EVE Search - Announcement:Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

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)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4447	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:29:29 - [2461] - Quote Beledia Ilphukiir wrote: You outlined it quite well yourself, but what it really boils down to is your previous actions are no longer in agreement with the rules of the game. The change in policy is a reaction to the things you describe. You admit getting direct in-game competitive advantage over other players from your use of the function, that is soon to be a bannable offense and it allows you to mine and provide an excessive amount of items to the market. Similar to a bot you squeeze out actual people with little effort on your part, but you don't give a **** about any of that, since you're the one enjoying all the advantages. You can still continue to do everything you currently do in the game, but the amount of effort needed to achieve it will go up. If you're willing to put in that extra effort, good for you. If not, the advantage was always the result of the automation and not something attributed to you. Actually isboxer users are less effective per character than solo players (broadcasting is dumb, it doesn;t take into accoutn different circumstatnces like nearly depleted rocks, etc). So when you say they gain an advantage, you mean that individual has an advantage over someone with less miners. That is true regardless of whether or not they use isboxer. More characters = advantage. I've used isboxer in the past, and I've multiboxed without it. Either way I crushed the single character players. Botters are bad because they are generally harvesting 24/7 at a far more efficient rate than a single player ever could and doing so to support RMT. Comparing isboxer players to botters is utterly ridiculous. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4447	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:34:01 - [2462] - Quote kraken11 jensen wrote: you can set it up in other ways than using the Isboxer (like video fx kinda, or stacked) It also have a lot to do With what People prefer. There're free options for screen setup. Personally i like isboxer. Yeah, I like the CPU and FPS restrictions in isboxer. Lowers the amount of impact running extra clients has. The rapid screen swapping (I don't need to alt tab, have 2 global hotkeys which cycle back and forth through windows) and Video FX to dxNothing bit is pretty cool too. Amusingly, following this announcement I've resubbed isboxer and played around to get a decent no broadcast setup. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
kraken11 jensen Californian CottonPickers 15	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:37:44 - [2463] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: kraken11 jensen wrote: you can set it up in other ways than using the Isboxer (like video fx kinda, or stacked) It also have a lot to do With what People prefer. There're free options for screen setup. Personally i like isboxer. Yeah, I like the CPU and FPS restrictions in isboxer. Lowers the amount of impact running extra clients has. The rapid screen swapping (I don't need to alt tab, have 2 global hotkeys which cycle back and forth through windows) and Video FX to dxNothing bit is pretty cool too. Amusingly, following this announcement I've resubbed isboxer and played around to get a decent no broadcast setup. yea, the CPU and FPS Restrictions in isb boxer is Nice :) And the work setting up (DxNothing) Take some time, (obviously) and what i kinda like and at the same .. is that you can always improve Your setup :)'etc Edit: :)
Adicuss Starfyre Sushi Takeout 0	Posted - 2014.12.02 11:49:03 - [2464] - Quote So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below. If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4449	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:08:51 - [2465] - Quote Adicuss Starfyre wrote: If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Fleet warping is fine. Chances are they will be looking at how closely commands on multiple clients from the same IP come in. If they all happen together they are likely broadcasting. Where they set the threshhold for that will be internal, but I do expect to see false positives banned, who will then petition it, and get ignored or told "tough luck" as is the usual case. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sentenced 1989 Quantum Anomaly Corporation 141	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:09:32 - [2466] - Quote Adicuss Starfyre wrote: So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below. If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do.... Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence. The Incursion Guild QA Combat Analyzer Incursion Layout Builder
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4353	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:10:21 - [2467] - Quote Adicuss Starfyre wrote: So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below. If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Uh, no. No third party software installed. One command sent to CCPs servers, saying 'warp all the ships in my fleet' It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software. Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Daneau Unconstrained Design 19	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:12:05 - [2468] - Quote Sentenced 1989 wrote: Adicuss Starfyre wrote: So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below. If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do.... Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence. Lies! We all know the logs show nothing,
Sentenced 1989 Quantum Anomaly Corporation 141	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:26:25 - [2469] - Quote Daneau wrote: Sentenced 1989 wrote: Adicuss Starfyre wrote: So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below. If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? Erm.. by reading game logs, which they can do.... Fleet warped -> reason: FC clicked warped fleet button in game, nothing to see here, move along Fleet warped -> reason: Ships warped themselves x 10 at same time... hmm lets look at this toon a bit more for next few minutes to see if this happens often, if yes banhammer, if not then its coincidence. Lies! We all know the logs show nothing, Hit crtl+shift+alt+m ingame and also start logserver.exe in your root from EVE installation folder and it will become clear how they will know :) The Incursion Guild QA Combat Analyzer Incursion Layout Builder
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4449	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:39:46 - [2470] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software. You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sentenced 1989 Quantum Anomaly Corporation 141	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:41:58 - [2471] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software. You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that. Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer**** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives. The Incursion Guild QA Combat Analyzer Incursion Layout Builder
Karana Yotosala Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 2	Posted - 2014.12.02 12:42:16 - [2472] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: [quote=Karana Yotosala]I'll be going back to using just 1, maybe 2 accounts due to the outlawing of key broadcasting. This means I have advance subs paid on accounts that I won't be using. Rather than seeing that game time credit go to waste, It'd be nice if it were possible to swap that credit to the 1 or 2 accounts that I will continue to use. Please note, this isn't a request for a refund of cash, it's a request to transfer game time credits. CCP wouldn't lose any money as it's already been paid, but it would soften the blow for folk like me that won't be able to use multiple accounts effectively due to the changes. Why? Set up your isboxer right and you can still be as effective if not slightly more effective up to about 20 chars. I've actually resubbed my old isboxer account specifically so I can ensure the crying noobs continue to cry. You can still crush their spirits without input broadcasting. I'm checking with CCP, but reading their change, using the Video FX viewers to create clickable zones for the extra windows will still be fine as long as you click each one, not all of them together. That pretty much makes input broadcasting irrelevant for any but the biggest multiboxers. I hear what you're saying and understand the concept of Vfx/clickthroughs, although I'm not sure if this would be classed as broadcasting or not. Either way, it won't make much difference to me. As I mentioned in my post, some of us don't have the manual dexterity to control numerous clients without key/mouse broadcasts (I know it would be a struggle for me to manage my mini mining fleet without). From a personal viewpoint, I get the impression that philosophies within CCP are shifting and I don't particularly want to invest hundreds of pounds a year subbing accounts to then have something that should be fun turn into something that becomes an unnecessary struggle with dexterity.. if you get what I mean. I'd rather streamline my accounts down to a level I can physically manage without the aid of broadcasting and maybe try doing something other than mining. It is disappointing to not be able to do what I enjoy and want and also disappointing that CCP seemed not to take into account that some of it's subcribers might suffer from medical conditions before deciding to implement this change, but at the end of the day CCP own Eve and we just pay for access. Who knows? I might be able to carve myself a different little niche within the game that I might enjoy? Anyhoo, thanks for trying to give me a heads up. ;)
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4356	Posted - 2014.12.02 13:06:25 - [2473] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous. It's far from hard to see the difference between using a built in command, and using a totally different bit of software. You say that Steve, but someone with 4 clients tiled on their desktop can hit a button on each very quickly. Isboxer broadcasting with a slight delay between clients would look no different. There has to be a threshold and some are worried about that. This is fleet warp being talked about. Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4449	Posted - 2014.12.02 13:43:33 - [2474] - Quote Sentenced 1989 wrote: Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives. As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action. And yes, "sometimes" people miss and such, but it will also be pretty common for people to run it like clockwork. Without isboxer I've been playing long enough for everything to pretty much be automatic. Steve Ronuken wrote:** This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4449	Posted - 2014.12.02 13:51:14 - [2475] - Quote Karana Yotosala wrote: From a personal viewpoint, I get the impression that philosophies within CCP are shifting and I don't particularly want to invest hundreds of pounds a year subbing accounts to then have something that should be fun turn into something that becomes an unnecessary struggle with dexterity.. if you get what I mean. It certainly seems that way lately, yes. Whether it will work in their favour or not is yet to be determined. Karana Yotosala wrote: I'd rather streamline my accounts down to a level I can physically manage without the aid of broadcasting and maybe try doing something other than mining. It is disappointing to not be able to do what I enjoy and want and also disappointing that CCP seemed not to take into account that some of it's subcribers might suffer from medical conditions before deciding to implement this change, but at the end of the day CCP own Eve and we just pay for access. Yeah, that's understandable. To me it's a real shame, not that they've declared it against the rules, but that it's been allowed for so long and they've suddenly done a 180 due to a change in policy for some unknown reason and with little consideration to the effects. Worse still, when people realise that for many multiboxers it doesn't change much, the status quo remains the same and the whiners are back here whining for further action to be taken. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 373	Posted - 2014.12.02 14:22:07 - [2476] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Actually he used the term bot aspirant correctly. And given that CODE coined the term, I'd be prepared to take their definition over yours pretty much any day. Considering CODE refer to actively playing players, ones not even multiboxing as being "bot aspirant", and the majority of them are kids looking to grief other players, I'd tend to not take their definition of anything. Meh, CODE just formalized what was already prevalent in the game and gave it an immersive backstory. They're like yammering puppies - annoying, but easy to avoid if you pay attention. Will I get banned for boxing!?!?! This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 148	Posted - 2014.12.02 16:23:12 - [2477] - Quote Adicuss Starfyre wrote: So reading the Dev Blog and some of the 44pages of posts, I've probably missed one that is talking about what I'm going to write below. If any FC Fleet warps a Fleet, they can be Banned for this as it is Navigating multiple ships through space. So how are they going to not return false positives as some Boxers have more than one squad of characters? No. There have been quite a few reply posts using the in-game client ability to form up fleets of ships then warp them all at once to a destination as an excuse to use ISBoxer software. There is no connection between functions that the in-game client allows you to do and what ISBoxer type software does to bastardise those actions. For example if I watch fourteen accounts with pilots all in NPC accounts log on within 15 seconds of each other on my contacts I will be suspicious. If twelve of those accounts are piloting Skiffs and then turn on mining lasers within a few seconds of each other I will be asking for them to be banned.
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 148	Posted - 2014.12.02 16:30:13 - [2478] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sentenced 1989 wrote: Yes, but I'm not going to click each time on same spot, isboxer even with delays will hit same spot... Sometimes I might be jer** off and will use F1-F4, sometimes I'll use my mouse. Sometimes you miss to activate guns on your alt on that specific enemy, or you miss click, or million other stuff... I don't think there will be that many false positives. As far as I am aware, they don't transmit the spot that is clicked, only the action. And yes, "sometimes" people miss and such, but it will also be pretty common for people to run it like clockwork. Without isboxer I've been playing long enough for everything to pretty much be automatic. Steve Ronuken wrote:** This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error. If you look back through the replies to this update on multiboxing you will find quite a few people trying to use legal activities in the game such as being able to form ships into fleets as a justification or excuse for ISBoxer use to continue.
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 148	Posted - 2014.12.02 16:38:31 - [2479] - Quote A lot of ordinary non-CODE players of EVE have been hacked off at the amount of obvious ISBoxer use for ages. Members of the CSM have responded to this and CCP is doing something about it. I'm not sure whether CCP will lose out financially as a result of this decision or not. Not all decision can be just financially based though and it is good to keep the player-base happy by doing something like this.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4450	Posted - 2014.12.02 16:43:57 - [2480] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: For example if I watch fourteen accounts with pilots all in NPC accounts log on within 15 seconds of each other on my contacts I will be suspicious. Suspicious of what? You're allowed to use broadcasting for logging in. Go ahead and check the OP. Bethan Le Troix wrote: If twelve of those accounts are piloting Skiffs and then turn on mining lasers within a few seconds of each other I will be asking for them to be banned. And you would be wrong to do so, and your petition would likely be ignored. I could click 12 buttons manually in "a few seconds". What you are looking for is them activating laser simultaneously. Just because your level of carebear entitlement makes you hate everyone better than you doesn't mean they should be punished for it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4451	Posted - 2014.12.02 16:49:22 - [2481] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: A lot of ordinary non-CODE players of EVE have been hacked off at the amount of obvious ISBoxer use for ages. Yes, they have been hacked off about the completely legitimate and explicitly allowed multiboxing application ISBoxer. But being hacked off at something doesn't mean the something is inherently wrong. Unfortunately lately it seems it means CCP will come in and nuke it without thought. People were hacked off about awoxing too. Lots of people are hacked off at wardecs, ganking, ninja salvagers and margin scammers. I suppose all of those should go too then, yes? Bethan Le Troix wrote: Not all decision can be just financially based though and it is good to keep the player-base happy by doing something like this. We'll see how happy "the player-base" (by which I mean "the vocal minority") is when they realise it doesn't suddenly mean all of the ice belts are empty of other players. They are happy right now because they think there's going to be a profound difference, which there won't be. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4360	Posted - 2014.12.02 16:59:31 - [2482] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5243034#post5243034 You were saying? Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Nolak Ataru Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC 299	Posted - 2014.12.02 16:59:58 - [2483] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: A lot of ordinary non-CODE players of EVE have been hacked off at the amount of obvious ISBoxer use for ages. Members of the CSM have responded to this and CCP is doing something about it. I'm not sure whether CCP will lose out financially as a result of this decision or not. Not all decision can be just financially based though and it is good to keep the player-base happy by doing something like this. I guess we interact with different sets of the playerbase. I've seen more new players ragequit or leave after being ganked by CODE because they stood up to get a beer or haul the trash out than I have seen players quit after running into an ISBoxer. As mentioned earlier, there are distinct disadvantages and penalties players put upon themselves when they start ISBoxing. The fact that the average player is more content to run screaming to mommy instead of, heavens forbid, considering how to disrupt the ISBoxer is reminding me of The EVEOnion article regarding the new "petition fleet" doctrine. There are literally hundreds of options available to the average player when it comes to ISBoxers, from gank Catalysts to smartbombing Rokhs for clustered miners.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4451	Posted - 2014.12.02 17:05:21 - [2484] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: This is fleet warp being talked about. In this instance, yes, but when you say "It's been brought up by people, who are being more than a touch disingenuous.", I imagine since I've not seen anyone else raise up fleet warp as an issue you are talking about the people suggesting that false positives will occur, which is a legitimate concern, especially considering CCPs response (or lack thereof) to people who petition after being banned in error. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5243034#post5243034 You were saying? Well clearly I was being wrong, My apologies. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Altirius Saldiaro Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 185	Posted - 2014.12.02 18:29:59 - [2485] - Quote Are macro keys on mice, keyboards and headsets allowed to be used? Is the program Voice Attack that gives ability to play EVE with voice commands allowed? This is a valuable tool for players who are physically handicapped.
Lord Battlestar Faulcon de Lazy 195	Posted - 2014.12.02 18:47:20 - [2486] - Quote Lucus Kell wrote: Even following this change you still won't be able to compete. The other non-banned features of ISBoxer are easily powerful enough to crush a non-isboxer user. Take for example VideoFX - this allows you to place segments of another EVE window into a single window (like this}. With this, an isboxer can put all of his module controls in a neat little block. No alt tabbing or broadcasting required. Then in that case I would support the banning of all functions in ISBoxer and other software with related functions, you shouldn't need a third party software to be able to compete within the client. I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 108	Posted - 2014.12.02 18:57:32 - [2487] - Quote Altirius Saldiaro wrote: Are macro keys on mice, keyboards and headsets allowed to be used? Is the program Voice Attack that gives ability to play EVE with voice commands allowed? This is a valuable tool for players who are physically handicapped. I reckon, that would depend. What do your macros do? If you press one button and your client does 5 things (or 5 different chars do one thing) it's probably not ok. Same should hold for voice commands. If you tell your ship to warp to gate XYZ and all it actually does is warp there, it should be ok imhol. However, if you tell your ship "go rat in havens until such time that I return" while you go take a hot bath ... that's botting.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4454	Posted - 2014.12.02 19:08:03 - [2488] - Quote Lord Battlestar wrote: Lucus Kell wrote: Even following this change you still won't be able to compete. The other non-banned features of ISBoxer are easily powerful enough to crush a non-isboxer user. Take for example VideoFX - this allows you to place segments of another EVE window into a single window (like this}. With this, an isboxer can put all of his module controls in a neat little block. No alt tabbing or broadcasting required. Then in that case I would support the banning of all functions in ISBoxer and other software with related functions, you shouldn't need a third party software to be able to compete within the client. Of course you would, then following that you'd look to get rid of the people with multiple monitors who are able to multibox better I'm sure. But even if CCP were to lose their minds and do that, how would they realistically prevent it? Key broadcasting is simple, they can see if multiple clients from the same IP are firing commands at the same time. They have no way of telling how your screen is laid out. Ab'del Abu wrote: I reckon, that would depend. What do your macros do? If you press one button and your client does 5 things (or 5 different chars do one thing) it's probably not ok. What if I lined up my modules from F1 to F4, then pusehd F1, F2, F3, F4 all at the same time. Would my fingers be banned from playing EVE together? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 118	Posted - 2014.12.02 19:10:27 - [2489] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: Altirius Saldiaro wrote: Are macro keys on mice, keyboards and headsets allowed to be used? Is the program Voice Attack that gives ability to play EVE with voice commands allowed? This is a valuable tool for players who are physically handicapped. I reckon, that would depend. What do your macros do? If you press one button and your client does 5 things (or 5 different chars do one thing) it's probably not ok. Same should hold for voice commands. If you tell your ship to warp to gate XYZ and all it actually does is warp there, it should be ok imhol. However, if you tell your ship "go rat in havens until such time that I return" while you go take a hot bath ... that's botting. one button multiple mods activated on one client is fine.
ShadowandLight DeathWatch Milita Soviet-Union 291	Posted - 2014.12.02 19:11:09 - [2490] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Godren Storm wrote: 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. However, fleet warp isn't using third party software to do so. It's not food for thought at all. It's a disingenuous attempt to derail this. if you really wanted to stop multiboxing bombers, removing fleet warping would do major damage to their ability to warp around. stopping input duplication is a minor annoyance, fleet warping is a major one. EVE Online and Multiboxing: My position against the upcoming changes and why Multiboxing is good for EVE and its player economy

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.