. If you literally have pictures of some guy streaming himself NOT using anything bannable, then nothing stops you posting them here. (although, the last video I saw linked in this thread showed a guy who was justifiably banned for macroing, by the way) Quote: You still haven't given us a solid reason why ISBoxer's broadcasting or roundrobin functions should be banned yet besides appeal to authority fallacies. Because it's cheating. It provides an unfair advantage for the player using it. CCP finally accepted that for themselves, despite years of being entrenched otherwise. You can't just say "Nuh uh!" to CCP's decree on the matter. That's not how this works, and it's hardly a fallacy by the way, it's merely a fact that happens to be rather inconvenient for you. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
JGar Rooflestein Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.03.20 00:01:21 - [4250] - Quote Re read everything. CCP actually has been quite clear on this matter I have learned. I mean some is still in the dark. ISBoxer hasn't been banned. No one has been banned for VideoFX usage. ONLY round robin and Input Broadcasting. Look Mogz he was banned yes. NOT for overlays. He was banned for the Round Robin use. The use of round robin to send a stored keystroke (not a stored keystroke from the client) to the clients. There views on Round Robin must be the same as Input Broadcasting. Simple just dont use round robin. I mulit-box my accounts just fine without the use of Input broadcasting or Round Robin (never used this). Ive looked at past Twitch streams and videos and tons of people who run 2 accounts for pvp or incursions will use the overlay just so they can see the other account. CCP is not Banning people for VideoFX. I did say that they are probably not banning people for sending commands to fast but i guess they are like in mogz case. If you are running mulitple accounts and CCP is watching you or w/e they do. If they see a command to multiple accounts faster than someone can alt+tab then Ctrl+F1 or w/e you have your keybinds set to then yes they probably will look in to that. Like hey that guy just targeted and shot that guy with 4 accounts and he did all really fast. Round Robin does this. Mogz stated he was using it which is probably why ccp banned (this is not fact just what i think). I will say CCP needs to state what they will allow from ISBoxer if anything at all. I'm really sorry if this is hard to read. Tad tipsy. I am a huge supporter of multiboxing and love it. But most people being banned are honestly probably using the Input Broadcasting every so often or abusing it still. OR even running round robin. Video FX I'd say you are safe (dont trust me on this personal opinion). For proof of how i multibox ill look into getting some recording software and make a quick video never dont it before but will look into it. I run video fx and thats it no ticks or anything just standard alt tab. Video fx is there so i can see how long my cycles are and whos targeting what. I was running the clients in windowed mode but switched back to this as i feel like im safe. If CCP bans me they ban me. -JGar "Great man once said nothing."

Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 792	Posted - 2015.03.20 00:08:43 - [4251] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Create an account on the dual-boxing forum, and ask there. No. If they have posted "proof" there, it's just as easy to post it here. If you literally have pictures of some guy streaming himself NOT using anything bannable, then nothing stops you posting them here. (although, the last video I saw linked in this thread showed a guy who was justifiably banned for macroing, by the way) You mean besides CCP's ban on such information being shared on these forums? Then yes, I agree it's just as easy to post here. Quote: Because it's cheating. It provides an unfair advantage for the player using it. CCP finally accepted that for themselves, despite years of being entrenched otherwise. FINALLY we're getting somewhere. What sort of unfair advantage do you believe it gives to a player? Please be specific. Quote: You can't just say "Nuh uh!" to CCP's decree on the matter. That's not how this works, and it's hardly a fallacy by the way, it's merely a fact that happens to be rather inconvenient for you. Except I haven't been saying "nuh uh", you have been. I've written an essay on the topic and have tried to get a solid reason from anyone on this forum or in this thread as to why it should be banned without using a fallacy or an insult.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12176	Posted - 2015.03.20 00:14:18 - [4252] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: You mean besides CCP's ban on such information being shared on these forums? Untrue, spin harder. Quote: FINALLY we're getting somewhere. What sort of unfair advantage do you believe it gives to a player? Please be specific. It permits a player to control far, far more clients with a degree of accuracy that would be functionally impossible for a player that does not use a third party program. It's level of efficiency approaches that of outright botting, what's worse. There are no circumstances where it being permitted is a good thing for the general health of the game. The sole justification to keeping this particular method of cheating is the claim that they pay for subs. Well, so do bots, and they get banned just the same. Flimsy reasoning at best, pathetic apologist tripe at worst. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
JGar Rooflestein Red Phoenix Rising Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.03.20 00:16:33 - [4253] - Quote Input Broadcasting's Unfair Advantage: Normal Fleet 20 people- FC" primary is 123 everyone target 123 primary 123." 20 people have to find 123 and target then point and attack. roughly 5 seconds maybe less or more for all 20 to target him. Multi box fleet- Turn on input broadcast all target 123. All do this with in milliseconds from each other. Huge gain in this as you can see you dont have to rely on others to target as you know that 90% of the time all 20 will target that guy. Round Robin: Round robin does send 1 command to 1 client but at will send that command as fast as you can click or activate that shortcut. So you can send 1 command to 20 accounts seperetly yes but with in milliseconds. Huge gain as a normal fleet will some times take 1 to 5 seconds yet again to activate the modules. Honestly if you used the Input Broadcasting and Round Robin features there should be no argument on why they banned it. The argument is for them to be more open about whats now allowed. -JGar "Great man once said nothing."
Aru Kacbis Danvill Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.20 02:41:40 - [4254] - Quote Enough. Ccp doesn't want to communicate. Saturday is supposed to be some bullshit an I may be home to attend; irregardless I doubt it will involve any communication with us isboxers. I hope oodle keeps ***** you in the ass. As for me I will be lawyer hunting for the future; you cannot break laws ccp. Entrapment is one of them. All those banned please contact me or a few other isboxers; it'll get to me. I'll need signatures an witnesses. And I'm dead serious ccp; I've been sitting on this to see how you would communicate. And was even gracious enough to point out where you did such. Ask your legal team. See you in court. Hope you're ready to return money. Ps; I am not obligated to explain to the peon order nor nullsec *** boys. The ones affected will know. Peace. http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2z1dn6/isboxer_essay/ https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11037717_10202501843106735_4596834953263635890_n.jpg?oh=940016d62d1e31a87ecc7362438ee1c6&oe=557244E3 Yep..
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 378	Posted - 2015.03.20 02:47:27 - [4255] - Quote JGar Rooflestein wrote: Input Broadcasting's Unfair Advantage: Normal Fleet 20 people- FC" primary is 123 everyone target 123 primary 123." 20 people have to find 123 and target then point and attack. roughly 5 seconds maybe less or more for all 20 to target him. Multi box fleet- Turn on input broadcast all target 123. All do this with in milliseconds from each other. Huge gain in this as you can see you dont have to rely on others to target as you know that 90% of the time all 20 will target that guy. Round Robin: Round robin does send 1 command to 1 client but at will send that command as fast as you can click or activate that shortcut. So you can send 1 command to 20 accounts seperetly yes but with in milliseconds. Huge gain as a normal fleet will some times take 1 to 5 seconds yet again to activate the modules. Honestly if you used the Input Broadcasting and Round Robin features there should be no argument on why they banned it. The argument is for them to be more open about whats now allowed. You forgot the other side of the scenario that goes with your little justification. Normal fleet, of 20 identifies FC of multibox fleet 5 seconds for the 20 to lock the opposing FC and shoot. Multibox fleet is now stranded on grid with 20 individuals (controlled by an FC calling targets) shooting at multibox fleet which has no controlling FC and are essentially sitting ducks. Yes input broadcasting = bad but there are 2 sides to your scenario and the other side does not favor the multiboxer. Scenario 2; Gang of 10 Ishtars lands on grid vs a 20 man multibox fleet - Drones assigned, small gang FC primaries Multibox FC, ALL 10 Ishtars fire at once = End of multibox fleet (with no chance of them firing on any of the Ishtars). A 20 man Ishtar fleet is going to destroy the multiboxer even faster as 2 from that fleet can alpha strike separate targets. Yes input broadcasting is bad but is only presented as doom and gloom because players only complain when they lose and never mention the amount of times the multiboxer loses. Round Robin, when used without 3rd party software, is no less a legitimate play style than 10 players assigning drones to a squad commander. In fact those using assigned drones have a far greater advantage than the multiboxer using round robin. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 792	Posted - 2015.03.20 04:49:03 - [4256] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: You mean besides CCP's ban on such information being shared on these forums? Untrue, spin harder. EVE TOS: 18: You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization. Checkmate. Quote: It permits a player to control far, far more clients with a degree of accuracy that would be functionally impossible for a player that does not use a third party program. So anyone who runs multiple accounts is cheating? I used to dual-box a Basi and a Vindicator in incursion HQs with zero loss in efficiency before I found ISBoxer. Should I be banned for that? How about my friend who boxes 2x Ravens in separate L5 missions? Quote: It's level of efficiency approaches that of outright botting, what's worse. How does it's efficiency level approach botting? JGar Rooflestein wrote: Input Broadcasting's Unfair Advantage: Normal Fleet 20 people- FC" primary is 123 everyone target 123 primary 123." 20 people have to find 123 and target then point and attack. roughly 5 seconds maybe less or more for all 20 to target him. Multi box fleet- Turn on input broadcast all target 123. All do this with in milliseconds from each other. Except that people in a brawl that size who aren't BRAVE will sort by ship type, and they'll know where the person is on the list. They can lock him and apply DPS at the same time. The ISBoxer does the same thing, but he has to wait for each client to "update" his mouse position so he can click on the same person in each window. You're comparing people who aren't expecting targets to be called vs an ISBoxer who knows what he's doing, which is a fallacy of equivalencies. Additionally, if the ISBoxer derps and clicks the wrong person, or doesn't wait for his mouse to settle, he's got 50% targeting Person X and 50% targeting Person Y, which doesn't do him much good. Not to mention that ISBoxer has a built-in delay of anywhere up to 1 server second for each client after Client 1, so he can lose time himself with his targeting.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12186	Posted - 2015.03.20 05:09:52 - [4257] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: EVE TOS: 18: You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization. Checkmate. And you once more demonstrate your dedication to being obtuse. You can post your "proof" on these forums, if you have what you've repeatedly claimed you have. Otherwise, you have nothing to begin with and you're just bitching about GM tickets telling you that, yes, you were breaking the rules. Which everyone here already knew. Quote: So anyone who runs multiple accounts is cheating? No, nor did I claim that in any way, shape or form. Blowing it up into an absurdity is not a good argument tactic, and it's patently obvious besides. Alt tabbing is fine, as has been demonstrated numerous times in this thread. I alt tab all the time. Cry more. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Charadrass Angry Germans 208	Posted - 2015.03.20 07:10:34 - [4258] - Quote Pilots banned cannot post here. they have to use third Party Forums. posting logs or communication between ccp employees and the Pilot results in a ban. seen with somerset mahm for example. so what do you want from us? beeing stupid and posting here? or rely on the guys who suddenly dont Show up here anymore cause they are getting banned for not violating the eula but beeing efficient? round Robin was or is allowed cause i cant find Any posting telling otherwise from ccp. do you?
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12189	Posted - 2015.03.20 08:33:30 - [4259] - Quote Charadrass wrote: or rely on the guys who suddenly dont Show up here anymore cause they are getting banned for not violating the eula but beeing efficient? There it is, that's the part I absolutely do not believe. I've seen people claim that a few times since the year began, and all were using macros or other such. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Charadrass Angry Germans 208	Posted - 2015.03.20 10:48:40 - [4260] - Quote I set up a few xml files to multibox in eve without using broadcast or multiplex. and i gave them to a few pilots plus ccp so they can see how we multibox. one pilot of those got banned using this setup. the others dont got a ban. now tell me on what basis is ccp banning? note: the xml files save the setup isboxer uses. so you can copy that setup from one to another pc. there are no macros or else.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 169 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.