Questions for CCP regarding January 2015 rules

[Lax]

So it's obvious that everyone wants some clarification about what is or is not allowed. For the most part it's clear -- don't broadcast to multiple game instances at the same time for gameplay purposes, but it's okay to control one window at a time.

Here's some examples of things that seem clear:

• Login: okay to broadcast, does not affect others
• Window management: okay to broadcast, does not affect others
• Client settings: okay to broadcast, does not affect others
• Undocking: not okay to broadcast, you must do this for one window at a time
• Targeting: not okay to broadcast, you must do this for one window at a time
• Toggling a module: not okay to broadcast, you must do this for one window at a time
• Interacting with one game window via Video FX: okay, this is only one window at a time
• Lining up 10 Video FX next to each other to interact with 10 different clients one at a time by mousing across and clicking/pressing buttons in each one: okay, this is only one window at a time
• Interacting with one game window via a Hotkey or Click Bar/Menu button press: okay, this is only one window at a time
• Assigning buttons f1, f2, f3, f4, f5 etc (I'm just going to keep using F-keys as examples, regardless of whether these specific buttons are ideal) to go to one specific window (even if it is not the window you are playing at the time): okay, this is only one window at a time

Here's examples of things that are not clear:

• Setting up a programmable keyboard to press F1 then F2 then F3 then F4 then F5 to automatically send inputs to all of the windows in the above example ("assigning buttons f1, f2 . . ."). My assumption would be that this is not allowed, however folks pointed out GM Lelouch's post that says this particular example is fine because it is not "An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard"
• "Round-robin" assigning F1 to go to one specific window each time you press it. This allows a multiboxer to press F1 one time per game window, because it is only going to one window at a time. They can press F1 10 times quickly, for F1 to go to 10 different windows quickly.
• Assigning F1 to send F1 (or a mouse click, etc) to the current window, and also activate the next window, moving it into the same place as the previous window (as one might do with Alt+Tab). This is still only one window at a time, but as with the previous example allows a multiboxer to press F1 one time per game window. Same effect, with different things happening on the user's screen.
• ... both of these seem to adhere to the "one window at a time" concept, requiring an input for each individual client, can be mis-counted (whoops I hit the button too few or too many times), can be interrupted before all of them occur (whoops I only got through 3 of them before someone else changed the battle circumstances), and so on.. and are therefore both disadvantaged in several ways versus a multiple client broadcast.

It would also help to understand the review process when a player reports a multiboxer. Some players will be hostile to multiboxers and assume that everyone, using any sort of broadcasting/multiplexing or not, is really breaking the rules (You too,"Nosy"). So what can we expect from these reports against a truly Y2K15-compliant multiboxer? Ideally, CCP could determine the truth, but it would seem to me there's diminishing capabilities as the number of multiboxed accounts decreases. I mean, with 100 accounts it should be fairly obvious that it takes many seconds longer for all of them to accomplish something, but with 3 or 4 the difference may be pretty miniscule.

Multiboxers don't want to run afoul of the rules. We hear that multiboxing is okay, but even though CCP says that and many players say that, we also plainly see "RIP multiboxing" and people shedding tears of joy that multiboxing is somehow dead altogether. I think it is great that rules are being clarified/changed and in a way that the players of the game should be happy with, but at the same time we have to find a way to reconcile the actual rules ("we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed") and actual behaviors, with the perceived rules ("hurr durr isoboxing [sic] is banned") and perceived behaviors. After all, this is purely magic and largely irrelevant to people who just don't give a shit, no different from those who have argued that multiboxing (someone playing the game) is identical to botting (software playing the game for you).

• What should multiboxers consider best practices to not get reported and/or banned? ("follow the rules" yes yes, but again, perceived rules and perceived behaviors)
• With regards to false reports, how concerned should multiboxers be exactly about distrust and hostility from CCP?
• Will CCP be discouraging false reports? (even a reminder that multiboxing is allowed as long as they're not broadcasting, for example)
• And of course we're all curious what CCP can share as to how/why this change came about, which may also shed some light on "best practices" and behaviors to avoid

The changes should result in wider acceptance for multiboxers because everyone should become confident that the other players are not broadcasting/multiplexing, but only if multiboxers are able to fully understand and adapt to the rules (or stop) before they are in force.

[gomeler]

Your list of unclear things are everything that I'm interested in. Basically, if it comes down to the 'one click, one action' concept, then that is a rule that I can adhere to easily. However, like you mentioned about false reports, I do NOT want my subscription based accounts to get locked out because some clown reports me and CCP automatically brings out the banhammer.

Unrelated, I was disgusted with the response on the official EVE forums and the lack of moderation in that announcement thread. I know EVE is a game where anything short of doxing is permitted(and encouraged at times), but when three quarters of the threadnought was uneducated vitriol, it did not encourage me to ask questions in hopes that some of the devs would clarify things. I suppose like most other online communities, I shouldn't have expected anything but that sort of response on the official forums. What a disappointment.

[pinotnoir]

What about using broadcast to accept trades with your alts in station? Or what about using broadcast to jetcan your ore. Those actions don't effect anyone's game play.

Also can we broadcast escape and quit so we can exit the game? I do this in station and a pos all the time.

[thedevilyouknow]

I do NOT want my subscription based accounts to get locked out because some clown reports me and CCP automatically brings out the banhammer.

I was disgusted with the response on the official EVE forums.

What a disappointment.

All of these things
Particularly for me it's the round robin deal, as long as you can do round robin its still possible to do some activities

What about using broadcast to accept trades with your alts in station? Or what about using broadcast to jetcan your ore. Those actions don't effect anyones game play.

Hell no

Edit: jetcanning ore is basically the same as any other activity when it comes to multiboxing, no different from shooting things or moving.
Trading alts is another matter, but still no, convenience factor is applied but you are technically affecting other clients game play, gunna have to HTFU and do it manually probably, which shouldnt be too difficult (get corp hanger ez pez)

After you login the only thing you can broadcast for are changing your game settings (esc menu)
Changing the window sizes of windows in game (resizing chat, fleet, overview etc)
....no thats about it

[pinotnoir]

All of these things
Particularly for me it's the round robin deal, as long as you can do round robin its still possible to do some activities



Hell no

Edit: jetcanning ore is basically the same as any other activity when it comes to multiboxing, no different from shooting things or moving.
Trading alts is another matter, but still no, convenience factor is applied but you are technically affecting other clients game play, gunna have to HTFU and do it manually probably, which shouldnt be too difficult (get corp hanger ez pez)

After you login the only thing you can broadcast for are changing your game settings (esc menu)
Changing the window sizes of windows in game (resizing chat, fleet, overview etc)
....no thats about it

It's worth asking. They want to stop anything that effects the game play of others and jetting your cans is a stretch if you try to argue it effects others game play. We need to ask everything even when you think you know the answer.

[thedevilyouknow]

It's worth asking.

Yes, but you are BROADCASTING in game when not using it on utility

I may have a solution for you, assuming round robin and menus are allowed

[pinotnoir]

Yes, but you are BROADCASTING in game when not using it on utility

I may have a solution for you, assuming round robin and menus are allowed

I have considered alternatives but with the first step being a month ban I think everything needs to be asked even when we think the answer is obvious. Risking losing your 10b that you spent on plex on a 30 day ban is pretty tough to swallow. So I hope they are not shy about asking questions.

[thedevilyouknow]

In terms of broadcasting, seriously do not get your hopes up, 99.<9000 chance it will not be legal to use broadcasting for any function other than utility buy ask away

But yes may as well ask everything.

Can we broadcast to resize windows ("settings" is a loose term, fucking flowchart)
Can we broadcast to join fleet, trade, open windows (wallet, etc)

Can we use VFX and menus, clickbars, as long as each individual command is sent to a single client as in the case of round robin. (As long as we don't chain together commands, i.e. client 1 clicks somewhere in window, client 2 receives click and then transfers the same command to client 3...chain)
Do we have any assurances that CCP will not ban us from some monkey seeing x characters logged on in game and reporting us out of spite
How accurate are CCP's detection methods, not that we want to (or should try to) circumvent them, just want assurance that someone with a good setup isnt banned because they're faster than the average F1 monkey

Will we get compensation if we do get banned unfairly

[Alex66]

I agree with Pinotnoir that such questions should be asked. Falcon stated that actions that affect EVE universe can not longer be "multiplexed" as of Jan 1. For example how does opening Orca's fleet hangar on all miners simultaneously affect EVE Universe? Miner's yield remains constant, Orca's capacity too. Nothing changes or even moves except a few windows are opened (a generic UI action). I'd argue that dragging ore from miners' hold into Orca should be permissible to "multiplex" too, but one step at a time, lol.

I would refrain from using term "round-robin" when talking to CCP. It may imply that a third-party program decides for you which client should receive the instruction and just spook them.

Another thing worth learning is how concerned CCP is about PLEX ISK inflation. I remember when I played EVE briefly a few years ago, PLEX was 600 mln, and now it is around 1 bln, whereas I have not noticed any significant increases in prices for ships. For CCP it may mean fewer purchases of PLEXes for RL money because 1 PLEX can buy you much more now in-game than it used to. When the announcement on boxing came out, PLEX in Jita dropped 8%, which means people believe a sizable demand from boxers may be affected. Obviously large fleets capable of engaging in high ISK/hour activities are the main source of such demand, as smaller teams are unable to efficiently plex their accounts without turning the game into a second job (imho of course).

So if CCP wanted to boost its revenues from selling PLEXes, it would seek to curb the demand in-game so that ISK PLEX prices go down. Hitting large fleets of both combat and mining multiboxers would probably help to achieve that. They would argue that such fleets were not generating subscription revenue anyhow. Besides, higher ore prices mean higher ship prices, which also can boost the demand for PLEX-for-money. All I am saying here is to use the chance to talk to try to learn what were the true reasons for that sudden turn-around on CCP's part, and if there's anything we could do now or in the future to help CCP to avoid making such decisions.

And lastly, despite EVE's assurance that they know exactly what clients are doing in-game including even mouse driver issued command the true bots are thriving. How come these are allowed to exist?

Don't link to sites that are blatantly against the TOS/EULA.
-MiRai

^^ yep, sorry about that.

[Crionic]

Firstly, I'd like to say nice write-up Lax. I'm glad someone pulled all of this information together. CCP has stopped returning my phone calls on said matter.

• What should multiboxers consider best practices to not get reported and/or banned? ("follow the rules" yes yes, but again, perceived rules and perceived behaviors)
• With regards to false reports, how concerned should multiboxers be exactly about distrust and hostility from CCP?
• Will CCP be discouraging false reports? (even a reminder that multiboxing is allowed as long as they're not broadcasting, for example)
• And of course we're all curious what CCP can share as to how/why this change came about, which may also shed some light on "best practices" and behaviors to avoid

Back when I started multiboxing on Wow, back in BC, I actually went in and posted a ticket on myself telling blizzard that I was multiboxing. That way when other players would report me for botting my account would already be flagged as a multiboxer. I know this isn't fool proof, but it may help as a proactive method to prevent issues with CCP if we adopt a similar method to label ourselves as non-botters.