|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:33:31 -
[1] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:38:03 -
[2] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Technical question.. If I train 10 parrots to repeat by voice the commands I give and each one is interpretated by a voice recognition software controlling one computer.. how would that classify? I mean.. besides "sick" Under CCP's broad ruling that would be illegal too.. Apparently it would also be illegal for you to use multiple computers and keyboards to tell your fleet to do the same thing.
So what happens when CCP's connections is being DDoSed or doing it's usual lag at random late hours and all my commands arrive at the server at the same time? From the server's perspective it'd look like I'm using a repeater but in reality all I did was alt tab through a bunch of windows quickly. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:48:36 -
[3] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run. Actually, PLEX prices have already dropped. Prices are now around 880 million down from well north of 950 million. Will it stay low? Or resume its upwards trend...hard to say, I'm inclined to think the trend will resume. PLex prices have dropped many times over the last few months. When people were complaining about plex being +900 I was still buying them for 830 (bought 4 the day of one thread).
I personally haven't paid more then 900m for a plex even when people were trying to push the prices higher. Right now I see most areas are still +920. The reality is there's a small group of really rich people who are pushing the market up and the constant complainers are only helping them...
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:49:36 -
[4] - Quote
Jared Noan wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:
This includes, but isnGÇÖt limited to:
GÇóActivation and control of ships and modules GÇóNavigation and movement within the EVE universe GÇóMovement of assets and items within the EVE universe GÇóInteraction with other characters
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:
Reading into this, fleet warping could be considered a banable offence. You want to take out the lawyer talk, so will I. Yes fleet warp and more will be technically bannable under this rule change.
This is illegal too right? https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/home
He is using hardware to duplicate an input. Hell at this point of definition it could be considered illegal to use alt tab to rapidly issue commands. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:03:09 -
[5] - Quote
Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Angela Daemonic wrote:Ohh when all these is boxers rage quit and plex prices drop... I will be in heaven. Indeed, very quickly the volume on PLEX sales will increase again sharply due to the lower prices... however this time it will not be fueled by people that don't care if the price is too high. Keep dreaming. Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:THANK YOU CCP. ABOUT TIME I.S BOXERS GOT BANNED. WOOOTT!!!!!! You're dreaming. There's so many ways to hide it from CCP's eyes it'll still be abused. Hell Blizzard with their millions spent on warden can't even stop basic hackers and multibox programs. If you really want them stopped then I hope you're prepared to have your system compromised by CCP so they can scan every aspect and control what you can and cannot run. I would be okay with that :) **** the I.S boxing Cheating Pricks. Yet they will still be there. :P |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:08:09 -
[6] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:To Steve Ronuken: CCP are going to get flooded with requests asking if the for example twelve accounts that just logged on and started mining together are breaking the rules etc.
Why should it be legal to log them on together using ISBoxer but illegal to start the miners mining rocks ? Don't get me wrong - I agree with most people that ISBoxer use should be prohibited altogether - so it should be fairly obvious to make a clean break and remove all use of ISBoxer type software. After all it probably is a major factor in the current ISK value of PLEX. Isboxers had very little to do with isk value of plex. Well before isboxers were even noticed plex had already established a history of rising in value.
If you look at the chinese server our plex is actually way undervalued right now.
If you think banning isboxer is going to suddenly stop plex from ever rising in value you're deluded. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:15:28 -
[7] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing. If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens.
I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally.
I also sometimes experience huge lag spikes when playing the game and I'm worried that the rush of incoming packets to the server will look like I'm using isboxer or something. Especially during the DDoS days you could tell when all the packets suddenly started arriving as all the screens would kind of speed up to catch up to the server. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:20:21 -
[8] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:James Baboli wrote:I'm wondering just how granular the logs are for this sort of thing. If they're only in single ticks, then its gonna have serious issues with people who can just alt tab harder. I alt tab hard cause I've been multiboxing games since the meridian 59 era. I really learned the skill during lineage 2 though where I would run parties and fight pvp on my own with alts. No automation at all just extra keyboards and screens. I'm actually worried that I'll be banned if I try to mine with my setup using alt tab. I mean really when you're mining there's nothing beyond hitting f1 occasionally. Yep. Thats my issue. I manually multibox up to 10 of the many accounts I run, and have same second key presses for up to 8 clients. I only fire up the boxing software when it gets into the 12+ client range or if I'm trying to do combat logi while boxing. VG sites were my only usage for isboxer. I could still do VG sites without it but my times would suffer some and with these changes I still might get banned anyway.. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:34:27 -
[9] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well whether one agrees with ISOBOXER or not the decision is made and it is clear, There is no room for someone to find any wriggle room whatsoever and those who try, will find that it does not pay. We are witnessing the Age of an era. No long will we see herds of mighty hulks sweeping across the open fields of Space, devouring all before them. No longer will we see the vast flocks of nightmares, their hundreds of lasers cutting across space and wreaking their beautiful but deadly devastation. We have seen the end in our time, and when we tell those that follow of the days of the mighty Isoboxer fleets, they will say. "How the hell was that ever allowed?" You must be new here...
Only a complete nub would think such things. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:21:02 -
[10] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Hausser0815 wrote:What about using ISboxer in such a away: Pressing F1 sends F1 to Client 1 Pressing F2 sends F1 to Client 2 Pressing F3 sends F1 to Client 3
Or use ISboxer to build your own, multy-char control panels.
Thats not multiplexing, so it should be fine regarding the rules, but its still multiboxing way faster than by switching trough actual game clients. Pretty sure that's precisely what multiplexing is as opposed to broadcasting actually. No actually as stated here.
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing refer to the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.
There is no actions/inputs etc to multiple instances of the game. Only one input to one client at a time. |
|
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:26:05 -
[11] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. Yeah that's a big problem with this action. I have no damned clue if I'll be banned for using multiple computers with multilple keyboards/mouse to move/attack/whatever too fast. Like what kind of delay is CCP expecting between clients/computers.
I'm going to let my accounts expire till I see this in action. I might be back in February once this is more concrete. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 04:42:20 -
[12] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Then I have no damn clue what the difference is meant to be. The difference between what and what? Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing were both explicitly defined in this context as being the same thing. As far as creating a non-broadcasting multi-client control center, strict reading says it's ok, but common sense says file a petition to be sure. Uncertainty says file a petition to be sure. Really any specific situation which you think is borderline or may trigger a false positive says file a petition. This rule was made with multiboxers in mind as well as the fact that people will continue doing it without software assistance. It also means they intend on some level to enforce it but really discussing methods would be foolish on their part as that just facilitates circumvention, so I'm not sure what good asking how they plan to detect it is, either directly of veiled, like asking what sort of delays between commands will keep one from getting banned. Nolak Ataru wrote:Is it true that during Fanfest, CCP Seagull, you were telling people that multiboxers had nothing to worry about?
And during EVE Vegas, that other devs were telling people that multiboxing was "ok", even if they personally disagreed with it? Not sure how this is relevant as multiboxing has not been banned. Well depending on how strict they are about timing multiboxing could be effectively bannable at any time. I've always used multiple machines with monitors/keyboards/mouse.. Now I'm worried I'll be just quick enough to be banned. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:19:59 -
[13] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Well depending on how strict they are about timing multiboxing could be effectively bannable at any time. I've always used multiple machines with monitors/keyboards/mouse.. Now I'm worried I'll be just quick enough to be banned. As someone with only single machine multiboxing experience I must ask, how many clients are you issuing commands to within a single server tick? WEll I run three machines on my desktop so I can easily issue a single command to three clients probably easily within the server tick. I have extensive experience alt tab controlling multiple accounts in other games like Lineage 2. I mentioned L2 specifically because it's FFA PVP everywhere and I would control a whole party on my own with one computer and two 17 inch monitors. Now I have more larger monitors and more computers setup. When I get going I can issue commands to multiple clients quickly. I don't even need isboxer to control multiple accounts each running level 4s etc.
Basically I mastered my ADHD long ago by channeling it into games. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:24:26 -
[14] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Sibyyl wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Sentenced 1989 wrote: 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.
yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault. Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case. not technically banned but against EULA all the time already (accelerated gameplay part). 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. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:36:08 -
[15] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote: 1) learn quoting to make clear which part of my posting you are adressing. 2) it was. To be clear here, not entire isbotter is illegal as program but its input broadcast functionality was always agains the rules for 2 simple reasons: - its 3rd party - it allows accelerated gameplay Both points are covered by EULA for more than a decade, which is why CCP doesnt need to even extend EULA for new policing.
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. You know this but you don't care because you want to score points by being vague enough to be like "OMG PEOPLE MULTIBOX FASTER SO THAT"S ACCELERATED GAMEPLAY!!". Guess what? owning multiple machines with multiple inputs accelerates gameplay. Having a higher end system that can alt tab faster accelerates gameplay under your definition. So those would be bannable offenses too if CCP took your ridiculous definition as the rule.
Quote: I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm saying the difference is very thin and some could classify self-acting, controlled by isbotter clients as bots.
Only someone being entirely disingenuous would classify a person controlling a client as being the same as an automated program controlling the client. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:42:40 -
[16] - Quote
Robert Calderaisbotter saves you time processing each client separately and manually, which means each single of isbotted clients targets quicker, fires quicker and for example turn quicker. This is why isbotter is used primarily, otherwise noone would ever pay money for it, right?[/quote wrote: 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.
I don't know if you realize it but using names like "isbotted" "isbotter" just makes your appear childish.
[quote no. human commands are only issued to the main client, all others are controlled and thus automated by 3rd party software named ISBoxer. 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.
Quote: they changed EULA? When? Where? Show me.
First page. If CCP felt the EULA covered this clearly then they wouldn't of made this post. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 19:47:21 -
[17] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: Clearly not as CCP wouldn't of needed to make this announcement amending the policy if what you say is true.
so, if its true what you say, they would change EULA properly, right? Did that happen? No? Do you know why? I tell you, because everything in this thread was already covered by it. They made this announcement because they changed their policing of certain points already covered by EULA. ashley Eoner wrote: It doesn't accelerate per account gameplay.
it does. See my previous posting. Its why people used it in the first line. It doesn't see reality. |
ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 20:02:04 -
[18] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote: lmao, I understand. Isbotters used it just to do everything slower than they would usually without. Right. hahahah
Okay it's clear you're just a troll. No one can be this unintentionally dense.
Quote: its not about guns cycling time, its about reaction time, you obtain status faster (in EULA speak, lock is status) to tell one of many.
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
Quote: you might be one of the few who paid money for window management, majority, which this thread is about, did not!
Irrelevant.
Quote: go on splitting hairs. Point made is that you dont control clients at your own, and this is the whole purpose of isbotter being used, thats why people paid for it.
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.
Quote: I didnt ask for any thread pages but for changed EULA, as you claimed before.
This thread changes the EULA hence all the conversation. I would expect there to be changes the actual EULA once CCP figures out how they are going to enforce this incredibly vague change.
|
ashley Eoner
378
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:24:51 -
[19] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Giribaldi wrote:Sir, bragging about your friend soloing C5 escalations is no great feet. 2 dreads 2 triage carriers and 2 loris or bhaalghorns. And I do that by myself and I assure you its a ******* easy feet to achieve. I'd like to see your friend solo 20 to 30 man fleets with 6 guys like I do. Put 6 manually controlled accounts into a chaotic and ever changing fight = incredibly difficult my friend. I was merely attempting to point out other ways to make ISK with relatively few accounts for the butthurt people going "hurr need 50 accounts to make money". For those who complain because someone put the time, effort, and in some cases, real life cash, for multiple accounts, multiple accounts is encouraged by CCP and is practically required in order to be competitive in certain industries in EVE. Stop complaining because you didn't want to put effort into your game. Also, I only know of two VG boxers who are giving up boxing VGs, not including myself, out of a group of 10 VG boxers or so. The multibox-heavy community of DIN isn't worried about this, so that should tell you something. As for your ridiculous statement regarding PLEX, it dipped to, what, 950, maybe 920, right after the announcement? If ISBoxing was the main cause of inflation, it should have theoretically dropped to the 6-700 levels. Don't come crying to the forums when it breaks 1b again, because you can't blame ISBoxers. You got the market speculators and hoarders to thank for that. My post jan 1st VG fleet is already set to go. I don't even need to run isboxer or any program to make it happen now.
I also know that this won't effect most of the mid sized ice/roid farmers. The guys with like 50 accounts MIGHT stop running so many but I wouldn't bet on it.
So what's going to happen next is the rabble is going to move on to multiboxing in general. I can't wait till we're limited to number of accounts per IP or something similarly stupid because people can't handle the fact that someone somewhere might be earning isk slightly faster/easier then them.. |
ashley Eoner
378
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:10:57 -
[20] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:CCP, just ban every outside programme that can interact in any way with the client and end this farce. This is a perfect example of why it should happen. And there goes EVEMon, EFT, EHQ, eve-central, siggy, PYFA, fuzzworks..... Shall I continue? Taking one post and immediately attributing it to every boxer out there requires a serious lack of either common sense, or intelligence. Even worse he'd be banning whole operating systems. It would be completely impossible to play the game. |
|
ashley Eoner
380
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:55:01 -
[21] - Quote
Alkeli Dallocort wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Trakow wrote:Hahaha oh the tears of all the angry ISBoxers LOL
Mad that now they have to actually Mine and PvP like they're supposed to. Mad cuz now they'll get their ass whooped flying solo. Mad because now they actually have to make friends and get into a corp that isn't made up of all their own accounts.
Keep bringing on the complaints and the tears guys, I'm loving it lol If you loved that, wait till you hear that ISBoxing will continue to happe. We'll still be running VGs, still run HQs, stilll mine ice, still mine ore. A lot of us actually do have friends in the game who don't ISBox. We didn't start up EVE and instantly multibox. Nobody that I've encountered started EVE and ISBoxing at the same time. We have communities and groups that we hang out with, and we laugh and swap stories and have a good time while doing our thing. Only tears I see are (to paraphrase from an old Tom Sawyer play) from the rabble who's coming after the scientist because they don't understand his work, and because he's different from them. Stop projecting your tears and rage onto us. 90% of us have already found a way to continue multiboxing. Also, multiboxing does not make one unbeatable at PVP. I point you towards the video of the multiboxing Harbingers getting smacked down by a group of experienced, skilled, and well trained pilots using their heads and EWAR to turn the ISBoxer into nothing more than a nuisance at best. Need a tissue bud? Love the part about the scientist like as if isboxers are all smart and wizardry compared to everyone else. Which is so false and deluded, but you probably believe that. The fact is, anyone can ISBox, you're not special, nor are the other ISBoxers. It's just lazy and cowardly, and now it's cheating hahaha. And yes, the way to multibox is to have multiple inputs, which is fine by me. At least now someone can't control 12+ toons at once. But input broadcasting will still be discovered by CCP. It's really not that hard to figure it out. Oh and please do continue to ISBox so you get banned. More fun for the rest of us. My VG fleet involves me controlling 12 accounts at the same time. Just because you're unable to multitask doesn't mean everyone else is as limited as you in their capabilities..
|
ashley Eoner
381
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 01:47:33 -
[22] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.
As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs. Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together. |
ashley Eoner
381
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 04:38:18 -
[23] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Trakow wrote:Everyone can argue until January 1st, but really, we won't see what happens until then. One thing is for certain, there will be a crackdown and some enforcement carried out.
As for workarounds, go for it. It will like just end up in CCP getting sick and tired of dealing with workarounds and complaints that they'll just end up banning the use of ISBoxer and similar software altogether... There, job done, much easier to deal with than splitting hairs. Won't come close to stopping the complaints. Anyone with more then one account or even groupings of friends will still be reported. Actually an outright ban would result in even more reports as anyone with more then one account becomes an isboxer in their eyes. I've seen people complain about an isboxer when in reality it was just a group of people working together. This is great. So will look out for: Update 2 on Multiboxing and (insert currently accepted other use of isboxer) Many hours ago I was running my new setup in some VGs (no isboxer involved) and I still had a dude in local crying about how I was cheating and needed banned cause CCP banned isboxer....
|
ashley Eoner
384
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 20:37:07 -
[24] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part. Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it. By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them. Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst. Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards..
Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition.
Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.
Also, this portion of the EULA:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct 2. 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.
This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played. So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic...
God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol
CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them. |
ashley Eoner
384
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:08:50 -
[25] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards.. Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition. Even more cherry-picking but with a side of straw-man. Using a simple keyboard and mouse with no other program attached is not broadcasting. I don't want to ban mice and keyboards, but I want CCP to expand on G510s and G600's macro keys that cannot automate gameplay and simply send a single string of keys. A single click that does a single action is an "input". Nothing more. ashley Eoner wrote:So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic... God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them. Even though you used a straw-man fallacy, I don't have any arguments with this. We saw the same exact thing happen in the Cloak change thread for bombers, where people called for outright removal of the Stealth Bomber class. People will not be happy until everyone has 500m SP toons, is limited to T1 battleships max, no implants, no ABC BCs, and every system is a 1.0 system with no aggression allowed. Thankfully, those wingnuts are a very, very, small minority, and need to be told to HTFU. I just wish CCP told the idiots who cry "waah he ganked my 20b freighter", "waah I don't know what ECM is", "waah i don't understand how complicated ISBoxer is", and "waah my AFK fleet in nullsec got bombed" to HTFU as well. I'm not even talking to you. I'm responding to the ridiculousness you're quoting. So either delete or try again because you're only further pointing out my point.
There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it. |
ashley Eoner
384
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:36:15 -
[26] - Quote
Vala Ancalagon wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:handige harrie wrote:So what you are saying is that you're planning to use isboxer not to manage windows/logins but use it for imput, which stated in the OP is not allowed and binding a series of action to one mouse button (click and select next client)? Using ISBoxer to broadcast your keystrokes to 1 client is still broadcasting, i've bolded the fun part. Jesus christ, way to cherrypick and completely ignore everything I typed. The thing expressly banned in the OP is straight broadcasting to any number of clients greater than 1. Using the software equivalent of a KVM switch was not banned, and given the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the heck a KVM switch is, it would be rather silly to ban it without mentioning it. By your reading of the policy, VideoFX would be banned as well as it allows players to activate multiple modules on different clients without hitting Alt-Tab (or the ISBoxer "bring x client forward" hotkey). However, VideoFX uses Direct X / Aero (in a way that I don't understand as I didn't write it myself) to simulate focus on each little box so a player can interact with them. Please do research on whatever you're screaming your head off against, or else you'll wind up sounding like the people on the GTA V petition; whiny, immature, and ignorant at best, and downright deceitful at worst. Even worse this fellow wants to ban mice and keyboards.. Every click of the mouse or keyboard is a broadcast according to his definition. Vala Ancalagon wrote:I honestly don't think it goes far enough. They should have banned multi-boxing clients outright, for the ultimate good of the game experience. You can argue there are many activities that "need" alts to be viable, but that's just a symptom of other issues CCP should fix also. If you need an alt to scout for you, that means that someone else playing the scout is boring/undesirable, and that mechanic should be fixed. Scouts, cynos, boosters, etc should all be viable jobs to do in-game. The premise of EvE is that you are a capsuleer, not that you are x number of capsuleers. The intention is that you play through the client, while looking at it in it's standard client configuration, and with a normal keyboard/mouse (not doing special macros, robins, etc). If multi-boxing weren't possible everyone would have a more individual, and interactive experience playing with other people.
Also, this portion of the EULA:
6. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct 2. 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.
This is pretty clear that you have to have focus on the client to issue a command, and that you should be clicking it yourself. Otherwise you have just changed the way it is played. So now according to you my OS is illegal to use with EVE. Fantastic... God I saw this miles away. People were going to scramble to make arguments for making every aspect of multiboxing illegal while in the process making non multiboxer gameplay also illegal. lol CCP this is where this is heading. You try to appease the ignorant masses and they just keep pushing for more ridiculousness. They won't be happy ever because they're too busy obsessing over the possibility of someone somewhere possibly having a slight advantage over them. Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice. As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point. My OS allows for me to send commands to the non highlighted windows.. That's illegal according to some here.
That one chap tried to argue that mouse or keyboard input is broadcasting thus illegal... It's just getting silly here
Isboxer doesn't do anything you couldn't do with the client on it's own. Well aside from the ability to broadcast the same key to multiple clients at the same time. Your own definition means round robin and such are perfectly fine.
I'd like to see unicorns.. Talk is cheap trying to figure out how to do it is hard work . Try coming up with a way to make boosters interesting and I guarantee I'll show you an exploit that you didn't intend. We didn't get here because CCP just made the game last year and randomly decided stuff. WE got to this point because players have been exploiting everything in game they can to maximize their doctrines for the last +10 years. Making changes in such an environment is extremely difficult. |
ashley Eoner
385
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:51:01 -
[27] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Vala Ancalagon wrote:Not really, I'm simply saying that CCP's rules are pretty much self-explanatory. You obviously have to use an OS, because it is designed to run on one. Kind of a disingenuous argument there. What CCP wants is obvious: use the client as intended, don't use things that allow you to do in the client what you can't do with the basic mouse/keyboard setup. Some common sense goes a lot way here, and people pushing the "limits" know they are doing so. Them claiming that they don't know is also disingenuous. For those that truly don't have a clue, the multi-strike rules will have to suffice.
As for my dislike of multi-boxing, it has nothing to do with disadvantage or whatever you believe it is. I just think it would make the game better overall from a social and teamwork perspective. I'd like to see boosters be an interesting and interactive part of fleets. I'd like there to be an interesting reason to be the cyno character for your fleet. The fact there it isn't is a mechanic problem that drives people to rely on multi-boxing. And I stated that getting rid of multi-box would never happen, it was simply a personal view. CCP is heavily invested in multi-boxing financially at this point. Except they aren't self explanatory... not in the least. If CCP says that X breaks the EULA, and people ask about Y and Z which mimic X in such a way that it would be damn near impossible to tell the difference, then they need to clarify. Your dislike of multiboxing does not take into consideration differences of personalities, nor does it take TZ issues into account. It's hard for some Aussies because of sub-par internet at times and lack of people, so they must rely on alts heavily. Rosewalker wrote:But the objective should be to avoid getting banned in the first place. That means trying to figure out where the line that will get you banned is Victim blaming aside, that's what we're TRYING to do here.... We want CCP to paint the line with neon orange paint and a paintbrush and say "This is the line", not use a pressure washer and spray it everywhere. You also dismiss the idea of Twitter being a reliable source and then attempt to use it to support your argument. If you bothered to read the Dev blog, it was pretty much "yep, we let the people speak without offering help, time to pack up and call it a day" with no expansion on the topic. ashley Eoner wrote:There's no strawman the people are in this very thread. Just read it. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman "By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." I never said I wanted mice and keyboards banned. I simply pointed out that it and other software that the average EVE user uses could be in breach of the new interpretation of the EULA. Look at the comments I quoted look at what has been said in this thread. There is no strawman when people are actually advocating it...
christ almighty you're about as bad as the anti-multibox nuts. |
ashley Eoner
386
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:16:49 -
[28] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Look at the comments I quoted look at what has been said in this thread. There is no strawman when people are actually advocating it... christ almighty you're about as bad as the anti-multibox nuts. You directly quoted me as advocating banning mice and keyboards despite having never said that. That's what I was talking about. My apologies for not cutting you out of the quote box successfully. It gets kind of silly at times.
Would you like me to edit it or just leave it? |
ashley Eoner
387
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 23:09:39 -
[29] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:release-levels of anticipation, right hurr.
(this is going to be so bad) I've set skill queues and logged off for good. Accounts will run out this month. I'll watch the forums to see how many innocents are being banned.
While I can run stuff without the multiplex/repeater ability I'm just not confident in CCP's ability to fairly enforce this new rule. |
ashley Eoner
389
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 20:34:21 -
[30] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Kireek Amblecrown wrote:My only concern is the way CCP is going to handle reports/bans, especially if folks who aren't broadcasting keys get banned just for using multiple accounts.
Time will tell. If you get banned or whatever don't come here to tell us about it on your boosting alt. Because doubtless a bunch of people will just disappear regardless of playing by the rules or whatever, not that there's any way to find out officially. ashley Eoner wrote:I'll watch the forums to see how many innocents are being banned.
While I can run stuff without the multiplex/repeater ability I'm just not confident in CCP's ability to fairly enforce this new rule. You better be F5ing this really fast because doubtless any thread will be deleted by isd That is true but I prefer to stick to the word of people I know and trust over some random dude on the eve forums. I know people who will continue their boxing endeavors post jan 1st. Those are the ones I will be watching.
For gate to gate I would use fleet warp. For gate usage I would use the D+click on each client. |
|
ashley Eoner
390
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 20:00:09 -
[31] - Quote
Ctrl paste still works fine.. |
ashley Eoner
390
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:16:05 -
[32] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Any news of any actual bannings? None that I've heard of. While I've been running my non repeater VG fleet I've definitely noticed a drop in people running VGs. I haven't actually ran into another boxer.
EDIT: Curiosity got the better of me so I ended up running some VGs.javascript:__doPostBack('forum$ctl00$Preview','') |
ashley Eoner
390
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:53:15 -
[33] - Quote
My favorite part about this rule change is how a large portion of the population now believes that multiboxing in general is illegal. I've been active because my accounts have four days left so I don't have anything to lose (active while following the rule change with only one command going to one client at a time).
I've had several people tell me I was breaking the rules and at least one fellow who was going to report me for multiboxing.. Oh joy |
ashley Eoner
391
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 21:03:51 -
[34] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote: Any chance you are actually going to enforce this new rule? Or is this going to be like botting and RMT where you enforce it when you can be bothered?
I ask because every ice field is still full of barges all locking on to an ice block at the same time.
Report them and get others in the area to report them too.
I know I can lock up targets then spam window change while hitting F1 at the same time. I can damned near start 10 accounts at what looks like the same time with this. So don't be surprised if they don't get banned.
|
ashley Eoner
393
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 01:01:32 -
[35] - Quote
Dustpuppy wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote: ISBoxers most gameplay affecting feature is and has always been VideoFX not broadcasting. If this would be the case the plex price wouldn't have dropped from 1 billion to 800 million after the announcement of the multicast ban and stay on this level since the change. Why cancel subscription on plexed accounts if the main feature of something is not touched by a change? You were getting ripped off. I never paid more then 900m for plex when people were complaining here about it being almost 1b...
Plex prices for me dropped a little. It's unknown how much was because of the change or because of something else. Like Nolak said speculators etc could be the real cause. It's probably a combination of all those things. Maybe CCP dumped some plex off banned accounts. No one that is willing to talk knows for sure.
EDIT : I broke down and extended some of my accounts because of a recent development that has my interest in game. |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 00:06:38 -
[36] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Sexy Cakes wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Re-read Flash's link. People who have adapted to the current EULA are getting banned. Charadrass is a known incursions multiboxer. He's the leader of a German community setup to ISBox. He claims that 2 out of 4 people that were not even using ISBoxer got banned for input automation. Were they using another input automation program? Were the original 2 using input automation? All you have is claims from Charadrass (of all people lol if you only knew who this guy was you'd see the hilarity) that friends of his got banned with no evidence. CCP will not go into the details of the cases I'm sure so what are you really going on or asking here Nolak? I am well aware of Charadrass's reputation and his "vocation" in EVE. I've had lots of contact with the fellow, and do not in this instance believe him to be lying. I would also like to draw your attention to this statement made by another boxer: http://puu.sh/f3SyN.png I spoke to other incursion boxers, and obtained a first-hand account of what happened by one of the banned people. I'm not on the best of terms with the guy, but again, I don't believe him to be lying as he was one of those involved in the multiboxing brainstorm on ways to work around the broadcast ban. e: If you mean to insinuate that I am some servant of Charadrass, I'd like to point out that I was one of those who spoke out, rather loudly, against DIN and Charadrass's involvement in the incursion drama last year. Wow in this very thread many MANY pages ago I called it that CCP was going to have issues determining whether commands are broadcasted or manually inputted.
I run multiple machines with multiple keyboards as I stated before and that is why I was worried. I haven't been hit so far but I haven't done incursions in a while.
Sugar Smacks wrote:I enjoy this topic and the reasoning behind people. You can literally get these people to say ANYTHING to get things to stay the same. Fear is large here, for good reason.
Please name a game scripting of any sort has helped? Im sure this will take a while.
After your done i will easily show you games scripting has utterly destroyed. The main reason people leave is "scripting" and "who would want to compete with that".
Now you can say it doesn't hurt anything, well give examples, because we can all see games its utterly devastated. Having a argument that has no real fact behind it is like a scientist with no balls to stand behind his conclusions. Next time save yourself the money from school buddy. You must be in the wrong thread because nothing you said had any relevance to innerspace (the real program's name not isboxer) or any other repeater capable program/setup. I don't even see anything in this thread that would have any relevance to what you are talking about. |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 06:15:28 -
[37] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:WOW has 8m subscribers and allows FULL UI customization, ISBoxer and macros (to an extent as long as your at the keyboard).... EVE might have 500k subs (probably way less, but we cant get any numbers) and has decided that since they are experts in how an MMO should run, they will start banning people who multibox too effectively. How you can call WoW pvp is beyond me. They have 1 pvp server that everyone refuses to play. Basically there is a small element that has a battlegrounds area that people think is pvp. If you wish to macro on your pvm game, yea, i don't think anyone will care. E very other game mentioned is a "throw away game", thats life expectancy is what months? I wonder why that is? Next time don't use a game that had to be rereleased 3 times as your statement of legitimacy. Your hyperbole makes your ignorance extremely stark. There's a lot of PVP servers in WoW. Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active. Oh wait you have no idea what WoW is like because either you played it 8 years ago or you just go off what you hear/stereotype. Well Blizzard has made it so that servers now share areas so as to balance out the numbers on both sides. My server has world pvp available at any hour of the day.
Your ignorance continues with your "throw away game" comment. All the games mentioned have been successful in the market place making money for many years. Some of them are actually more popular then Eve.
EDIT : What's funny is my "perfectly timed" logi were all controlled individually without innerspace. |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 07:54:52 -
[38] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:ashley Eoner wrote: Anyone that has played WoW knows that world pvp is very active.
Very actively botted, you mean. Bots comprise 40% or higher of their instanced PvP groups. And they do nothing about it either. I'd love to see a bot do WORLD pvp... Notice I said WORLD pvp not instance pvp or bg pvp or arena pvp... WORLD pvp...
Sugar Smacks wrote: World pvp like guildwars where its choice to step out of the area so in fact you don't HAVE to pvp its all choice.
A game where pvp is done by choice and the far FAR majority of those numbers of subscribers are people who have 0 interest to ever pvp. Furthermore the entire game is designed so they don't have to, or really they don't require any interaction with others.
You are trying to compare a sandbox game with that is amusing at best.
Why don't you focus on Ultima Onlines story about how it lost over 50% of all shards population after the producer Jeff Skalaski citied "we will not be combating scripting/botting or multiple player inputs". How do you lose 50% of the population on year 13? Games die gradually unless idiots are put in control.
Or more recent lets look at Archeage a sandbox game, once thought to be the game of the year and really thought to possibly destroy EvE. After a bot explosion the dev team decided to do little or nothing and instead to push the pay to win model. I know how many EvE players that were playing, they literally had mirror guilds to their corps on EvE. The game died literally overnight land which was being only sold for real money due to its rarity is now so available they are now discussing shard transfers. Did i mention the game came out in September? They have a PLEX called APEX it sold at release for 40 gold it is now 700 gold and projected by players to cap at 1500. That inflation is for 5 months.
Its fairly obvious from these playerbases that people feel in a pvp focused game, that they don't wish to have one person running an army of players around, at least not with 1 button gameplay. Maybe you feel different, but thats you, i assure you.
Well the choice when I played recently before the latest expansion was to either open myself to pvp to level or to grind the crap out of the instances....
That's probably why WORLD PVP is so active when I played.
The subscriber numbers shows that the most popular servers in WOW are PVP based.. So clearly the majority of WOW players actually do like their PVP. Now if you have any actual statistics to counter that i"m open to reading them.
You do realize it's entirely possible to play eve for years and have no real interaction with anyone let alone anything resembling pvp right? I did it for a good 6 months when I first came back after the original long break.
I played UO and I don't remember anything about that announcement I do remember trammel and EQ coming along which caused a massive decline in the playerbase. Matter fact I can't find a single example of that statement anywhere on google. Your revisionist history is hilariously wrong. |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 10:16:54 -
[39] - Quote
I'm not surprised as this has been a problem with CCP for as long as I can remember. There is a definite consistency problem with enforcement and interpretation of the rules.
Compounding the issue is CCP's desire to not paint themselves into a corner.
EDIT : Rule of unintended consequences and all.. |
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:22:21 -
[40] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Abrazzar wrote:CCP have create a clear grey area to discourage people from going into a certain direction. If this isn't a hint, I don't know what is. Of course they don't. that's always been the most ridiculous argument. Creating a grey area simply means more people will do things they are not supposed to and get banned purely because they don't know what they are and are not supposed to do. Nobody has an issue with following the rules CCP sets, but they have to put actual rules. As it currently stands, players who don't even use multiboxing tools have now been banned and STILL there's no clear answer on what is and isn't allowed. It's no wonder CCP is running a failing business with methods like these and quite frankly I hope mainstream gaming media picks up on it, as it seems the only way to get CCP to actually act is through negative press. Yeah when the grey area includes how fast you're allowed to hit hotkeys......
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yeah, they're in the Ashran world PvP zone too. Tons of them. The worst part is the ones that auto interrupt you, so they're actually better fighters than most human players.
Automation must never be tolerated. Even one step in that direction is one step too many.
That's not what I'm talking about but I will admit that is technically world pvp. It's clear you're trying to be as silly about this as possible because I know you're not too dense to realize I'm talking about PVP out in the regular world including the questing and leveling areas. Not those singular regions that are designed for competition.
No one in this thread is asking for a step towards automation and you know that.
|
|
ashley Eoner
395
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 03:59:59 -
[41] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Guys, you're missing one simple fact of life.
If a guy is going to install a botting software such as GûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûêGûê, and the botting software is directly breaking the EULA even with a nice black line in the sand, he's going to do it no matter how nebulous the grey area is. However, make the grey area nebulous enough to obscure the line, and people will use programs that are just barely crossing the line, or just barely legal. This is (and was) the current situation that CCP is entangled in. You could just stop botting, and trying to justify it. Responded/10
Now go troll some other threads. |
ashley Eoner
396
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 07:29:23 -
[42] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Grey enough that there are people not using any form of multiboxing software reportedly being banned.. Only replying to this part: I have been here long enough to say that most of the time someone says "i was not banned for doing x. i was not even using x" 99% of the time they are lying. I used to think that too till I was banned in a game for something I wasn't doing. I at least give people the benefit of the doubt but always with a healthy dose of skepticism.. |
ashley Eoner
398
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:29:10 -
[43] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:As for the "3rd party programs giving unfair advantage" claims, again, uninstall PYFA and EVEMon, never touch Siggy and Fuzzworks or EVE-Central or any of the manufacturing websites again, and then you can how do these tools directly interact with the game world, like at all? nothing about them is even remotely related to the client controlling stuff isboxer does. which unfair advantage do tools like pyfa give? please elaborate on your bullshit statement. you need to seriously open your eyes. Being able to fit a ship without spending the isk to buy the parts would be an unfair advantage when compared to those that don't use them.
My computer has an SSD and serious hardware so I can swing through clients in the middle of a battle much quicker then you can. That's an unfair advantage to some.
My internet is up 99.9% of the time and never lags that would be considered an unfair advantage over those that play eve on a laggy connection.
My reflexes are faster then the average person so I can processing input faster and engage in output quicker which some would consider an unfair advantage.
I make good money in real life so I can buy plexes to buy better ships then you without any real effort. That would be considered an unfair advantage to some.
I have an alliance that hot drops all day long whenever I want. Most anyone would consider that an unfair advantage.
I could seriously spend all evening listing things that people consider to be unfair advantages.
ISboxer doesn't interact with the game any more then your operating system does (aero even). The person playing the game is the one doing the interacting. |
ashley Eoner
399
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:06:14 -
[44] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:You've clearly trained Autism V and I applaud you for actually showing it off. So you can understand I'll make it simple. How does siggy interact with the client (multiple clients really): 1. Shows you where your corp members are in your chain 2. allows you to set desitnation to systems you have in your map and count jumps with exit finder 3. track signatures and edit them How do you do this stuff with siggy: click **** in the browser window how does isboxer interact without broadcasting: i have to click **** in videofx windows Are you still sure nothing about siggy interacts with the game client? VideoFX only works because of aero. Turn that off and you can't even use videofx.. |
ashley Eoner
399
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:22:31 -
[45] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Siggy, Pyfa, Evemon, EveHQ etc are free. Botting software is not, which is why it falls into the P2W category. I'm not sure paying to farm is winning anything other than a Darwin award, but it's still paying a 3rd party for an ingame advantage. So yup, you're scum. ashley Eoner wrote:I could seriously spend all evening listing things that people consider to be unfair advantages. Perhaps the real problem is people being able to log in unlimited clients at once. No-one really has an issue with the types who multibox a few miners manually, but 90 man fleets run by one person is taking the ****. I'd have no issue with CCP instituting a hard cap on the number of clients a single player can log in and integrating multiboxing tools into the client. But I suspect the types who are sneering at the rest of us as 'EvE Vanilla' players would burst into flames at the idea of rebalances that keep P2W mechanics in check for the good of the wider playerbase at their expense. Ah well, let's see how many 'innocent' nimble fingered farmers have to be sacrificed for the greater good until the message gets through. I know I really shouldn't respond to this troll but I don't want people who on the fence to be getting bad information.
Eve takes up about 600-800mb of ram when sitting. It'll peak at 1 GB something when undocking or warping into a battle. So there's a definite hard limit to the number of clients you can run. While innerspace does allow for better resource management it doesn't allow you to squeeze more then a couple extra clients out.
Your hard cap would be impossible to impose.
According to your definition then almost every single game in existence (if not every game) is P2W and EVE itself has always been P2W.
I played in beta and the early days. People multiboxed then too.
|
ashley Eoner
399
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 03:11:52 -
[46] - Quote
Orchid Fury wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:You've clearly trained Autism V and I applaud you for actually showing it off. So you can understand I'll make it simple. How does siggy interact with the client (multiple clients really): 1. Shows you where your corp members are in your chain 2. allows you to set desitnation to systems you have in your map and count jumps with exit finder 3. track signatures and edit them How do you do this stuff with siggy: click **** in the browser window how does isboxer interact without broadcasting: i have to click **** in videofx windows Are you still sure nothing about siggy interacts with the game client? then you grandiose ****** should read again what i wrote. not a single one of the tools mentioned interact with the client in a way that has an unfair advantage to the game world. siggy does not provide you with intel tools which are unvailable thru other means, eft does not allow you to fit modules which are otherwise unfittable, eve-central does not show you orders unavailable to others. yet isboxer allows you to controll more clients at once than would be humanly possible without it. see where we are going dude? I can control all my clients fine without isboxer. I use isboxer mostly for the convenience of logging in, the ability to limit FPS of nonfocused clients and the ability to assign clients to specific cores. Otherwise my 8 core CPU isn't utilized properly by Eve...
All I have to do is resize the windows and position the clients in windowed mode across my monitors and isboxer is no longer relevant outside of the performance improvements it brings. Using windowed mode I can easily control +20 clients without isboxer. Since the repeater function is banned your talking point isn't even relevant anymore.
Marsha Mallow wrote:*GARBAGEPOST*
ISboxer isn't a bot get over it and move on as you said should be done. Otherwise you're just trolling with complete nonsense. I mean seriously complaining that people are posting too much in this thread and calling a window management tool a bot is just trolling. |
ashley Eoner
400
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:28:39 -
[47] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure.
I run 3 accounts on eve as its my passion, the g+ñme atracts me, the blocking of this hardly compairs too the jita riots and moncole gate, where a underlying mentality in ccp was the cause, taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online This blows my mind. Eve the game that has been legendary for multiboxing since basically day one. Eve the game that has developers who pimp the Power of two and other promotions to get you to run more then one account. In that game it's now considered an unfair advantage to have more then one account...
What's next? It's an unfair advantage that my ISP never crashes, my computer is better then yours and my character has mor SP? Is it an unfair advantage that I have many MANY more years of gameplay experience then you?
My god man we're slowly marching towards CoD in space... |
ashley Eoner
401
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 20:43:39 -
[48] - Quote
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:...taking cate of multiboxing as unfair advantage is somthing which the 99 procent of gamers agree with and which keeps them playing eve.
Each time changes come poeple will whine and *****, which doesnt make it w bad thing for the long term heatlh of eve online Citation required. Based off the CSM minutes and the devblog, it seems like you guys had to work pretty hard to convince CCP to change their stance on multiplexing. Is that the case? Furthermore, I want to see a breakdown of which CSM members were for/against the issue. We as voters deserve the right to know your position on multiplexing/multiboxing. corebloodbrothers wrote:Comming back from ccp visit in iceland ee have seen how they handle the detection and follow up on boxer use. I can asure hou its very carefull and i was amazed at the detials and insight. I cant tell what and so ofc, to breach my non dosclosure. So, you're *assuring me* that CCP can differentiate between someone sending keyclicks to different clients very quickly (a la https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhAk7EMDjvE&feature=youtu.be) and multiplexing to multiple accounts? You can promise me that? I don't even care about the video stuff. I could understand not wanting that.
What I care about is not getting banned because I hit F1 too quickly on different machines/screens. |
ashley Eoner
406
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 05:24:32 -
[49] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: Did you or anyone in the group referenced by "us" make sure to petition him anyway, to be sure? You didn't just blindly trust their word for it, right?
I think one of our multiboxers was petitioned before despite not actually bombing on a particular op. He showed up in local and apparently that + bombs flying was enough...
Ouch - The Eve Sandbox just got a little bit smaller and less desirable. I wonder if CCP intentionally went this direction, or was it just another ill thought out plan. Create mistrust - introduce basically ineffective change. Encourage player policing - creates more mistrust Mistrust creates ill will and loss of more players. How much longer can Eve continue by alienating its player base with nerfs, secrecy and lies? Alvaria Fera - You might want to step back and ask yourself why you play Eve. Is it to do CCP's job and report players because they were using a certain ship type? Reporting someone just because they are good with bombs is not reason enough. Playing a game with the belief everyone around you is cheating is not playing a game. You might want to consider chess. I don't know. Ask uh, I think it was n3 guys that reported our bomber guy. So ask them. How did you even find out?
|
ashley Eoner
406
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 20:27:40 -
[50] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Kinda obvious when they're in local screaming their heads off about a botter.... Ah the same way I knew I was being reported :P |
|
ashley Eoner
417
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 23:27:44 -
[51] - Quote
So I'm supposed to believe a character that has 5 posts all of which are attempts to troll or claim "tears" from isboxers....
|
ashley Eoner
418
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 01:49:43 -
[52] - Quote
I had no idea people cared so much about a lowercase character. |
ashley Eoner
419
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:44:21 -
[53] - Quote
Trakow wrote:Completely different because of the space in between windows. VideoFX can place everything you need all next to each other in a small space which makes it much easier to click on everything within seconds. If you have 5 monitors you need to move your mouse from screen to screen and isn't as easy. So, VideoFX is changing the way the game is displayed and how you play it. Except it isn't as you can easily stack eve in window mode so all your overviews and such are right next to each other. I can run VGs about the same without isboxer as I can with isboxer's videofx. The only difference is someone with a smaller monitor at a lower resolution can only keep up with me if they are using videofx.
If anything videofx levels the field by allowing those without the financial resources to buy a 55 inch 4k monitor to do something similar with a smaller display.
Trakow wrote:One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation.
I like your imagination and shamelessness. You have no issue with making up whole stories in an attempt to support your statements.
Think about this for a moment. If CCP can tell what you're running then how do they fail so massively at stopping bots? I mean they ban some and I applaud them for that but any trip to certain areas will result in you seeing a lot of obvious bots running. |
ashley Eoner
419
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:51:01 -
[54] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Not from within wine it doesn't. Then there are instances, and injection and well clearly your not as much of a programmer as you think you are.
Oh and using isboxer is *not* cheating. Be careful as under the rules being discussed using wine would be a bannable offense.
As noted above Falcon already made the argument against banning videofx in a podcast not that long ago. |
ashley Eoner
421
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 03:29:34 -
[55] - Quote
That's really close to how I'm doing it currently. |
ashley Eoner
440
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 21:32:04 -
[56] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:back to topic: we still need information about eula conform use of isboxer. Well it seems if you don't use round robin or the rollover stuff you're fine.
It seems the problem begins when you start using hotkeys and stuff too quickly across multiple clients. |
ashley Eoner
441
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 20:07:51 -
[57] - Quote
KC Kamikaze wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it? Probably one of the ones that also claims multiboxing in general is bannable now... |
ashley Eoner
442
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 03:58:08 -
[58] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:KC Kamikaze wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:I'm still playing and multiboxing VGs.
I also know of at least one other fellow who uses isboxer but he only uses videoFX (like me) and he isn't banned either.
Please be sure to give an email address to one of your ingame friends because if CCP decide you are breaking the rules (as suggested by CCP Pelligro) and ban you, your friend can come to this thread to let us know. Do keep in mind though, the new rules rely heavily on "Player Policing" . Maybe you and the other person you know just haven't been reported yet so hadn't come to CCP's attention. You did just remove the need for player policing though by advertising your breach of the rules (as per CCP Pelligro) on the forums. Just out of curiosity in what forum post does it say using VideoFX is now a bannable offense? Can you link it? The original post containing the full message was removed by ISD but This Post has the part about video fx and round robin. The account that posted the supposed statement from a GM has no post history outside of trolling boxers in this thread. That very same account considers it cheating to multibox at all.
I would take anything said by that account with less than a grain of salt.
There has been at least two boxers who use videoFX who posted in this thread with videos and they are still playing. The assault guy is pushing the videofx farther though. |
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 21:35:42 -
[59] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:While true, a lot of people use a biomass alt for the forums. So i don't really see that as a reason to not trust posts.
Me however, I post with my main. You're missing the point which is it's a character that has done NOTHING but troll boxers and proclaim them as cheaters. So excuse me for not believing his supposed GM conversation. |
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 07:06:24 -
[60] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote: His post is true all i think i can say about it. I put in a ticket and go the same message. Not sure if im allowed to post a SS of the ticket. Replied to asking if im allowed to post what he said in the forums. If you still have doubts put in a ticket and I'm sure you will see the exact same message. I wish that CCP would just make a thread already to clear this massive argument up. I use videofx so i can see all my miners. Since the ticket i have stopped using its repeater option (now i just tab over to the character and do what needs to be done). All video fx does is save me from having to have 10 monitors. IF they still dont want me to use then ill just put them in windowed mode and line them up all nice and pretty.
3rd party software goes i assume that means that people who play with VMs are screwed..
Like you said and kinete showed earlier. You don't need 10 monitors if you can't use videofx.
I'm guessing they are hitting people who are doing stuff too fast for CCP's taste. I imagine multiboxers that are causing rage reports are being checked carefully too. |
|
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 20:42:58 -
[61] - Quote
Jallukola wrote:^ Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him...
Dark times ahead in this game for everyone.
Even EFT, Evemon, and pyfa would be considered cheating too.
ShadowandLight wrote:ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.[/i] can you also ask CCP to come talk to its customers? Ha that's funny. You know they won't respond till they absolutely have to and in all likelihood it'll be a ham fisted and ill advised. |
ashley Eoner
443
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 22:07:02 -
[62] - Quote
Drizzd wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Jallukola wrote:^ Perharps, still delighted that normal alt-multitasking is green. For now but I wouldn't bet on it lasting long as there is at least one CSM member who is so rabid at hating boxers that he considers having more then one account as cheating. Yes as in the same as botting etc. At least one CCP member seems to agree with him... funny thing though that the CSM member you refer to admits using at least 3 accounts - thus breaking his own self-esteemed rules "rules are for thee not for me" |
ashley Eoner
444
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 21:08:09 -
[63] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:The average is two to three accounts per person in EVE. So the person you talk about is the same as the rest of us and he/she is in good company. On the other hand most of us don't afk multi-account using ISBoxer type software. The only people AFK mult-accounting are those who use Skynet carriers. ISBoxer is not the same as a bot that does your work for you. You have to tell ISBoxer what to do for it to do anything at all. Why am I suddenly reminded of The West Wing mini-arc where the White House staff have to keep telling the press and people that the President's version of MS is not the life-threatening version over and over? Because people tend to be lazy which results in ignorance. I'm also guessing some of this is just trolling or propaganda attempts. You know in the hopes that some lazy people see their post and go OMG ISBOXER IS A BOT!!! /rageatccpinaticket...
Trakow wrote:No, because CCP can see if you're running ISBoxer or not. I am a programmer and it's really easy to include a bit of code that sees what other processes are running, which can then be checked against a list of known software that is banned. It's also easy to find out which windows have focus, and if the focus changes without an ALT-TAB key combination or a mouse-click, that's also an easy way to find round-robin users. Or, alternatively, if the key press action is sent directly to another window, without the focus changing, which is also possible, then that's another red flag that round-robin is being used. It's too easy.
One example of being caught red-handed is the link someone posted a while back about an incursion player who got banned. He denied using ISBoxer/input broadcasting at first when he complained on the forum, but then later admitted that he was using VideoFX and round-robin. So it wasn't the input-broadcasting that got him caught, because he wasn't doing that. They obviously knew that he was using the software. I have yet to hear about someone getting banned for using ISBoxer when they actually weren't. And those that have been banned will of course deny using it even if they are, but I have yet to hear about someone getting their account unbanned after finding it was a false accusation. Wow did I miss this post?
Clearly this is true as when Blizzard started using Warden to do exactly this every single bot and cheat disappeared from World of Warcraft. There's no advertisement for gold sites via floating level 1s. There's no bots running under maps to harvest/mine resource nodes. There certainly are no cheats or anything like that........
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god help us if this dude really is a programmer.
As for the banning aspect at the end of your post all I can say is "you must be new......" |
ashley Eoner
447
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:11:35 -
[64] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Move on? So much more fun stuff hitting eve s future to focus energy on, new player experience, new sov, rebalancing ishtar online, fanfest, china versus free world eve, ton of devblogs aimed at the future versus going over and over ccp actions versus inout broadcasting.
From what we have seen no unjust bans, and the guys who did get one know why. Same goes for botting. The harder users say it didnt give them a benefit over others and keep whining, the more it shows it did give on.
If the majority of players would be in favor of this crap, then run a csm member, as you shoudl easily get thousands of votes right... If not, then its a storm in a glass of water really
Look at the future ratehr then ***** about the past, be positive, as much as i love the tears in my email about it, tweetimg i killed isboxer helps me actually getting votes, thnx for that
Greetz Core Csm9 csmx candidate Hey aren't you the one that kept AFKing fleets at planets and couldn't be bothered to use anything as defense not even a bubble (bubbles easily stop isbox bombers)? Then you would rage when you got bombed? Especially if it was an isboxed fleet..
Also could you spend a little time and read the thread so your next comment will be somewhat on topic. I know it's annoying to actually have to listen to what people say and it's much easier to beat up a strawman but really you're a CSM so you should hold yourself to a higher level then that. |
ashley Eoner
450
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:07:14 -
[65] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, I mean the threads discussing the people who would ISBot an entire incursion fleet, racking in a ludicrous income with zero downsides.
Other then losing billions of isk in ships because of a fluctuation in electrical power, a momentary ISP lag, a system crash, EVe's servers being fickle, something between you and eve being fickle, gankers appearing, ECM griefers, and more.
Think of all the times eve lagged for a few seconds and realize that when multiboxing incursions that means one ship maybe two dead.
Getting contested was a daily existence when boxing. Player fleets were generally hostile to boxed fleets.
If you thought they boxers were running in complete safety then you're clueless and you should of taken it upon yourself to remove that safety. I lost count of how many times I had gankers hit me because at times it was a daily event. I was even forced to dock many times because of persistent gank fleets.
You can make more isk in complete safety by playing the market which requires an hour or so of your time a day.
You can sit on a gate with a neutral and gank your way to more isk per hour with complete safety.
You can make similar isk in a variety of activities in eve. Some with less danger and some with more. Danger of course is something you could always bring to any of the highsec activities.
Regardless as nolak said earlier. No isboxed fleet could out earn a player run fleet.
What's hilarious is I made WAAAY more isk in almost complete safety in WHs and some sections of null. WHs in specific are isk printing machines. I had far fewer hostile interactions in a WH then I did incursion running. I just ran incursions because I had a job change and other stuff that occurred in personal life which screwed with my ability to log in consistently.
Kaarous Aldurald is a NERF HIGHSEC troll alt which was probably made by a bittervet to mess with the ability of others to make isk. He appears in nearly every single thread involving highsec and isk making. He then proceeds to make ridiculous claims and then distorts anything that gets said. All in an effort to get highsec nerfed as much as possible. His posting patterns seem to indicate anger at CCP as he seems to try everything he can to push ideas that would hurt EVE.
|
ashley Eoner
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 07:30:15 -
[66] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Nolak Ataru I will say this you do keep bringing up the website apps like Eve wiki, Eve central and dotlan. Those don't really change the way the game is being played. ISBoxers feature for Input broadcast does change the way the game is played chages every game that it supports. You can control multiple clients with almost perfect timing. Something you will only rarely get in a fleet of actual players. CCP did what it thought was best by banning it. Now other features of ISBoxer are not really what i'd call game changing. Those features I would compare to the websites and other applications. Which all those do is enhance the visual side of Eve.
Just wish CCP was a bit more clear and supportive to help people understand what can and can't be done. Just saying don't do it sometimes isn't enough.
Telling CCP to ban the use of EFT is like telling Blizzard to ban Icy-Viens. Telling CCP to ban the use of EveMon (think thats the skill one) is like telling Blizzard to ban WoW app. *ya for the blizz ref xD i went there.
These applications and webpages are supported 100% by eve to help newer and older players learn to play better and make there experience better. Which is why they added the feature to import/export your builds.
They removed Input Broadcasting not just because a few possible 100 people complained. They did to increase new player experience. Like hwo they nerfed the sov sturctures and more to come. They want new players to come in and enjoy the game. They want fleets of 20 actual people fight against a multiboxer to actual be enjoyable. With a player having to tab over and some what physically control the accounts makes it that much more enjoyable. Instead of ths guy controlling 20 accounts but only has to use 1 client. CCP just looking out to make the game better. I was against it till I got the hang of controlling my miners. No matter how much complaining happens CCP will not bring that option back. But they should be more clear on Third party applications other than the obvious.
Just don't ban VideoFX. All I ask. Don't see how you can call VideoFX cheating honestly. Just my opinion tho.
IF a gm replied to this thread saying "Hey this is what is banned this is what you can do. " I'm sure this thread would stop. (probably not tho) Hi bro how about you read the thread and realize that broadcasting hasn't been a point of contention for at least 100 pages.....
Right now you can be banned for doing anything too quickly or in a manner that gives you an "unfair advantage" which could be construed to include things such as having a neutral repper, OGB, etc. That's why CCP isn't giving us anything clear because they know they are just banning based on feelings and psssshhhh... In that vein EFT and such all give an unfair advantage over a person who hasn't been exposed to those programs/web sites.
If you couldn't beat a multiboxer fleet with an equal sized/ship fleet then you were being lead by a really bad FC. It doesn't take much to screw the old isboxer fleets. Old repeater based isboxers only had the advantage when you fought them on their terms. Which frankly if you did that then in my view you deserved to lose. |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 21:02:54 -
[67] - Quote
Adding one dps to your setup would easily mean having to toss everything and starting from scratch. |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:23:24 -
[68] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:lol of course I understand how it works. Are you clicking or are you just moving the mouse? One click = One action has been a pretty clear message from the start, not 'one click, then move the mouse across each activation box' to send n actions.
As I already pointed out, someone with a 1080p monitor could have 1080 1 pixel high boxes along the edge of their screen and just swipe the mouse down through them and activate 1080 modules you'd have to be incredibly dumb if you think that kind of setup doesn't construe input multiplication through software. So yeah glad people are getting banned for being dumb and trying to game the system.
You're the one saying I'm disregarding evidence, show me some, the burden of proof is on your side of the argument not mine. I can't 'not show' you evidence of people not being wrongfully banned for my side of the argument or must I just accept your anecdotal pleas of 'This guy I knew totally got banned and he was totally legit'
edit: I just happened upon a thread in dual boxing which shows your 'wrongfully banned' person using input duplication at 17s in the video to change overviews across all clients as well... he didn't even make 20s without breaking the EULA.
le sigh It says in this very thread in the first post that using the repeater to adjust windows and such is perfectly legal. Nothing illegal about changing the overview tab.. |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:30:58 -
[69] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Eli Apol wrote:OP 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) Swing and a miss. Window positions and arrangements... arrangement.... arrangement.... I made it bold this time for you.
Quote:Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing of actions with consequences in the EVE universe, are prohibited and will be policed in the same manner as Input Automation.
What consequence is there in game for changing over view tabs? When I change my overview tab can you tell by sitting next to me in space? |
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:39:26 -
[70] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:What consequence is there in game for changing over view tabs? When I change my overview tab can you tell by sitting next to me in space? Well if you're able to change all your overviews across all those clients so fast, it means you've saved valuable seconds that someone manually doing it would have wasted....so it's like an in-game advantage or something isn't it? We're back to arguing about EFT then because the EXACT SAME THING could be said about using EFT to test fits over having to do it inside.
|
|
ashley Eoner
453
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:42:29 -
[71] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:You can do anything from EFT with a calculator and a piece of paper, I can't swap my overviews like that.
EDIT: Which is also the difference between an in-game advantage and an out-of-game advantage... You can do it prior to running which he should of done. If we're going to ban people for a minor convenience then I can't wait to see what else they are going to ban people for.
Also I'm glad that CCP allows us the privilege of positioning windows as we please on our computers.
Anyway TS vent murmor all give in game advantages and even have client overlays in some cases. Should that be bannable too?
What if I'm too poor for paper? |
ashley Eoner
456
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:22:08 -
[72] - Quote
Charadrass wrote:adding to my previous posting.
if you manage to kill in pvp one box of an isboxer it usually creates a smaller or bigger Problem depending on what ship you just killed. if you killed his anchor you probably killed his ability to move.
an isboxer driven pvp fleet has a big disadvantage in fights you normally can only Focus one target. you cant split your fleet up properly, you cant kite properly etc.
i get the feelin about the isboxer haters that they never even played against an isboxer. otherwise they should have known those Facts.
edit: killed typ0s I'm pretty sure you're right as they don't seem to realize even the most basic methods of countering a boxed fleet. If they have fought a boxer then they clearly haven't put any thought into how to defeat the boxer beyond "THAT"S UNFAIR THEY NEED BANNED!!!!"..
Eli Apol wrote:Multiplayer....want a dictionary? The level of fail on this comment is spectacular. So merely loading up isboxer removes everyone else from the game now...
Eli Apol wrote:
NETWORK LATENCY AND HUMAN INTERFACE DELAYS FFS. THEY WILL NOT BE AS SYNCHRONISED AS ONE COMPUTER SENDING N COMMANDS SIMULTANEOUSLY THROUGH THE SAME DATA CONNECTION.
Wow it takes a wall of text for you to completely miss the point.
Which with eves huge ticks doesn't matter much. On the flip side that lag spike the boxer just felt left his entire fleet dead in the water for 10 seconds where as the player fleet only had a couple ships lag for 10 seconds.. |
ashley Eoner
459
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 23:41:10 -
[73] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: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. Nolak Ataru wrote: ISboxer = cheating [Citation Needed] Isboxer does not equal cheating if you think that then you have no clue as to what Isboxer actually is. Can Isboxer be used to cheat? Yes it can and its those people who need banning. The same should also apply to all people who cheat no matter what they use to accomplish said cheating. I mentioned Isboxer by name as this thread is about multiboxing and input automation and Isboxer happens to be the most well known program that can be used for that purpose. Yes it can also be used without the cheating aspects so you are wrong Isboxer does not equal cheating. So, once again good job CCP ban all the cheats and make Eve a better place. Your operating system can be used to cheat.. Christ almighty smarter trolls please.
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.. |
ashley Eoner
459
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 17:55:50 -
[74] - 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). |
ashley Eoner
461
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 20:09:14 -
[75] - Quote
JGar Rooflestein wrote:Charadrass wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull. They can. You say they can't. Look at Blizzard. They use Warden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29 You down load the game you accept the EULA and they are now allowed to run what they need most likely installed during the initial install. Indeed since you can easily opt out by not playing the game it's legal in the USA at least. |
ashley Eoner
462
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 05:38:00 -
[76] - Quote
Aru Kacbis Danvill wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:JGar Rooflestein wrote:Charadrass wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: By agrreing to the eula you allow CCP to monitor your gaming hardware. Whether they actually do or not doesn't matter.
CCP CANT... it is not a matter of allowing. you cant scan something where windows dont gives you permissions to. get that into your skull. They can. You say they can't. Look at Blizzard. They use Warden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29 You down load the game you accept the EULA and they are now allowed to run what they need most likely installed during the initial install. Indeed since you can easily opt out by not playing the game it's legal in the USA at least. Sorry not true. See you can't break laws. No matter if I agree or not warden gameguard punkbuster VAC and more all do that. Good luck with fighting that. |
ashley Eoner
463
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:42:22 -
[77] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:It really incesses me that Team Security States in their opening statement on "input multiplexing" that they want to clarify what is or is not allowed then say "read the EULA".
These are incredibly simple questions.
If you dont want to name features directly then draw a line
" you cannot send more then x commands to your clients in x seconds."
Simple, easy to follow, no confusion.
Something like that would be completely feature agnostic.
This current vagueness is complete garbage. Honestly, I don't like how the whole thing has been handled, I don't like the lack of communication, and I don't like that manual players are at risk, but I don't think CCP are going to clarify it any further. My advice to you is to not use round robin, not use vfx, and preferably not use isboxer. Beyond that, at this point I think you're fighting a losing battle, and you need to just move on. Its not right, but it's reality. CCP isn't going to win if they try to change eve into a SC or elite clone...
I say this because CCP has been slowly removing aspects of the game that made it unique. Now if you're a scammer it's okay but don't get too good or you'll get banned like a certain famous scammer. It's okay to multibox but if you get too good you'll get banned. The wording they used in the fanfest presentation seems to ban some features of windows including areo. |
ashley Eoner
470
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 16:08:01 -
[78] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Jason Xado wrote: 1.) Why did I wake up one morning a cheater, when I wasn't a cheater the day before?
You always were, CCP just finally woke up and decided to enforce it. They were even really nice about it and gave you a dropoff date, instead of just banning you all outright like I would have. Quote: 2.) Why does CCP and the CSM not want solo players to be able to defend themselves against group players?
Strawman. CCP doesn't want hordes of farmers and quasi botters stripping the game of content from genuine solo players, whom your kind crowd out. Quote: 3.) Why is CCP and the CSM wanting to force me to "group up" in a sand box game.
This is an MMO. "Multi. Player." Not "single player with twenty plus accounts". Why you ever thought this was okay is beyond me. A few accounts? Sure, everyone has to scan or trade or haul, and those aren't viable for main accounts. But as many as some of the abusers have been? That is just obscene, a blight on the industry itself. Massive multiplayer doesn't mean "can only be played when you find others to play with you" either..
In the older days the MM part just meant a lot of people could play the same game with you at the same time. |
ashley Eoner
470
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 21:45:24 -
[79] - Quote
Rastafarian God wrote: As for normal multi boxing goes, I dont know where the debate is coming from. I run 3 clients at once on one PC some times. Because I have to do everything manually, it limits what I can do and how well I can do it. People trying to do 2 or more things at once are distracted and easier to kill. I NEVER have more then 1 client running during PVP unless the others are cloaked scouts not doing anything.
That was true with an isboxer user the repeater. Even simple actions required greater care and concentration than needed for a single client.
|
|
|
|