CCP prohibiting input broadcasting/multiplexing beginning January 2015

[Gurblash]

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=387571&find=unread


Playing with multiple accounts at the same time has a long history within EVE Online, and has always been permitted. There are various ways to do it, and since there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding what is and isn’t allowed, we’d like to clarify a few terms and exactly how the EULA and our Policies must be interpreted and how some things are shifting.

Over the last few weeks we have gone through an internal review process to clarify what exactly the EULA and ToS require in terms of input automation, input multiplexing and input broadcasting. This is the result of that review process and an outline of how we will interpret things going forward.

Firstly we’d like to go over a few terms.

Multiboxing

Multiboxing refers to playing as multiple separate characters, simultaneously, across a number of accounts, either by using multiple computers to run the game, or by using a number of instances of EVE on a single computer.

Uses for multiboxing range from scouts in PvP to gang boosting, support and ECM alts, as well as extra characters for hauling, mining and many other applications. Based on our EULA (https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/) and Policies (https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/) we would like to clarify that multiboxing is allowed.

Input Automation

Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. This term is used to describe, but is not limited to, the automation of actions which have consequences in the EVE universe.

Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing

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

Going Forward

As of 15th of March 2013 (http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/begun-the-bot-war-has/) we have been policing input automation based on a two-strike policy

• 1st strike for input automation is a 30 day ban
• 2nd strike for input automation is a permanent ban

Input Automation remains strictly prohibited, and is policed under our suspension and ban policy.

Based on the discussion in this area and our will to be more clear and concise with the community regarding this part of our rules, we have decided to also apply this two-strike policy to prohibited forms of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing as of January 1st 2015.

We would like to add, however, that we will not be taking action retroactively and will only be policing this policy as of January 1st, 2015.

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.

This includes, but isn’t limited to:

• Activation and control of ships and modules
• Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
• Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
• Interaction 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:

• EVE Online client settings
• Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating system’s desktop environment)
• The login process

NOTE: Please keep in mind that using the same password for multiple accounts as well as storing your password in a third party tool or script which helps you to automate the login process can increase the risk of account theft and hacking drastically. It is strongly recommended that you do not engage in this type of activity.

We are closely monitoring all game events for suspicious activity suggesting illicit behaviors, including Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing.

We would like to clarify that it does not matter how Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing are being done, whether through use of software or modified hardware. Our only concern is regarding how it is being used in the EVE universe.

If you are uncertain about your Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing use-case, please get in contact with us, as we would prefer to work with members of the community to come to an amicable resolution. We will also follow up this statement with further clarifications if needed, based on questions and concerns from the community.

TL:DR :

Starting from 01.01.2015 the use of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing is limited to activities which do not impact the Eve universe. For more details please refer to the entirety of this announcement.

[Dynamite874]

If you have not read this devpost then you can find it here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=387571 .

I am writing a evemail to CCP Falcon to ask some questions about what we can and cannot do.

Update to follow.

Vamps

[Gurblash]

Its pretty cut and dry what you can and cannot do... they've already detailed this:

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.

This includes, but isn’t limited to:

• Activation and control of ships and modules
• Navigation and movement within the EVE universe
• Movement of assets and items within the EVE universe
• Interaction 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:
• EVE Online client settings
• Window positions and arrangements (of the EVE Online client in your operating system’s desktop environment)
• The login process

[pinotnoir]

Well I left WOW when they removed /follow and now Eve is going to remove Isboxer. Looks like I am done come January 2015.

[Dynamite874]

I do wonder how mineral prices will be affected :P.

We will lose multiboxers, but I don't think Isboxer will die. There is nothing stopping drone fleets ( manually assigning the drones ).

[EaTCarbS]

This really doesn't make any sense to me. What good do they think will come of this?

[Gurblash]

Botters have been hiding under the banner of "multiboxing" for a looong time. This removes that scapegoat. Sadly we fall victim at the same time.

[Lax]

For any interested here is the official ISBoxer.com thread on the topic: http://isboxer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6360

My comments are pretty much this in case that's all you'd click for, but other people are posting too.

This is sad news for ISBoxer users in EVE.

The good news is that they do stress that "multiboxing is allowed" as long as you don't do this. It does sound like you can still use Video FX dashboards for example as long as you are interacting with a single client at a time and not activating a module on 50 different ships at the same instant. Broadcasting Mode should not be used except when changing client settings or logging in, beginning January 2015.

[spf]

have no idea what is the plan but im glad that my accounts are not plexed for years beforehamd, so from my 14 accounts team only 3 will b active. riprip

[Dynamite874]

We have a corp mate on teamspeak commenting on plex prices, Its dropped at around 1mill per min, done to 908 mill atm.

Edit: Corp mate has now gone for popcorn :P

[thedevilyouknow]

Please post back here if you get a reply

Joined this forum just to post this

Subbed 7 accounts using RL money and I'm in a kind of panic
Only reason I subbed these accounts was to use them so I could properly plex my game time (I calculated it across the accounts i'd need vs my time and plex of up to 1.2b mathy math math)
I'm not financially stable enough to not get refunded if I can't play this hobby in this manner (although could go back to 1 account but I am ambitious)

[giryan]

Yeah, I put a support ticket in to get a refund on the 5 sidekick accounts that I created about 3 hours before they announced this ban. :(

[thedevilyouknow]

Good luck man

I had 8 accounts before I decided to try multiboxing with functions and not alt tabbing

Subbed 7 accounts FOR 6 FUCKING MONTHS OMGWTFBBQ

[Gurblash]

You've got a few months until the ban is put into place. Milk it for all its worth, meanwhile watch the market begin to crash lol. As always EvE is entertaining at least.

[thedevilyouknow]

Only 35-36 days notice though? January 1st

[pinotnoir]

Using any method (including ISBoxer) to broadcast your commands across multiple clients for bomber wings or mining vessels will be against the EULA starting January 1st.

Whoever thinks there is still a way to play the game with isboxer has not read this dev's post above.

[thedevilyouknow]

anyone gotten a response from ccp that they could colourfully phrase as to the state of reimbursements?

[Alzuule]

there is still a way, just depends on if ccp will allow it or not and it will not be as efficient as before. Now we can basicly activate guns/whatever like if we were pressing buttons 1-8 at the same time, after january we will probably just have to press 1-8 rapidly in order by using videoFX or some other stuff which means instead of super synched volleys there will be like 1-2 seconds between first and last character shooting if done well. So all isnt lost yet :-) might just be looking at a nerf, size of the nerf depends on what you were doing before.

[Gurblash]

Was just mentioning this in chat as well. Seems like a really good work around.

1 key press = 1 action.

macro step it to send the key press to a new window each time its pressed.

[giryan]

Hmm, I think they could be clearer, "broadcasting" doesn't clearly mean multiplication, so sending a keypress to one client when you're "in" another could be a broadcast.

By a _really_ harsh reading for sure, but they are a bit vague

[Gurblash]

Okay so even better.

Press 1, sends 1 to main window and switches to the next window in series,
Press 1, sends 1 to main window and switches to the next window in series... repeat as needed.

[thedevilyouknow]

Treaded the mud for abit, basically bottom line is:
1: holy balls eve community suddenly got toxic - see the forum post discussion
2: Vague shit

Don't see macro use being legal though...CCP getting mad

[LordsServant]

VENIO Official Opinion on Isboxer Changes
From: Lord's Servant
Sent: 2014.11.25 18:12
To: Everlasting Vendetta.,


Relax.


This does NOT affect us as much as everyone thinks it does. This only affects us in regards to convenience - there are workarounds for the few things that we use broadcasting for. These are not much more difficult, and EVERYTHING that WE do (can't speak for all multiboxers in general) is going to be largely unaffected.


Stay off the forums (unless you're reading them for tears), enjoy the PLEX prices tanking (fuck yeah), and stay tuned for detailed info on how we will be slightly changing our setups.


What we will need to do before these become final:


-REMOVE all Repeater Regions from Setup
-Don't use (I'll ask lax to just remove it from the default eve architecture) the broadcast all key.


What is NOT happening:


-The sky falling.
-Isboxers dying out
-Our corp dying
-Our playstyle changing drastically.


-Lords, VENIO



My corp description:



Srs Bsns


Pvpers Welcome.


Join ingame channel "Oatmeal" for more info.


Contacts:


boge
lucius ornulf
Lord's Servant


EVERLASTING VENDETTA, Keeping Gila Producers in Business since 2014.


VENIO Officla Opinion:


WE SUPPORT THE ISBOXER CHANGES BY CCP.


GOOD CALL! :)


Yeah, not concerned at all with the changes. ;)[/QUOTE]

Check our corp description.

Honestly this doesn't affect people near as much as people think.

All it affects is lazy/stupid isboxers who rely entirely on broadcasting. If you actually put any effort into your setup, this won't require many changes at all.

VENIO supports these changes. ;)

[spf]

just move the isboxer controlled gila fleet to nullsec afk ishtar ratting.

[giryan]

Good points Lords.
To be honest, I totally failed to get repeater regions working last time I tried ;)

[pinotnoir]

Lords your naivety on this is scary. The sky just fell and any work around you think makes you immune will fall under the ban hammer. Don't mistake what this means. Unless you only plan on using isboxer for opening eve it's over.

[thedevilyouknow]

Lords your naivety on this is scary. The sky just fell and any work around you think makes you immune will fall under the ban hammer. Don't mistake what this means. Unless you only plan on using isboxer for opening eve it's over.

In lord I will trust

[pinotnoir]

In lord I will trust

Good luck. When a developer makes a major change to end a play style made possible by isboxer it was not done to remove a few features of the program. They know the capabilities of the program. So unless you plan on using it to open eve and game swapping you can forget doing anything that will allow you to multibox.

[MiRai]

Lords your naivety on this is scary. The sky just fell and any work around you think makes you immune will fall under the ban hammer. Don't mistake what this means. Unless you only plan on using isboxer for opening eve it's over.
And your negativity is depressing.

You say you quit WoW because Blizzard removed follow from instanced battlegrounds, yet people found a way to continue multiboxing them without breaking any rules.
You say you're going to quit EVE because CCP banned broadcasting to multiple clients, but people have been multiboxing without ISBoxer's broadcasting for a long time (and will continue to do so).

It's unfortunate that people can't run their mega-fleets of 20, 30, 40, 50, or more accounts with the same efficiency as before, but does anyone really think that that was CCP's intention when they designed the game and allowed for multiboxing in the first place? Smaller fleets will likely go unaffected by this change if you're willing to put in a bit more effort when playing.

[thedevilyouknow]

Already been through the panic phase and after a good chat with some more level headed people who have been multiboxing for longer than I have, I'm optimistic that there is a way.
Anyone who is willing to share such a way please do, personally haven't been using ISBoxer long enough to figure out an efficient method myself, but i have faith

[IronSatan]

And your negativity is depressing.

You say you're going to quit EVE because CCP banned broadcasting to multiple clients, but people have been multiboxing without ISBoxer's broadcasting for a long time (and will continue to do so).

It's unfortunate that people can't run their mega-fleets of 20, 30, 40, 50, or more accounts with the same efficiency as before, but does anyone really think that that was CCP's intention when they designed the game and allowed for multiboxing in the first place? Smaller fleets will likely go unaffected by this change if you're willing to put in a bit more effort when playing.



So, you put 10 dps overview windows next to each other and click each one in order. - Targeting fixed
You put two watchlists next to eachother and click each one in order.- Logi fixed
You put targeting windows next to eachother and click each one in order. - Additional Target managment issues fixed.
Or you use drones, which now only requires drone assist to be manual. - Mutiboxing Fixed.

[LordsServant]

And your negativity is depressing.

You say you quit WoW because Blizzard removed follow from instanced battlegrounds, yet people found a way to continue multiboxing them without breaking any rules.
You say you're going to quit EVE because CCP banned broadcasting to multiple clients, but people have been multiboxing without ISBoxer's broadcasting for a long time (and will continue to do so).

It's unfortunate that people can't run their mega-fleets of 20, 30, 40, 50, or more accounts with the same efficiency as before, but does anyone really think that that was CCP's intention when they designed the game and allowed for multiboxing in the first place? Smaller fleets will likely go unaffected by this change if you're willing to put in a bit more effort when playing.

This. CCP doesn't want to remove all multiboxing/isboxer people from eve. Let me explain this very simply.

1 click/button press = 1 action = GOOD
1 click/button press = n actions at the same time across many accounts = BAD (this is what way it used to be/is now)
1 click/button press = n actions over a period of time across one OR many accounts = REALLY BAD (this is called botting).

Do you see the difference? CCP has no problem with us multiboxing, they're just tightening up the 1 click = 1 action. This just means that running absurd amounts of characters gets increasingly annoying, and that you actually have to put some thought into a good dashboard/videofx setup and not just blindly rely on broadcasting and perfectly copied eve account settings.

Very minor change, with not much effect on most of us. If you're running 40 chars, well fuck, you'd better take some speed, or you can just drop down to 20 accounts.

[pinotnoir]

And your negativity is depressing.

You say you quit WoW because Blizzard removed follow from instanced battlegrounds, yet people found a way to continue multiboxing them without breaking any rules.
You say you're going to quit EVE because CCP banned broadcasting to multiple clients, but people have been multiboxing without ISBoxer's broadcasting for a long time (and will continue to do so).

It's unfortunate that people can't run their mega-fleets of 20, 30, 40, 50, or more accounts with the same efficiency as before, but does anyone really think that that was CCP's intention when they designed the game and allowed for multiboxing in the first place? Smaller fleets will likely go unaffected by this change if you're willing to put in a bit more effort when playing.

The /follow change in Wow is nothing even close to how massive this change is to eve. I quit wow over /follow because pvp was half of the reason I liked the game. Also, I didn't want to use some half measure to follow a mount around so my characters could follow me. This change in eve is much more massive than removing /follow. My negativity is not depressing the reality of this change is what's depressing.

You could make keymaps that broadcast the key press to each client but from what they said all broadcasting will be illegal so I assume any mechanism that isboxer use to send key presses to clients falls under that. I guess we will see if they get more specific or people who try it start getting banned.

[spf]

at this point im guessing for what Lord Servant use his ISboxer...

[Dynamite874]

If you looked at the sleepover thread you would know what we fly and what we use Isboxer for :P.

As Lords said we are actually looking forward to the change, more people might actually fight us :D.

[Mosg2]

I think Pinot makes good points all around. This isn't just an inconvenience--You need to be realistic. You can fleet warp all your guys to the same grid, and you can have all of your alts orbit your wing commander no problem. And yeah, you can still assist your drones to your bunny and lock/blap from him. No problem.

You can't, however, all jump through a gate/wormhole at the same time; deploy drones; assist drones; activate any module. That's pretty backbreaking, but it's not the big issue.

The big issue is that CCP's stance is now "You may run multiple characters at the same time, but you may not do so effectively." This means that even if you are effective (I'm skeptical, and I'm a wizard at ISBoxer profiles) in any area of the game, you will be aggressively reported and investigated while doing so. Their stance may be to ban your account until they finish their investigation.

This change signals a change in policy: They don't want you to be effective while multiboxing. If you find a workaround, they're likely, in my opinion, to fix it.

In any case, Warlords of Draenor is the best World of Warcraft expansion I've ever played.

[Alzuule]

for setups that rely on drone assist all this does is add some tedium, not that big of a deal apart from the death of your joints :P for running c5 anoms in gilas its nbd which is what we do in venio ( Lords servants corp ). And capital escalations are completely unaffected.

to mosg: its true that you cant do those things perfectly synched, but you can do it fast enough that it shouldnt matter in most situations, however for nightmare vg setups this is likely a mortal blow due to the high amount targets needed to be locked fast.

I do see it making alot of pvp setups less viable, especially if you are in situations where you cant take the time to launch and assist drones on 8+ characters but certain things will still be doable. but then again, you could just not assist drones and use them like guns ( bind to hotkey ) and still be able to make alot of characters shoot/send drones in a very small timeframe.

[EaTCarbS]

I don't see isboxed drone assist fleets being effective anywhere outside gatecamps and tidi. have fun with that.

[Mosg2]

@Alzuule
You sure can bind stuff to a hotkey, but you can't broadcast to lock at the same time or to assist your drones. So, the fastest setup I can imagine (Shooting from the hip):

You have a button that on downpress launches drones from current window, and on release brings your next drone bunny to the foreground. So you can 'tab' through to launch drones. Then you have a dashboard setup with all 8/10/67 drone boats' drone window so you can 'tab' through them and assist to your bunny.

I imagine that you could get setup with <10 characters in 15-20 seconds.

This doesn't, however, allot for time to turn on afterburners or any other active modules.

[pinotnoir]

Mosg2 you think multiboxing pve 5 toons in that new expansion is worth it?

[Alzuule]

What i'd do is broadcast target -> shift+click on broadcast list to target with the characters using video feeds -> press hotkeys for engaging drones/firing guns by moving cursor over video feeds. takes up to 10 seconds to launch drones for 10 characters, after that it takes 3-4 seconds to have them all locking up then you engage so yeah its not as effective if you take launching drones into the account but after that its not bad at all. running 10 arty canes would be easy enough, just have them locking new targets while you are waiting for guns to cycle. So for drone assist pve its fine and for pvp i could see some setups still being doable ( heavy tank ships with only 1-2 offensive modules )

this of course requires a high amount of videofeeds.

[Mosg2]

What i'd do is broadcast target -> shift+click on broadcast list to target with the characters using video feeds -> press hotkeys for engaging drones/firing guns by moving cursor over video feeds. takes up to 10 seconds to launch drones for 10 characters, after that it takes 3-4 seconds to have them all locking up then you engage so yeah its not as effective if you take launching drones into the account but after that its not bad at all. running 10 arty canes would be easy enough, just have them locking new targets while you are waiting for guns to cycle. So for drone assist pve its fine and for pvp i could see some setups still being doable ( heavy tank ships with only 1-2 offensive modules )

this of course requires a high amount of videofeeds.

The underlined and bolded part qualifies as bannable. You'll have to launch manually and assist drones manually, on every character.

Offtopic @Carbs:
I have not attempted any instances or raids yet--Presently level 99 with my 15 Druids. So, I can't definitively tell you yes. I can, however, say that I would gladly shell out $300-400 a month to experience what I've experienced so far with WoD. Everything about it, to me, is superlative: The zones are gorgeous and well thought-out. The rare mobs are awesome. The quests all tell a story. All the stories tie together from zone to zone. This is the first time I find myself reading all the quest text.

Also, I don't want to jinx it, but world pvp so far with my druids has been spectacular. I play on a lopsided server (Kiljaeden Horde, 1:99) and I can chainsaw through people nonstop, everywhere. No flying is huge when you're looking for fights.

[EaTCarbS]

Mosg2 you think multiboxing pve 5 toons in that new expansion is worth it?

'worth it' is completely subjective friend.

[EaTCarbS]

Offtopic @Carbs:
I have not attempted any instances or raids yet--Presently level 99 with my 15 Druids. So, I can't definitively tell you yes. I can, however, say that I would gladly shell out $300-400 a month to experience what I've experienced so far with WoD. Everything about it, to me, is superlative: The zones are gorgeous and well thought-out. The rare mobs are awesome. The quests all tell a story. All the stories tie together from zone to zone. This is the first time I find myself reading all the quest text.


I'm at lvl 100 on a solo hunter, and honestly this is the least "grindy" expansion I have experienced so far. The questing wasn't too bad, and gearing up doesn't take nearly as long if you get lucky and score good drops from the strongboxes. Too bad they nerfed the honor in Ashran though, I hope they fix it soon.

[Alzuule]

The underlined and bolded part qualifies as bannable. You'll have to launch manually and assist drones manually, on every character.



wrong, its only bannable if im using broadcasting to multiple clients which i would not be :-) and where did i say anything about not doing it manually? you dont have to assist drones since you can use the f key for example to engage drones like if it was a f1 slotted gun. So spam f while moving your cursor across a rack of video feeds to make drones engage. And launching drones is as easy as dragging drones in bay to drones in space if using only 1 kind of drones which you can afford to with gilas.

in any case im not saying it will be anywhere as viable as it is now, actually im very much considering just doing cap escalations come january and pvping one 1-2 toons only at a time.

[thedevilyouknow]

just attempted to remake my incursion fleet from broadcast > > > dashboard setup, idk what i'm doing wrong but i'm getting a lot of lag

[Ughmahedhurtz]

I can already easily imagine playing a 5-7-box EVE fleet pretty painlessly under the new rules using ISBoxer video feeds, click bars, etc. Sure, it won't be as easy as it used to be but if you can stand a slower pace (directly proportional to the number of accounts you're trying to micromanage) then ISBoxer will still make it a very doable thing. If you're trying to do VGs the way I was watching a group do them the other night where seconds count, then you probably won't be able to do them with as many ships, or it'll take better coordination and different choices as others have noted above.

Rest assured, this is only going to make ISBoxer more popular with people playing multiple accounts, not less. ;)

I was going to make a snarky comment suggesting the sky-is-falling-I-quit people log off until the adults could sort things out and post faceroll guides again but I figure that would be redundant, counterproductive, and borderline trolling.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu89krCeGT1qztwte.gif

[Espanca]

call me stupid but, what is multiplexing?

on the side, macro keys to do actions on single client still good right?

[Alzuule]

apparently multiplexing is the same as multibroadcasting but with hardware instead of software ( isboxer is software )

[pinotnoir]

Input Automation

Input Automation refers to actions that are commonly also referred to as botting or macroing. This term is used to describe, but is not limited to, the automation of actions which have consequences in the EVE universe.

Input Broadcasting & Input Multiplexing

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

The way I read this any function of Isboxer that sends a click to a different client will now be illegal. So multi step macros, clicking video effects all fall under that. Now if they say it's ok to send clicks to clients from another client then maybe there is a work around. That's how I understand the new ban.

[Alzuule]

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

as in 1 click resulting in more then 1 action on, so 1 click resulting in 1 action is fine no matter which client its on ( as in video feeds are fine ), 1 click resulting in 2 or more actions is not fine ( as in 1 click making 5 accounts activate a module or lock a target )

thats how i and others ive talked to read it anyway.

[LordsServant]

Really easy:


1 click/button press = 1 action = good
1 click/button press = n actions at the same time across many accounts = bad (this is what way it used to be/is now)
1 click/button press = n actions over a period of time across one or many accounts = really bad (this is called botting).

[Lax]

The way I read this any function of Isboxer that sends a click to a different client will now be illegal. So multi step macros, clicking video effects all fall under that. Now if they say it's ok to send clicks to clients from another client then maybe there is a work around. That's how I understand the new ban.

I'm sorry pinotnoir, your understanding is incorrect.

This is pasted directly from CCP Falcon's original post:

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

This does not mean you cannot use Video FX to control individual clients one at a time, or even that you cannot send a keystroke or click from one window to one other window (given that it is not also affecting the current window). They are only banning the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.

... to multiple instances of the game.

... to multiple instances of the game.

[Espanca]

Indeed that's how i understand it aswell

What i meant is ex: to 1 click activate all hardeners and orbit target but on a single client

[thedevilyouknow]

Indeed that's how i understand it aswell

What i meant is ex: to 1 click activate all hardeners and orbit target but on a single client

I was always under the impression that macros in EvE were illegal, multiboxing or not

[pinotnoir]

I'm sorry pinotnoir, your understanding is incorrect.

This is pasted directly from CCP Falcon's original post:


This does not mean you cannot use Video FX to control individual clients one at a time, or even that you cannot send a keystroke or click from one window to one other window (given that it is not also affecting the current window). They are only banning the multiplication of inputs, actions and events to multiple instances of the game.

... to multiple instances of the game.

... to multiple instances of the game.

If they allow clicks to be sent to each client there may be a work around to get some things done without considerable irritation. They need to give more information so it's clear what they will allow. With two steps to perma ban I would not risk anything unless it was approved before Jan 1.

Another thing to consider is all the haters. There are TONS of people in my coalition that hate isboxers and I can guarantee you they will be reporting anyone as broadcasters. Even if you are not broadcasting the heat will be on you. They really need to be crystal clear what is allowed and what isn't.

[K'man]

If they allow clicks to be sent to each client there may be a work around to get some things done without considerable irritation. They need to give more information so it's clear what they will allow. With two steps to perma ban I would not risk anything unless it was approved before Jan 1.

Another thing to consider is all the haters. There are TONS of people in my coalition that hate isboxers and I can guarantee you they will be reporting anyone as broadcasters. Even if you are not broadcasting the heat will be on you. They really need to be crystal clear what is allowed and what isn't.

I've been following this very closely and are you saying that having 4 clients in window mode on a 27" high resolution screen where I can symmetrically place them without overlapping would not be the same as having 4 clients on a smaller screen utilizing isboxer to symmetrically place them on a 18" laptop without overlapping is now banned?

Before I even knew what isboxer was I was boxing 5 accounts manually on a 27" screen. There is no difference between swapping from window mode and utilizing isboxer for the same thing. Video FX and click bars are not what they are saying is bannable.

[shadowandlight]

hey guys, im not a big user of the forums (when i do i tend to use isboxer.com) but i wrote a rather in-depth post on the eve forums, if you have time please "like" it and respond

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5242995#post5242995

Also keep the work arounds coming!!! If we figure out a good work around to broadcasting that would be great. Frankly I am on the fence and might unsub my many accounts just as a protest, but if i can "easily" figure out a workable method to target, activate a module etc im game!

ATM im thinking that you hover over the area (either a target or a module), create a keymap that locks the mouse in place and youy round robin to the assigned clients in the ATG?

IDK, i havent had to go down this road so im open to ideas...

[Mosg2]

Well, as I said earlier, the issue isn't workarounds--Using VFX viewers with mapped keys on enter/exit, a good dashboard setup, and ships that are 'friendly' for multiboxing will get you somewhat near usable. The issue is that every single person that sees you is going to report you, and the intent behind these changes are pretty fucking clear. If you're violating the intent, if not the letter... I'm just saying.

[LordsServant]

https://twitter.com/CCP_Random/status/537380608906104833

Straight from CCP:

http://i.imgur.com/FGst7B5.png

Would the idiots stop being drama queens now? The sky isn't falling, isboxer isn't getting banned, and it's not hard to adapt while still following the INTENT of the rule (I agree, don't push edge cases).

This won't change anything for anyone half competent who isn't trying to run a fuckoff (>25) amount of chars (What CCP doesn't want). If you can't be bothered to spend a while getting a proper working setup to adapt to this then go cry more on the forums and unsub your chars/quit eve.

You won't be missed and I thank you for leaving more cheap plex for me. ;)

[EaTCarbS]

Would the idiots stop being drama queens now? The sky isn't falling, isboxer isn't getting banned, and it's not hard to adapt while still following the INTENT of the rule (I agree, don't push edge cases).

This won't change anything for anyone half competent who isn't trying to run a fuckoff (>25) amount of chars (What CCP doesn't want). If you can't be bothered to spend a while getting a proper working setup to adapt to this then go cry more on the forums and unsub your chars/quit eve.

You won't be missed and I thank you for leaving more cheap plex for me. ;)

Attitudes like this are even worse than the rule changes. Being a douche doesn't make you cooler.

This debacle is really bringing out the worst in people. The EVE community is beginning to disgust me.

[Mosg2]

That flow chart pretty clearly places VFX and clickbars in the STOP! category.

As an aside, Lords, you shouldn't refer to people as drama queens and idiots for expressing their opinion. CCP literally did a 180 degree stance switch on the ISBoxer/multiboxing topic, and anyone saying that this isn't a significant blow to multiboxing Eve is burying their head in the sand.

As I said earlier (pre-flowchart), CCP is clearly and concisely communicating that using ISBoxer for anything other than window management, setting up your in-game user interface, and logging in to the game is verboten. Even if you're doing everything by the book, you're still going to get aggressively reported--And the goal that they're trying to achieve is clear.

[Crionic]

Has anyone got any response yet from CCP about the full details on this ToS change? I put in a ticket earlier today asking for more info and haven't heard anything back yet. I'm really interested to find out about One to One broadcasting. Like being able to send a keystroke to character B while being on character A's window. There may still be some tedious but bearable workarounds for the medium/large multiboxers. I'm trying as hard as I can to remain optimistic, but half of me just wants to say F it, boycott eve, and find a better game to multibox for now.

[Alzuule]

anything that can be hotkeyed is still going to be workable and not that bad, however mouseclicking on 10 accounts is going to be a major pain in the ass. Im getting closer and closer to just dropping the plans i had and going back to boxing 3-4 accounts pvp and maybe 5 for pve.

However if someone here does find a game that can be run like eve do tell, however i dont know of any where i can be subscribed for "free" like i can in eve with the plex system. Not everyone can drop money for 10 accounts every month :P

[thedevilyouknow]

if anyone has any advice in setting up a roundrobin system let those of us new to isboxer know please

Alz, keep an eye on a game called "Albion online" may be good for multiboxing (still yet to know if multiboxing will work with it but can be hopeful)

[Alex66]

if anyone has any advice in setting up a roundrobin system let those of us new to isboxer know please

Let's say you are nor allowed to use repeater over your overview for targeting on alts any longer. You can put a menu or click-bar grid over your main's overview (1 column, x rows of buttons) such that each target will correspond to one button in the grid. Assign an identical keymap to each button which will do

Keymap Actions -
-Sync Mouse -> to all other windows
- Ctrl-Click -> to all windows, round robin option checked.

Eack time you click on target in your main, the menu will
(a) sync the mouse position on all your windows (not bannable as does not result in any action as such), and
(b) randomly choose a client window and send Ctrl-Click to it, resulting in target acquisition on that client.

Round-robin is a name given to the idea of sending an instruction (such as a Key Combination (http://isboxer.com/wiki/Key_Combination)) to each of several windows, one at a time.
http://isboxer.com/wiki/Round-robin

If you have 5 clients, you need to click 5 times for all clients to receive the instruction. You can also assign a hotkey to this keymap and make G15 do the clicking for you by adding simple virtualization technique for you keymap, but that may be bannable.

I theory, you could also make a click-bar grid of 5 colums and x rows (if we use my example of 5 clients) and assign the above keymap to each button "on mouseover". Then you would target by "swiping" your mouse horisontally across the overview, but that may not be as reliable as clicking.

Round-robin may be preferred method over just making multi-step mapped key where each step sends Ctrl-Click to a specific client, because it does not have a fixed pattern of multi-steps, thus making it more difficult for you to be "false-positived".

Similarly with activating the modules - create a mapped key that sends F1 to all windows, but with round-robin tickbox selected, and it will send F1 to one of the clients at a time whem you press a hotkey for that mapped key (which can also be set as F1).

And to lighten the mood a bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqJN3N1wDOw&feature=youtu.be

[Mosg2]

@Alex66
Unfortunately, everything you posted fails the flowchart test they posted.

[thedevilyouknow]

@Alex66
Unfortunately, everything you posted fails the flowchart test they posted.

how? each click is sent to a single client so....
Under the "Are you sending data to multiple clients at the same time" the answer is no
Each action is sent individually to each instance

[MiRai]

https://twitter.com/CCP_Random/status/537380608906104833
I'd say that makes things pretty clear.



Would the idiots stop being drama queens now? The sky isn't falling, isboxer isn't getting banned, and it's not hard to adapt while still following the INTENT of the rule (I agree, don't push edge cases).

This won't change anything for anyone half competent who isn't trying to run a fuckoff (>25) amount of chars (What CCP doesn't want). If you can't be bothered to spend a while getting a proper working setup to adapt to this then go cry more on the forums and unsub your chars/quit eve.

You won't be missed and I thank you for leaving more cheap plex for me. ;)
As others have pointed out, there's no need to start calling people names and acting like a fool.


This debacle is really bringing out the worst in people. The EVE community is beginning to disgust me.
You've been a gamer long enough to know that no community is exempt from toxic players.


That flow chart pretty clearly places VFX and clickbars in the STOP! category.
What? >_> How do you figure that?

From the flowchart:
Are you sending data to multiple clients at the same time?

How does a click or a key press in a VFX Viewer fall under multiple clients if you're only sending that click or key press to that one client?


As I said earlier (pre-flowchart), CCP is clearly and concisely communicating that using ISBoxer for anything other than window management, setting up your in-game user interface, and logging in to the game is verboten. Even if you're doing everything by the book, you're still going to get aggressively reported--And the goal that they're trying to achieve is clear.
There's no doubt that people who are multiboxing are going to be reported, but CCP claims that they can tell who is repeating and who isn't. So, by that statement alone, they should be able to tell whether you're doing things in a legit manner or not. But you have to wonder if this is creating more of a headache for the people that answer in-game tickets, or less of a headache.

[Lax]

That flow chart pretty clearly places VFX and clickbars in the STOP! category.
You're right that they ARE pretty clear about their intent, but you're wrong about what they are saying to you.

I'll follow the flow chart... here we are... let's see where we go with this.
ARE YOU SENDING DATA TO MULTIPLE CLIENTS AT THE SAME TIME?
...TO MULTIPLE CLIENTS AT THE SAME TIME?
... AT THE SAME TIME?
- Operating a single game client through a video fx: NO. DATA TO ONE CLIENT AT THE SAME TIME.
- Sending a keystroke or click from one game window (or DxNothing) to one game window, either being or excluding the current window (regardless of Click Bar, Menu, Mapped Key, etc): NO. DATA TO ONE CLIENT AT THE SAME TIME.

Soooo I guess the flow chart pretty clearly places Mosg2 in the STOP! category.


you're still going to get aggressively reported
People are complete dickwads and will report you whether you are even remotely close to treading the line or not. See 3 pilots with similar names? hurr durr let's report because I don't like this guy. This does not mean "ISBoxer is banned" and it does not mean that "doing ANYTHING with ISBoxer -- even if CCP explicitly told us all in that it's allowed and then showed us a flowchart reiterating that it is allowed -- is banned".


With that said, I would definitely advise against things that people are suggesting involving round-robin and rapid (or auto-fired which has always been against the rules) keystrokes. The more you guys try to tinker/weasel your way around what they said in order to continue to run larger fleets, the less you're going to be left alone.

[Mosg2]

Are you doing something other than the following?
-login
-windown (sic) management
-client settings?

If Yes then STOP!

The last box there is pretty explicit, and is a catch-all. Is a VFX/clickbar any of the above three? As soon as you start using a VFX for pass-through of keyclicks or mouseclicks, go to jail.

I'm not trying to be a dick, and I don't have a vested interest in this other than as a multiboxer in general. CCP, compared to every other game developer, is being as clear as they possibly can about the status of multiboxing and even included it in their ToS. Even though I vigorously disagree with the direction they took, props for at least addressing the issue are in order.

[Lax]

Are you doing something other than the following?
-login
-windown (sic) management
-client settings?

If Yes then STOP!

The last box there is pretty explicit, and is a catch-all. Is a VFX/clickbar any of the above three? As soon as you start using a VFX for pass-through of keyclicks or mouseclicks, go to jail.

I'm not trying to be a dick, and I don't have a vested interest in this other than as a multiboxer in general. CCP, compared to every other game developer, is being as clear as they possibly can about the status of multiboxing and even included it in their ToS. Even though I vigorously disagree with the direction they took, props for at least addressing the issue are in order.

Okay so the issue is you're not sure how to read a flowchart.

In order to get to "Are you doing something other than the following?", the answer to "Are you sending data to multiple clients at the same time?" must be "Yes." We've already shown you the answer was "No" so the "Are you doing something other than the following?" does not apply.

I'm sorry but you're still wrong.

[Alex66]

As soon as you start using a VFX for pass-through of keyclicks or mouseclicks, go to jail

No, that is not how I read it at all.

[thedevilyouknow]

Are you doing something other than the following?
-login
-windown (sic) management
-client settings?

If Yes then STOP!

The last box there is pretty explicit, and is a catch-all. Is a VFX/clickbar any of the above three? As soon as you start using a VFX for pass-through of keyclicks or mouseclicks, go to jail.

I'm not trying to be a dick....vigorously.....

Due to the nature of VFX and click bars, each individual movement is (as long as use of round robin, currently testing right now, seems to be working well for the moment) not violating the sending data to multiple clients

[MiRai]

The last box there is pretty explicit, and is a catch-all. Is a VFX/clickbar any of the above three? As soon as you start using a VFX for pass-through of keyclicks or mouseclicks, go to jail.
Click Bars operate off of Mapped Keys. So, if your Mapped Keys were set to All w/ Current from the beginning then you're already doing it wrong, but if your Mapped Keys are set to a single specific client, then your Click Bar is only to send the click or keystroke to that single specific client.

EDIT: Misunderstood, apologies.

[shadowandlight]

You know the more I think about the solutions or look at other peoples idea how to get around this newly imposed limitation I think the end result is your going to have a tremendously hard time differentiating between people who are using input duplication vs those people using hot keys, clickbars / menu bars or round robin.

In fact if someone had time to make a quick video or link something already done I think we have a good chance in the next month + to get ccp to change their mind.

If I setup a round Robin keymap that on every press hits "f1" I could smash that key extremely quickly, sending the f1 command to 20 clients in no time. People with logitech or similar keyboards will probably end up setting up an auto repeat in the logitech software to save them the hassle.

Using click bars, menus or vfx could accomplish the same task, yes you have to click a button each time but that's pretty fast if you line all the buttons up close together.

Now all that aside, I have a hard time believing that in every single case people are going to stop using broadcasting all together. The honest ones will do their best to create workarounds and in most cases it will be very easy to do, the only time it will be tougher is targeting or jumping through gates and I'm pretty sure that using round Robin key maps we can do that in a second flat for dozens of clients.

All you've accomplished is less then an hour of setup to get around this really ignorant rule.
.
I'm hitting the media circuit pretty heavy these few weeks to discuss how incredibly short sighted ccp is being with all this.

[Mosg2]

You got me, I wasn't reading closely enough.

[spf]

no matter how u read it. Mosg2, in my opinion trying to tell u one thing. CCP, in general, as a company, is against multiboxing now, so u can adopt/change VFXes, add some buttons, avoid any kind of broadcasting, be really careful with the ways and purposes u multibox, but as long as u gonna be more efficient than average F1 monkey u gonna be reported and then punished for multiboxing.
Read flowchart as u want, its your accounts afterwards.

[thedevilyouknow]

You know the more I think about the solutions or look at other peoples idea how to get around this newly imposed limitation I think the end result is your going to have a tremendously hard time differentiating between people who are using input duplication vs those people using hot keys, clickbars / menu bars or round robin.

In fact if someone had time to make a quick video or link something already done I think we have a good chance in the next month + to get ccp to change their mind.

If I setup a round Robin keymap that on every press hits "f1" I could smash that key extremely quickly, sending the f1 command to 20 clients in no time. People with logitech or similar keyboards will probably end up setting up an auto repeat in the logitech software to save them the hassle.

Using click bars, menus or vfx could accomplish the same task, yes you have to click a button each time but that's pretty fast if you line all the buttons up close together.

Now all that aside, I have a hard time believing that in every single case people are going to stop using broadcasting all together. The honest ones will do their best to create workarounds and in most cases it will be very easy to do, the only time it will be tougher is targeting or jumping through gates and I'm pretty sure that using round Robin key maps we can do that in a second flat for dozens of clients.

All you've accomplished is less then an hour of setup to get around this really ignorant rule.
.
I'm hitting the media circuit pretty heavy these few weeks to discuss how incredibly short sighted ccp is being with all this.

With the state of how things are right now, i would highly recommend going through the hassle and not using keyboard / mouse helpers (logitech, g15 etc)
Mate if you could get CCP to change their minds it would be amazing
That being said, if they come down on using menu's and round robin, i personally do not see any way to continue doing any previous activity we have done in the manner we wish. So lots of us will unsub most of our accounts if we cannot adapt to the changes (or future changes, round robin is my last bet)

[Alex66]

nCCP, in general, as a company, is against multiboxing now

I disagree. CCP is against multiboxers that are abusing the game or break fair PvP. All companies do. Problem is that unlike WoW or Rift where the devs just disabled /follow in most PvP areas to ward off boxers, EVE is one big PvP arena, so they could think of nothing but banning key/mouse repeater sofware.

[spf]

fair pvp^^ dude, dont wanna be offensive, but this is the last thing CCP/companies care about. This is business, its about money, not "fair pvp" lol

[Alex66]

This is business, its about money, not "fair pvp" lol

CCP stands to lose money with that decision, not make it. People were complaining about bomber fleets and freighter gate camps by boxers, so they had to react.

[TheHamburglar]

With work related stuff cutting into my play time I think this will be it for a while for me unless they change their stance, Its not just that things would be harder in ISBOXer(Just roundrobin everything, Roundrobin mouse clicks) its that their stance is after we sink all this money into the game and they say Multiboxing is fine and even the CCP employees use it alot they then pull a 180 and cater to the forum whiners. They could have made changes to curb excessive(I mean more than More than 10-15 Clients at a time) or something but they would rather kill it right off then try to reign it in to acceptable levels.

[thedevilyouknow]

turning this thread away from debating the intentions of game companies
Just going to request again, if anyone finds information from a dev about the state of software we currently can use (Such as roundrobin and VFX) which all go to a single client at a time, basically playing without needing to alt tab which was the point of ISBoxer, please post n share

[spf]

im adjusting setup. 2 moroses,2 archons, 1 loki. dont need isboxer with it. It was fun when it lasted.

[MiRai]

You know the more I think about the solutions or look at other peoples idea how to get around this newly imposed limitation I think the end result is your going to have a tremendously hard time differentiating between people who are using input duplication vs those people using hot keys, clickbars / menu bars or round robin.
CCP claims they can distinguish the difference between someone using repeater and someone not using repeater, but even the person with the fastest fingers is going to show a good level of input variance when controlling any amount of clients greater than two. I guess a suggestion to those who are going to continue to multibox would be to bring your key pressing speed down from super lightning fast to just lightning fast and purposely add in some a second or two of input lag with your own fingers throughout your key presses. /shrug


in my opinion trying to tell u one thing. CCP, in general, as a company, is against multiboxing now
What if on the flip side they don't actually care about people multiboxing a realistically manageable amount of ships, but only want to stop those who want to command mega-fleets by themselves?

Does this new policy do just that?

[pinotnoir]

1381

Chal posted this to our corp. It seems to make the intentions of CCP pretty clear. They have done a 180 on multiboxing and the future of multiboxing will be a difficult one. When your first infraction is a 30 day ban it's going to be tough. Plan on being reported by your own coalition then dealing with the consequences. Multiboxing went from friendly to hostile in eve overnight. I will be interested to read the stories from multiboxers after Jan 1.

[TheHamburglar]

What if on the flip side they don't actually care about people multiboxing a realistically manageable amount of ships, but only want to stop those who want to command mega-fleets by themselves?

Does this new policy do just that?

In my opinion this is/was the one of the Biggest factors.

[LordsServant]

Attitudes like this are even worse than the rule changes. Being a douche doesn't make you cooler.

This debacle is really bringing out the worst in people. The EVE community is beginning to disgust me.

Now that I've had some sleep.....

I wasn't being a douche, and I'm not looking to be cool. I have absolutely nothing left to prove in Eve - I have literally done it all.

That said, yes I was a little snappy. I woke up yesterday to ppl flipping a shit over a simple change. After calming down my corp and explaining things there once, I then had to wade thru piles of shit on FHC, the Eve Forums, and ofc here.

I logged into the game and was barraged with piles of convos basically all day (vacation week for me started yesterday after class, so I was on quite a bit).

After prob 8+ hours of constantly having to answer the exact same thing on voice comms, over irc, on 3 different forums, and about 20+ private chats (NOT counting the barrage of misguided smug, then confusion, then understanding in all of the public chat channels I frequent) I was a little annoyed and grumpy.

I don't mean to be an asshole, and I apologize if you took it that way. I was just very tired of dealing with the same shit on repeat all day long.

[thedevilyouknow]

lord you should make a FAQ from the mass of questions you had to answer

Need to make some information more accessible to stop the freakouts

[K'man]

This might sound silly but in RL situations when there is a big change that is not favorable to a certain group and there is two sides this would require a townhall meeting as we call it in the government. One person should represent the multiboxers asking very clear and concise questions regarding the limitations in an open environment. This person should be the one who is popular in a sense that people know who they are and one who is very knowledgable of how isboxer works. We have a month to get some answers and make sure it's very clear to the community what is allowed or not by actual words and not vague ambiguity. Flow charts and vague rules are not going to answer these questions we all have. If they can sit down and decide to limit the multi boxing gameplay they can come up with straightforward concise answers that are clearly stated without confounding statements or personal opinions.

[LordsServant]

This might sound silly but in RL situations when there is a big change that is not favorable to a certain group and there is two sides this would require a townhall meeting as we call it in the government. One person should represent the multiboxers asking very clear and concise questions regarding the limitations in an open environment. This person should be the one who is popular in a sense that people know who they are and one who is very knowledgable of how isboxer works. We have a month to get some answers and make sure it's very clear to the community what is allowed or not by actual words and not vague ambiguity. Flow charts and vague rules are not going to answer these questions we all have. If they can sit down and decide to limit the multi boxing gameplay they can come up with straightforward concise answers that are clearly stated without confounding statements or personal opinions.

I like this idea. I'm sending a petition to CCP and will try and poke the people I know to get a response on this.

Expect a meeting like such on my comms hopefully soonish with someone from CCP.

Hopefully this will ease some folks' minds and clarify CCP's policies a bit. ;)

[Gurblash]

Get with Big Country over @ Eve-Radio... I'm sure Dirk and the boys would love to have a "civil" conversation over this.

[shadowandlight]

I'd love to attend Lord, I've been multiboxing for 6? Years and was probably one of the 1st in EVE to use isboxer.

It would be great to get our more experienced people in on a "Town Hall" meeting with CCP.

[shadowandlight]

Get with Big Country over @ Eve-Radio... I'm sure Dirk and the boys would love to have a "civil" conversation over this.

I'm already going on Dirks show next week about this! Can't wait to wade into it.

[LordsServant]

Ok, chatted with a CSM friend of mine and tossed a petition in.

We'll see what happens.

If this does happen, we will be meeting on my comms with someone from CCP (I got a few specific names, but no guarantees so far).

This will be done in a civil manner in what will be a moderated channel(ie not everyone will be able to talk unless explicitly given permission to).

I will NOT tolerate the kind of sperging I saw on the eve-o forums and to a lesser extent, in the early pages on these forums. We WILL treat CCP with respect and get information in a calm and constructive manner. If all you want is to vent your anger and frustration to CCP don't bother coming - you aren't welcome.
Nobody cares about how angry you are that your 30 accounts are getting unsubbed and fuck CCP and rawr rawr rawr. That only lessens their opinion of us, and I think I can speak for everyone when I say that nobody who is still playing the game wants that.

If you have some questions you want answered, and to hear directly from CCP what their intentions and ideas are behind this change - and you can do this in a respectful manner, you are welcome to come. :)

I urge people to start formulating a list of questions - you can post them here, PM them to me here, or mail them to me ingame on my character "Lord's Servant" - don't forget the apostrophe.

Let's get some positive change here. :)

[K'man]

I have collectively compiled a list of quotes directly from those that matter from CCP and CSM. These quotes listed below may be a goodbaseline to formulate questions for the Q&A.

Please record the conversation with the officials and post it on soundcloud for those of us that can’t be there in person to listen.

CCP Falcon has stated that isboxer is not banned. Some of the things isboxer can do are banned. In CCP Falcons opinion on this question “I value the integrity of the game, and its overall health more than I value the numbers. (Umm don’t numbers pay for the bills?) I’d rather see 1 person playing with 19 of his friends, than 1 person using software or hardware to play solo while input broadcasting to 20 accounts. Eve is a game based around interaction with others, and the action and the action that comes from it. Well, that is my personal take on it, at least.”

What I have gathered so far out of several hundred pages in the forums from several different sites.

·CSM states that logging in a dozen clients at the same time is allowed.
·For example using isboxer to start all of them mining at once, with one click: not allowed.
·CSM stated that isboxer has other functions,such as arranging windows to let you move your mouse less between clicks,allowed under this ruling.
·Duplication of keystrokes is not the same as autorepeater
·CCP can detect your actions: Actions are unique and logged, logging accounts on an IP are logged, and owner of accounts.Basically, if you log in 10 accounts under one IP address all owned by you there is the chance that you can and will be monitored however. What is taken into consideration is the logged actions and time response it takes to hit those buttons or assigned keys.
·CCP can detect someone using mouse drivers to send multiple commands with one button.

I will update this as more official posts come along.

[LordsServant]

[1:40:17 PM] *******: aye
[1:44:02 PM] *******: ok shouldnt be a issue
[1:44:11 PM] *******: will probably be falcon and some one from security
[1:44:26 PM] *******: will be a week or 3 sinceheis super busy at the moment

Confirmed(I think?).

Everyone chill the fuck out, start working on questions please.

Feel free to join the ingame channel "Oatmeal" if you want to chat with other multiboxers etc etc.

Spread the word among people you know who multibox if they want to attend. Again, we need to STAY CALM and not flip a shit on CCP. Having more communication back and forth between us and them is only a good thing.

There's a lot of misinformation and hyperbole about multiboxers, and not much back and forth between us and CCP. This will hopefully fix some of that and we want to leave a good impression. :)

[Dynamite874]

Looking forward to the sit down.

Just want to thank Lords for being able to organise stuff like this :D.


-- Vamps

[pinotnoir]

I nominate Mosg and Lax to ask questions directly to CCP. I question any multiboxer cheerleading any decision to restrict multiboxing to a game where it was allowed for years. This is a massive change to the norm. Although it's CCP's right to change the rules, we should push back and not praise their decision to swap the rules on us after so many years. There have been many isboxer hate threads posted recently on the eve news websites. I feel this decision was made by the anti boxer lobby that recently has been very vocal on how they think multiboxing is illegal. With a 30 day ban being the first step CCP must be crystal clear on what will be allowed and what is not. A bullshit flow chart is not very clear on the many capabilities of isboxer.

[K'man]

I agree that CCP needs be be clear with what functions are allowed in isboxer considering the first offense being a 30 day ban leading to being permanent on a second offense. CCP is still a company. Despite this being a game and they can change policies at will, people still use real money towards a product. By changing policies which may result in a loss of product which you paid for and was previously allowed may possibly lead to legal issues. I'm positive they looked at this in a legal standpoint but this could be argued in court if someone would to take it that far. Banning say 50 boxers that had 10 accounts each means they acquired $66,000 from the intent that what people were doing were previously legal and not in violation. This is a grey point that needs to be adressed.

Questions of mine:

1. The use of hotkeys that round-robin
2. The use of video FX and dxnothing to see all characters and modules, overview, etc. on one screen
3. The use of click bars

[shadowfoot]

I nominate Mosg and Lax to ask questions directly to CCP. I question any multiboxer cheerleading any decision to restrict multiboxing to a game where it was allowed for years. This is a massive change to the norm. Although it's CCP's right to change the rules, we should push back and not praise their decision to swap the rules on us after so many years. There have been many isboxer hate threads posted recently on the eve news websites. I feel this decision was made by the anti boxer lobby that recently has been very vocal on how they think multiboxing is illegal. With a 30 day ban being the first step CCP must be crystal clear on what will be allowed and what is not. A bullshit flow chart is not very clear on the many capabilities of isboxer.

....
what more crystal clear you want?
no matter how you do it, no matter what technology, you cant target same target across all accounts with just 1 click, you need an input per account, you cant duplicate it.

yes, CCP killed isboxing. lol@ videofx.

[shadowfoot]

I agree that CCP needs be be clear with what functions are allowed in isboxer considering the first offense being a 30 day ban leading to being permanent on a second offense. CCP is still a company. Despite this being a game and they can change policies at will, people still use real money towards a product. By changing policies which may result in a loss of product which you paid for and was previously allowed may possibly lead to legal issues. I'm positive they looked at this in a legal standpoint but this could be argued in court if someone would to take it that far. Banning say 50 boxers that had 10 accounts each means they acquired $66,000 from the intent that what people were doing were previously legal and not in violation. This is a grey point that needs to be adressed.

Questions of mine:

1. The use of hotkeys that round-robin
2. The use of video FX and dxnothing to see all characters and modules, overview, etc. on one screen
3. The use of click bars

1 click/action per account, so you would have to (not sure what round robin is), still click in same location 10 times if you have 10 accounts.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO USE VIDEO FX AND DXNOTHING TO SEE ALL MODULES ETC< AND ALSO PASSTHROUGH KEYS through them! WHY do you even ask this!?!? you didnt read this thread?

Click bars are FINE.

[Mosg2]

I think that this came about from two major pushes: One, with the revamp to nulsec, player owned stations/gates etc, they're looking at mining and mineral production. This is a good way to reset and get a baseline for who produces what and in what quantities right now. Two, more than one of this season's CSM members are very vocal against multiboxers.

In any case, shrug.

[ebony]

I agree that CCP needs be be clear with what functions are allowed in isboxer considering the first offense being a 30 day ban leading to being permanent on a second offense. CCP is still a company. Despite this being a game and they can change policies at will, people still use real money towards a product. By changing policies which may result in a loss of product which you paid for and was previously allowed may possibly lead to legal issues. I'm positive they looked at this in a legal standpoint but this could be argued in court if someone would to take it that far. Banning say 50 boxers that had 10 accounts each means they acquired $66,000 from the intent that what people were doing were previously legal and not in violation. This is a grey point that needs to be adressed.

Ok i understand why players get upset i did in wow little change to boxers. But going down the Legal route is just being silly do not say it there no point ever going down this road for a god game.

Games change there rules all the time They given you more then we had in wow it was a change that happened in a Night (patch!!) They did not tell us or anything. Your getting a lot more out of the company then blizzard did or we got was ya we did it because of bots. and even to this date we don't know with work rounds is the right thing as blizzard said nothing. just we don't support boxing more then one account.

The TOS in everything in the would says they can do what they want when they want. And to be fair there not even banning you for boxing. they just changed a rule. Get round it quit. Everyone loses money all the time that is how the world goes round.

[K'man]

1 click/action per account, so you would have to (not sure what round robin is), still click in same location 10 times if you have 10 accounts.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO USE VIDEO FX AND DXNOTHING TO SEE ALL MODULES ETC< AND ALSO PASSTHROUGH KEYS through them! WHY do you even ask this!?!? you didnt read this thread?

Click bars are FINE.


;) Not exactly the response I was looking to receive but at least it cleared up my random thought process.

[Khatovar]

< Mod-hammer >

I know people are ticked, as is the case with any change like this, but people are getting out of hand. Watch the language, watch the flaming, watch the attitude or watch this thread magically lose about 10 pages of posts.

New people may want to read the site rules (http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/49138-Dual-Boxing-com-Community-Rules-Read-Before-Posting)if you haven't.
< /mod-hammer >

Go eat some smashed taters or pumpkin pie. Unplug and find something to be thankful for and appreciate the people around you. Happy Thanksgiving.

[K'man]

Update post for those that were interested in refunds.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5248928#post5248928

Update post. Another interesting one.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5249510#post5249510

[thedevilyouknow]

http://isboxer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6360&start=60

"Was actually banned for using Isboxer with broadcast on my 4 man mining team this week, the same day as the policy change announcement. They also banned every account I ever logged into this computer with (all but 3) and I petitioned.

Finally got a petition response and they said basically that using broadcast mode to control more than one client with the same mouse and keystroke was a violation of the TOS/EULA. I repetitioned because the policy is not in effect yet and they closed the petition.

Needless to say, after 9 years in EVE I am done. The game has changed too much (for the worse) and their new blanket ban policy is pissing me off."

Pulled off ISboxer forums

Edit: In other new seems like any mention of keyboard macros or isboxer is replied by an automated response
sent 2 support tickets, and got 2 replies very similar, nearly identical save the ISBoxer ticket, which came with an extra line saying any misuse would get banned come Jan

[Lax]

ISBoxer 41.10.1128.1 is now available for manual update. (changelog (http://www.lavishsoft.com/release/isboxer/v/41.10.1128.1)) Another update in the coming weeks will show an update notice when you start ISBoxer; this one you must find via Help->About ISBoxer, or any fresh download of ISBoxer.


EVE Online: In January 2015, CCP will begin prohibiting the use of Input Broadcasting/Multiplexing. As of ISBoxer 41.10.1128.1, out of abundance of caution, Broadcasting will be locked down by default for all EVE Online profiles, new and old. Please do a fresh Export to Inner Space. To re-enable Broadcasting until January, or for use during CCP's stated-as-acceptable times (login, client settings, window positions, etc), un-check the new Character Set setting 'Disable capabilities to control multiple windows simultaneously, including Broadcasting and Action Target Groups (EVE Online)' and Export to Inner Space. Please take care not to broadcast to multiple EVE Online windows simultaneously during prohibited times beginning January 2015. (This setting should prevent it except within some advanced, custom configurations.)
New Character Set option 'Disable capabilities to control multiple windows simultaneously, including Broadcasting and Action Target Groups' for use in games where simultaneous multiple window control has been prohibted. This setting will automatically apply for games where this is known to be the case, including EVE Online (as of January 2015, but applying as of now), Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, and Path of Exile.

[pinotnoir]

ISBoxer 41.10.1128.1 is now available for manual update. (changelog (http://www.lavishsoft.com/release/isboxer/v/41.10.1128.1)) Another update in the coming weeks will show an update notice when you start ISBoxer; this one you must find via Help->About ISBoxer, or any fresh download of ISBoxer.


EVE Online: In January 2015, CCP will begin prohibiting the use of Input Broadcasting/Multiplexing. As of ISBoxer 41.10.1128.1, out of abundance of caution, Broadcasting will be locked down by default for all EVE Online profiles, new and old. Please do a fresh Export to Inner Space. To re-enable Broadcasting until January, or for use during CCP's stated-as-acceptable times (login, client settings, window positions, etc), un-check the new Character Set setting 'Disable capabilities to control multiple windows simultaneously, including Broadcasting and Action Target Groups (EVE Online)' and Export to Inner Space. Please take care not to broadcast to multiple EVE Online windows simultaneously during prohibited times beginning January 2015. (This setting should prevent it except within some advanced, custom configurations.)
New Character Set option 'Disable capabilities to control multiple windows simultaneously, including Broadcasting and Action Target Groups' for use in games where simultaneous multiple window control has been prohibted. This setting will automatically apply for games where this is known to be the case, including EVE Online (as of January 2015, but applying as of now), Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, and Path of Exile.



Will we be able to broadcast ESCAPE to log out of the game since we can also use it to log into the game? Also, does the broadcasting ban prevent you from accepting trades on your characters in stations?

[Lax]

Will we be able to broadcast ESCAPE to log out of the game since we can also use it to log into the game? Also, does the broadcasting ban prevent you from accepting trades on your characters in stations?

I think those belong more in the Questions for CCP category than in the Questions for Lax category.

With regards to the setting which you're quoting and replying to, if enabled it entirely blocks broadcasting mode, Keystroke Action, etc from affecting more than one window at a time.

But for logging out of the game you can also set up a hotkey to just close all windows via a Window Close Action, so I don't think it's really necessary to broadcast Escape for that regardless of the actual answer to that question.

[Alex66]

Practically what's gonna happen (imo) - if you log more than 1 account from same IP you get on the watchlist of CCP anti-cheat watchdog sub-routine. If the server records simultaneous input originating from clients on the watchlist, it will flag the event which will (hopefully) be reviewed and action taken. I inserted "hopefully" because few weeks ago I got banned by Trion for boxing Archeage even though I play Rift and Archeage was not installed on my PC - which smelled like computer-generated auto-response (my ban was lifted only after I wrote to a senior GM). Archeage and Rift share same launcher, meaning that most likely I got flagged just by logging in from same IP.

Thus, I think this new preventive (but not obligatory) feature in ISBoxer is cool.

[shadowandlight]

I've spent the past few days crating a counter point letter (could be a freaking dissertation minus my lack of grabbing sources to all points) to CCP and the larger EVE community regarding input duplication and multiboxing in general.

It's in the final stages and I am looking for wider input on it before I declare it "done" and submit it to the various EVE news outlets, gaming websites and the community.

I realize that there is some in the multiboxing community that wish people to stay silent on the issue and hope the whole thing blows over, I perhaps shared a similar thought process myself during all the dozens of threads started throughout the years against multiboxing in EVE.

However, in my opinion, that position is no longer tenable for us. We either prove that we are worthy contributors to the game in all aspects or watch the mob call for further and further restrictions to be placed on us.

I'd love all comments, criticism, suggestions or just your general thoughts on the paper.

Please feel free to comment on the paper here, via the comments section on the document itself, through pm or email ShadowandLighteve@gmail.com

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GMOz_5GPDkpYL2tkZuKp1CXQQI-xBZnmJUCQyp78fes/edit?usp=docslist_api

[HPAVC]

I cannot believe people read this as anti-multiboxing ... its clearly anti-automation (botting), and goes out of its way to the reader just thank.

Thanks for the quick reply Lax in this and the other duplicate posts.

[LordsServant]

I realize that there is some in the multiboxing community that wish people to stay silent on the issue and hope the whole thing blows over, I perhaps shared a similar thought process myself during all the dozens of threads started throughout the years against multiboxing in EVE.

However, in my opinion, that position is no longer tenable for us. We either prove that we are worthy contributors to the game in all aspects or watch the mob call for further and further restrictions to be placed on us.

I haven't had the chance to look it over yet (very busy), but let me put out an analogy.

Westboro Baptists, Pope Francis.

Both are religious, but one is quite different from the other.

Be more like Francis, and less like the Westboro Baptists. Raging and demanding doesn't make anybody like you or value your contributions.

You don't get anywhere by demanding and raging in public. Every change is always decided far ahead out of the public's eye.

Being connected to those people, and being part of those discussions goes a lot further than putting together a mob.

Behind the scenes rational discussion > publicly flipping a shit.

Public stuff doesn't really do anything - see most 1st world countries. ;)

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Not a bad write-up, though it suffers from a few areas of myopia that I'd like to point out:



It's generally frowned upon, when attempting to influence someone in control to reverse a policy they implemented, to directly or indirectly state that they are making irrational decisions. (i.e. Mob Rule, Tyranny of the Minority, etc.) Think very hard before telling them they're all ate up with the dumbass, unless you can prove the irrationality objectively and especially if you aren't prepared to suggest better alternatives.
Using the argument that there are other products that do the same thing as most multiboxing software as a reason it will be ineffective to ban "legit" multiboxing doesn't make much sense to me. Looking at it from their side, if they're trying to get rid of botters/macroers, then it would seem to be a cost-effective means of reducing the workload on the Anti-Cheating Investigations Team to just ban everyone they detected multiplexing. Support resources are not unlimited.
A point that hasn't been discussed much, arguably not due to a lack of questions from the multiboxing community, is why this change is actually taking place, or as you mentioned: what problem(s) are they really trying to solve with this ban? Until we know that in pretty good detail, questioning their judgment with regards to the "fixes" seems ill-informed since we're operating under a lack of information.
You make a bit of the "it's so easy anyone can do it, you just need money/equipment" argument in there. I'd say that's a flawed argument for two reasons: A) what you and we here in the multiboxing community consider "easy" is literally incomprehensible to the vast majority of other gamers from a purely technical standpoint let alone the philosophical, and B) if it really were that easy then it stands to reason CCP would rather discourage it as a way to reduce server loads (obvious caveat about cost-benefit indicators).


The way I see it, from a we-have-to-run-a-business-here perspective, the amount of dev and support resources it would involve to modify and/or police the game in order to A) weed out bots/macros and B) mitigate the effectiveness of large multiboxed fleets is not insignificant. The simple/cheap solution is to do exactly what they're doing. That said, the PR war could go either way. If more people are made happy about this than the multiboxers it pissed off, then it's a net gain regardless of other considerations.

My 2 ISK, anyway. :p

[shadowandlight]

Thanks for the input so far guys, I am trying to curb some of the more aggressive tones in my arguments and provide rational points of view based in facts.

Keep the ideas coming, I would like to get this out in an "official" format in a day or 2.

[thedevilyouknow]

Thanks for the input so far guys, I am trying to curb some of the more aggressive tones in my arguments and provide rational points of view based in facts.

Keep the ideas coming, I would like to get this out in an "official" format in a day or 2.

Avoid mentioning things like how we can get around CCP's new policy...like you did here in the eve forums

"Could you speak to other features, it's very easy for those of us experienced in ISBoxer to get around the input duplication with other features. specifically:

- round robin keys
- keymaping
- video fx
- menus
- clickbars"

When you mention that we can work around policy, it will enforce the idea that CCP should just ban ISBoxer completely, while the idea is "why are they banning input broadcasting they (we) can just do their (our) best to work around it" its more "oh they can work around the ban on input broadcasting, lets just ban isboxer and be done with it"
Any mention of work around(s) are usually met with bitterness from the community, it's like you're rubbing it in their face

[Stevo_]

Avoid mentioning things like how we can get around CCP's new policy...like you did here in the eve forums

"Could you speak to other features, it's very easy for those of us experienced in ISBoxer to get around the input duplication with other features. specifically:

- round robin keys
- keymaping
- video fx
- menus
- clickbars"

When you mention that we can work around policy, it will enforce the idea that CCP should just ban ISBoxer completely, while the idea is "why are they banning input broadcasting they (we) can just do their (our) best to work around it" its more "oh they can work around the ban on input broadcasting, lets just ban isboxer and be done with it"
Any mention of work around(s) are usually met with bitterness from the community, it's like you're rubbing it in their face

All this document is doing is getting all functions in isboxer bannable offenses... you think you're making a point why isboxing with multibroadcasting shouldn't be banned because it can be done with other functions...

ccp and isboxerhaters are reading a full expo on wich other fucntions need to be banned so you do not get extra advantages using software.

I multibox but this is what it comes down to:
1)i use no software and i control 10 clients vs I use extra software to control 10 clients - nothing really changes
2) I use no softwar and can control 4 clients effiencient vs I can control 10 clients with the software and gain 6 clients cuz of it \O/
3) i use 6 clients and have to manage a shitton of things vs I still control 10 clients with software and gain 4 clients and its just as easy i would control 1 client while keeping in mind i would go battshitcrazy if i had to clickfest on the 6 clients serperatly...


> note that i know how hard it is to set isboxer up perfectly and what happens when you fuck up BUT you are still onces ready with the setup and once you are running adding 6 clients to your control that you would not be able to do without it.


Lets start PRing and advocate to ccp to allow us to keep the options open and handle petition about multiboxing on a case by case view. The change will happen, its just a matter of damage control

[Khatovar]

I wrote an article /paper against CCP's current direction against multiboxing and input duplication

http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51790-My-defense-of-input-duplication-and-multiboxing-in-EVE-Online-(very-long)

Please do not crosspost. This isn't MMOChampion or someplace where there's thousands of people posting new topics until threads drop into the ether of page 2. All you are doing by crossposting is inviting people to hold the same conversation across 2 threads. Merged.

[Alex66]

The essence of the change is CCP taking away a feature which they went on record for allowing it in the past - input multiplexing. They are doing it without giving a proper explanation.

Can you box EVE without it? Yeah. Same as you can box WoW or other games by reconfiguring your ISBoxer setup so that your spam key sends instructions to each client individually at a time. You just need to press your key faster, your DPS will take a hit, but it is still viable, albeit much less enjoyable. Menus and click bars are just visual representations of keyboard shortcuts, they are not in themselves the offenders. Neither is VFX - it is a windows feature. However, Repeater regions fall into the same cathegory as input multiplexing, thus it would be quite painful to lose this feature in EVE.

Blizzard and Trion did not take input multiplexing from us when they got unhappy with boxers - they determined the areas where boxing became objectionable and implemented in-game changes to address those - i.e. removing /follow from most PvP instances.

EVE is the game which is arguably most demanding MMO in terms of time and resources needed to become successful at end-game-level activities, so the CCP's unexplained U-turn on input multiplexing is objectionable at the very least, particularly for veteran gamers among boxers. I dont think we should just accept it and adjust, we deserve a detailed explanation and a chance to propose in-game adjustments that could alleviate CCP's and and other players' concerns on boxing. So I support a more aggressive stance towards the announced change, rather than telling the devs - "fine, we'll still do it, but differently".

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Blizzard and Trion did not take input multiplexing from us when they got unhappy with boxers - they determined the areas where boxing became objectionable and implemented in-game changes to address those - i.e. removing /follow from most PvP instances.
Unless I'm forgetting something, there is no place like this in EVE; everywhere is potential PVP. And generally speaking, there is no such thing as /follow or /assist in EVE the way those exist in WoW or Rift.

[Crayonbox]

My god, I haven't been keeping up with this topic after the first weekend, but this has seemed to have exploded on every forum.

For those of you that think this came out of the blue...

Seriously? The entire cloaking mechanic changes that was presented previously was specifically aimed at multiboxers. It had nothing to do with bombing nerfs or with bombers or whatever excuse faclon gave in public. The entire reason for attempting to push that change through was to curb multiboxng. This was obviously not going to work and it was a stupid idea so they retracted it and went back to the drawing boards.

They instead came and went with a ham fisted approach to ban key duplication completely.

I have gotten far too comfortable with key broadcasting and how easy it has been to multibox in eve. and I mean easy relatively compared to multiboxing before the introduction of ISBoxer or Keyclone or whatever broadcasting software people have used. Isboxer is more than a simple broadcast, and there are tons of tools at the user's disposal.

For those of you that are not inclined to utilize those tools and wish to simply stick to broadcasting, I recommend finding a new game to do that in. CCP will most likely not go back on this change in stance towards key duplication, and I am going to continue to play Eve with the assumption that there will be more changes against multiboxing in Eve. I will continue to play until I find that the effort is too much for my enjoyment. And at that point I will most likely simply find a new game to play.

As for those that are going out to other forums and attempting to create a mob to fight these changes.... Don't. All you are doing is bringing even more negative press upon this small group of players who have a different style of gameplay that they enjoy. Every group of players have their trolls and idiots, and we had that Sam Deathwalker guy for a while ( whatever happened to him anyway? ) and we have people like capqu, replicator, and amnzi. These are guys that strictly multibox for attention and for their own gain and not necessarily for the enjoyment of the challenge.

They display their gamestyle out in the open for every one and flaunt it, knowing that the players that can't achieve this kind of playstyle will definitely start gating on them.

Its 2am and I'm a bit exhausted so I'm going to cut this rant here.

[Alex66]

For those of you that are not inclined to utilize those tools and wish to simply stick to broadcasting, I recommend finding a new game to do that in.

What are the tools that can replace repeater region overview mouse broadcasting? Menus that require multiple clicks for alts to target the same ship which is horribly unreliable? Personally, I was unable to think of anything else, and I have been using ISBoxer's features in many games for many years. Just humor us and tell us what the solution is - and the drama will be over :).

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Isboxer is more than a simple broadcast, and there are tons of tools at the user's disposal.

For those of you that are not inclined to utilize those tools and wish to simply stick to broadcasting,


What are the tools that can replace repeater region overview mouse broadcasting? Menus that require multiple clicks for alts to target the same ship which is horribly unreliable? Personally, I was unable to think of anything else, and I have been using ISBoxer's features in many games for many years. Just humor us and tell us what the solution is - and the drama will be over :).

The context of the point as I read it was that CCP has/will banned broadcasting (which includes mouse-click-broadcasting). ISBoxer has several things that could facilitate pretty reliable multiboxing without any multiplexing, albeit less efficiently, which will or won't be tolerable depending on your personality/playstyle/patience/etc. Are you challenging another aspect of this? Either I'm misreading something here or you're being obtuse.

And no, the drama won't be over. It's EVE. There will always be drama.

[Alex66]

What I am saying is that there is no tool in ISBoxer that can replace mouse broadcasting with a degree of reliability required for EVE's dynamic gameplay when multiboxing. Crayonbox says there is, and I was asking him to give me an example and prove me wrong. Now I am asking you the same thing since you also state that "there are things". What are "those things" in ISBoxer? Menus or click bars with mouse sync mapped keys placed over clickable areas which you have to click x times? Placing VFX from each client next to each other and click each one individually? These things? It is "back to stone age" and just a notch above alt-tabbing.

I personally think that Eve boxing (well, maybe not smaller scale mining) will be crippled if CCP makes those changes and any action which can make them to reconsider is worth the effort.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

What I am saying is that there is no tool in ISBoxer that can replace mouse broadcasting with a degree of reliability required for EVE's dynamic gameplay when multiboxing. Crayonbox says there is I'll let crayonbox answer but I did not get that at all.


I personally think that Eve boxing (well, maybe not smaller scale mining) will be crippled if CCP makes those changes and any action which can make them to reconsider is worth the effort.I don't disagree that combat boxing will be largely crippled above a certain fleet size, probably around 5ish. But, "Any action?" "Make" them reconsider? Did you mean to say (but poorly worded it) that coming up with good ideas to persuade them that multiboxing in and of itself isn't evil and please come up with a better way to mitigate large-fleet-boxing, don't-care-how-it-affects-the-world malefactors without torching the gameplay of all the other Good Guy boxers, or are you saying that if they don't give us back broadcasting that we should "burn this bitch down?" It's important that you argue this well; I see about a 90% chance that it's over and there's no going back, and about 10% chance that they'll back off on obligatory punishment and reserve it for people being egregiously disruptive, but that 10% hinges on making a well-reasoned and respectful case throughout the multiboxing community. Tossing around imperatives and being a pain in the ass to deal with is going to do nothing but suggest that they made the right decision in the first place. Rest assured that the exodus of every multiboxer in space will be but a temporary hiccup to EVE.

To paraphrase a scene from Serenity: You are fooling yourself, Captain. Nothing here is what it seems. You are not the plucky hero, CCP is not an evil empire, and this is not the grand arena.

[Alex66]

I meant exactly what I said - "any action which can make them reconsider". that encompasses suggesting alternatives, pleading, boozing, pointing out that they explicitly allowed input multiplexing in the past, and yes, if all of the above fail, threatening the loss of subs. As long as it makes them pause and think again.

[Crayonbox]

Woah, sleep and a day at work, I really don't want to read the crap that I posted, because I'm sure that its going to embarrass me. Rather I'll clarify points that are being quoted because I think I can at least manage that.


The reason I, myself, got into multiboxing is the problem solving aspect of multiboxing excites me. A way to efficiently multibox and approach the game in a manner that the average player does not even consider.

That challenge has been eroded somewhat since the introduction of key duplication.

In no way am I saying there is a loophole or a workaround to the current plan on banning key duplication in all its forms. What I am saying, is that there are other methods of multiboxing, a la alt tab, and creative methods around its usage to aid multiboxers. As Ugh has stated, it may not be as easy or efficient as key duplication, but the multiboxing community is resourceful. There will be people who will try and push the envelope as far as humanly possible without breaking rules. Or at least attempting to bend them, as I've seen players do.

The notion that players can persuade CCP to leave multiboxers alone is a bit naive. If CCP decides not to go through with this chance, they will come down even harder on multiboxers. Limit concurrent clients or ban any third party software completely.

We as multiboxers are a SMALL niche community. There are FAR more single or 2-3 client players that will not hesitate to throw our community under the bus. The constant whining and bitching on public forums about our gameplay style does not help our group at all. The reason for these forums was to bring together our small group of players and allow us to share our thoughts and resources. If people are constantly cross posting our forums to the outside, we lose our haven. Our constant bitching and whining is inviting more trolls to troll us. There is nothing more satisfying for those idiots than to troll people that fall straight into their trolling.

Does this mean we should take this lying down? Hell no. Any breach into our game style is going to invite more, the appropriate way to handle these events is to get in contact with the people that are in charge and discuss this civilly. Angry mob mentality does nothing to help our cause. Talk to GMs, talk to devs, talk to Lax. DO NOT BITCH but have good discussions about the topic.

Another thing NOT to do. Going around every forum explaining workarounds and bragging about how this doesn't affect you and how you can work around it publicly. Again, all this does is attract more negative attention and give the solo players something else to unite and raise their pitch forks over. This can totally be avoided. Take a look at what happened with the cloaking changes. CCP was going to re-introduce a cloaking bug where cloaked ships decloaked each other. This was a stupid change that was aimed specifically at ISBoxer bombers where the problem was. This was a stupid change , and all the players knew it and even the multiboxers ran around screaming how this would change nothing and how they can avoid it easily. Thus, we have the new change in CCP's stance on key duplication.

CCP WANTS to nerf how many clients people can multibox. They are OK with the 5-10 clients people are running. They jsut don't want it to get out of hand like replicator who is obviously abusing the whole thing.

As for my personal stance on these changes, I am not a fan, but I see the need for these changes to be introduced to Eve. As a multiboxer, this will hurt a bit and will cause me to shrink down my accounts from 12 to about 7. However, As a player of Eve who would like this game to continue to grow and be healthy, I think these changes will benefit the community by cutting out the idiots that abuse this community and cause for shitty gaming experience for average players.

[Crayonbox]

I meant exactly what I said - "any action which can make them reconsider". that encompasses suggesting alternatives, pleading, boozing, pointing out that they explicitly allowed input multiplexing in the past, and yes, if all of the above fail, threatening the loss of subs. As long as it makes them pause and think again.


Trust me, they've considered the loss of subs already. There is no way that a change like this can go through without their accounting department raising hell about how many subs that can be potentially lost due to these changes. As for CCP's previous stance on key duplication, they are free to change their stance at any time they wish. The actual stance they had was, "this isn't technically allowed, but we are not going to pursue any violations of this nature at this time." Their EULA did in fact make the use of ISBoxer a non-compliance to the EULA, they just decided to not enforce it until now. Yes, this is a change in stance, but they did not "allow" it previously as so many players are claiming.

As for suggesting an alternative. What alternative could there possibly be to "We don't want you to control so many accounts at once with key duplication" is there? And please do not make any suggestions that are out of self-interest. I have seen so many multiboxers suggesting "Please ban multiboxing for PVP only. Mining shoudln't be affected by this" or "at least let me move things to cans" All of these people are only interested in self preservation of their own game style and they have no interest in an actual alternative to what CCP wants. Only an alternative to what THEY want.

[Alex66]

Good post, Crayonbox. At least now I understand what you were trying to say in the one before (I was under impression you were saying "learn Isboxer, because input broadcasting can be replaced by equally efficient other features in it"). I apologize if I sounded offensive replying to it.

I guess there are different groups of multiboxers in each game - one that grew into boxing a certain game from solo, and one that came into the same game with full team. I am from the latter group in Eve - the game has zero interest to me as solo player, as is going beyond my 5 accounts while boxing. The change affects us somewhat differently too - I view it as a backstab, given that it was very clearly articulated by CCP in the past that input multiplexing is perfectly fine. Can I still box my 5 accounts come Jan 1? Yes. But it will not be the gameplay I came for, and if I decide to quit, it will be with anger at CCP for making me waste time and money because I'd not be nowhere even close to what my plans were in this game.

I only post multiboxer related stuff on this forum and isboxer one, and I never ever tell people in-game that I multibox. I had my share of grief from players in other games. But I feel each of us deserve to let his/her opinion known on this forum too.

Edit: on CCP stance in the past:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10&_ga=1.149389429.272871826.1414934473#274

"Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA."

So, no -they were very explicit about input multiplexing, it was ALLOWED, they were not turning blind eye on it as you say.

[giryan]

Something that I missed about that post initially, and only spotted this morning was the bit directly above the quote you've excerpted:

The old, out of date, post can be seen below as it originally appeared:
So, since GM Lelouch made that addition, in Feb 2013, that's not been the case, and they have been letting it happen it even though they no longer explicitly allowed it.

[Crayonbox]

That post by GM Lelouch has been the bane of CCP since this entire issue has been brought up haha.

GMs do not have the authority to really say what is allowed and what isnt. they merely enforce the "law". They are more like the police. The devs are more like the supreme court and legislature all rolled into one. They are the ones with the absolute power over what is and isnt allowed.

That post has been clarified over and over in following posts about how its still not endorsed or "allowed" per se by CCP but they are are not enforcing said rule. Due to legal reasons, they never say it in those words specifically, but thats the gist of it.

[Alex66]

To my knowledge, CCP has not withrawn Lelouch's statement in the past, they just issued qualifiers. Essentially in lawyer talk I think it means his statement on core input multiplexing is still true. Look at wording of this statement in the latest announcement, they "limit" the use of input broadcasting, rather than "allow" it:

Starting from 01.01.2015 the use of Input Broadcasting and Input Multiplexing is limited to activities which do not impact the Eve universe,

True, they have full rights to change the rules as thy see fit, but I am baffled why some people on this forum appear to defend them and their actions.

"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a constitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution) principle of English law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law) — an essential freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom) of the ordinary citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship).

The jocular saying is that, in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England), "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden"[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed#cite_ note-5) — and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed#cite_ note-6)

... I must be one weird Russian, lol.

P.S. I am also curious how CCP is going to handle false postives arising from fleet warps (as someone on the EVE boards asked https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5262891#post5262891). While it is not input broadcasting, clients will simultaneously register a warp command from one IP, which should get alarm bells ringing at CCP's watchdog.

[Lax]

"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a constitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution) principle of English law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law) — an essential freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom) of the ordinary citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship).

The jocular saying is that, in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England), "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden"[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed#cite_ note-5) — and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed#cite_ note-6)"

Uhh yeah, let us know when EVE is governed by constitutional principles of English law. It is not hard to defend a company that is making changes to try to improve the game, particularly when certain multiboxers have been specifically abusing what they were allowed to do.

[quote]P.S. I am also curious how CCP is going to handle false postives arising from fleet warps (as someone on the EVE boards asked https://forums.eveonline.com/default...91#post5262891 (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5262891#post5262891)). While it is not input broadcasting, clients will simultaneously register a warp command from one IP, which should get alarm bells ringing at CCP's watchdog.
The only false positive you can expect from fleet warps is from player reports, and once they realize they're an idiot for reporting that, they probably won't do it again. It is common knowledge that one person can warp the fleet using functionality built into the game.

[Alex66]

It is not hard to defend a company that is making changes to try to improve the game, particularly when certain multiboxers have been specifically abusing what they were allowed to do.

If someone abuses the rules, make new rules that target abusers, not all populace. CCP is making changes that certainly do not improve the game for me as 5-man boxer, quite the opposite. Besides, one can argue that any game is better off without multiboxers, but developers tolerate us because we bring additional income. There is sort of fragile "understanding" between us, and in case of EVE it is at risk now, arguably because some boxers were abusing the rules, I do not dispute that. Still, I am sure they could have thought of solutions other than outright ban on input multiplexing.

[moog]

It is not hard to defend a company that is making changes to try to improve the game
Are they trying to improve the game?
Or are they just listening to the loudest gobshites on their forum, again?

I don't see anything in the announcement that explains *why* they are making this change?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=387571



particularly when certain multiboxers have been specifically abusing what they were allowed to do.
How is it abuse if it is allowed?

I'm not affected by this change, I stopped 11-boxing Eve when they fucked over ice mining last year.

However, I am appalled at this change.

Everyone goes on about how Eve is a sandbox but it seems you can't quite do anything you want in CCPs sandbox.

Eve has never been about fair fights. The gobshites whining about being ganked by a MB fleet are probably the same motherfuckers who will happily sit on a gate with a fleet and gank pilots just trying to pass through - how is that different? You're dead to the ships from X accounts whether they are being MultiBoxed or not?

Do I get compensation next time a multi-account fleet catches me at a gate? Hypothetical question, really, as I've only lost 2 ships to real people in all my years in Eve and I've never even shot at another person's ship (the only ship I ever killed was my own, when MB targetting went wrong!).

What about the arseholes who, with one account set up a buy order using the Margin Trading scam^H^H^H^H skill and with another advertise/sell the requested goods at OTT prices? That would appear to be multiple accounts having an impact on the EVE universe!

Eve is such a dichotomy - on the one hand it is an immensely addictive game which I keep coming back to whilst on the other it is full of the biggest bunch of cunts in the gaming environment, who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire!

[pinotnoir]

Are they trying to improve the game?
Or are they just listening to the loudest gobshites on their forum, again?

I don't see anything in the announcement that explains *why* they are making this change?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=387571



How is it abuse if it is allowed?

I'm not affected by this change, I stopped 11-boxing Eve when they fucked over ice mining last year.

However, I am appalled at this change.

Everyone goes on about how Eve is a sandbox but it seems you can't quite do anything you want in CCPs sandbox.

Eve has never been about fair fights. The gobshites whining about being ganked by a MB fleet are probably the same motherfuckers who will happily sit on a gate with a fleet and gank pilots just trying to pass through - how is that different? You're dead to the ships from X accounts whether they are being MultiBoxed or not?

Do I get compensation next time a multi-account fleet catches me at a gate? Hypothetical question, really, as I've only lost 2 ships to real people in all my years in Eve and I've never even shot at another person's ship (the only ship I ever killed was my own, when MB targetting went wrong!).

What about the arseholes who, with one account set up a buy order using the Margin Trading scam^H^H^H^H skill and with another advertise/sell the requested goods at OTT prices? That would appear to be multiple accounts having an impact on the EVE universe!

Eve is such a dichotomy - on the one hand it is an immensely addictive game which I keep coming back to whilst on the other it is full of the biggest bunch of cunts in the gaming environment, who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire!

I totally agree. Eve allows the most rotten of scammers to operate. We have spies killing billion isk ships people stealing corp assets, exploitation of the noobs and economy for personal gain, massive capital fleets that can roll anything in the game. Yet hey are concerned with multiboxers affecting game play? WTF? Abusing mutliboxing..what a joke. I guess when a fleet of neutrals come into my system to kill my miners I must be abusing the system by trying to run and hide. I live in Catch where PL is roaming in capital fleets with titans taking system after system. There is nothing anyone can do to stop them but multiboxing is the problem huh. A few days ago they were roaming with 7 titans and about 20 supers not to mention their sub cap fleet. The only thing keeping them from just taking all of catch is they like cat and mouse games. They are the cat just swatting around the little mice. If they kill the mouse they would have no more fun. So if CCP is worried about anything having a negative effect on game play they need to focus their attention on their game mechanics instead of multiboxers.

[spf]

<3 Moog

[bugme143]

If someone abuses the rules, make new rules that target abusers, not all populace. CCP is making changes that certainly do not improve the game for me as 5-man boxer, quite the opposite. Besides, one can argue that any game is better off without multiboxers, but developers tolerate us because we bring additional income. There is sort of fragile "understanding" between us, and in case of EVE it is at risk now, arguably because some boxers were abusing the rules, I do not dispute that. Still, I am sure they could have thought of solutions other than outright ban on input multiplexing.

Exactly.
Took some time to browse the F&I forum to find a lot of posts regarding ideas on how to balance multiboxing and EVE. I grouped them into "Mining (ice, ore, gas), Anoms+Missions, Incursions, PvP, and Bombing.

Anoms+Missions had the fewest threads regarding ISBoxers, since any idiot can toss an AFKTar into a Sanctum and earn 60m isk/hour or whatever it is, and multibox missioning, even L5, is garbage income.
Next fewest was PvP, but most of it was filled with ISBoxer gank fluff complaining that their Fenrir with 20b in modules was ganked, followed by just about everyone in the thread saying that they would've been ganked even if we limited EVE to 1 client / computer.
Next was mining. A lot of interesting ideas, ranging from increased rat spawns and toughness and re-balance the bounties, to minigames on lasers. My personal favorites was Minigames on the lasers (reduce m3 amount, add minigame to reward non-afkers with extra yield/faster cycles) and one oddball suggestion (not in the forums, in mining chat) to implement a "interference" modifier to mining lasers so that you start to hit diminishing returns once you get to 50+ on a belt.
Next was incursions. Lots of complaints about boxers, but lots of rebuttals regarding training time, risk and numbers, and false comparisons (e.g. comparing BNI to PL or BL). One thing I did like was a reduction of ISK payouts and an increase in LP payouts, requiring a player to "work harder" for his full ISK return, just like the ESS idea for nullsec (on the record, I still thing the ESS was retarded, but I do enjoy the BRs of the carebears defending it).
Then, bombing. Fairly certain this was the largest of the groups because of the latest issue with the (supposedly (lolright)) reimbursed Rorqual. Lots of ideas, ranging from un-reversing the decloak change (remember when the boxers told CCP it wouldn't work?), to removing bombs (wasn't the rorq killed by torps only?), to some decent ideas such as increasing sig radius of bombers, or reducing agility again. My favorite was implementing a 4-digit arming-code that must be entered when a bomb is in space in order for it to explode. As for the issue with torps being unbalanced on stealth bombers, there isn't really much that CCP can do in my eyes besides increasing align time or increasing sig-rad to help "balance" them, and even then, I'd be skeptical as I've seen first-hand the effectiveness of insta-canes and Zealots used in anti-bomber roles, and I've seen them slowly disappear.

CCP wants to be taken seriously in the MMO world, but changes like the latest announcement remind everyone of the GTA V thing where a small bunch of vocal wingnuts got Target to pull the game after lying through their teeth in the petition article.

[pinotnoir]

Exactly.
Took some time to browse the F&I forum to find a lot of posts regarding ideas on how to balance multiboxing and EVE. I grouped them into "Mining (ice, ore, gas), Anoms+Missions, Incursions, PvP, and Bombing.

Anoms+Missions had the fewest threads regarding ISBoxers, since any idiot can toss an AFKTar into a Sanctum and earn 60m isk/hour or whatever it is, and multibox missioning, even L5, is garbage income.
Next fewest was PvP, but most of it was filled with ISBoxer gank fluff complaining that their Fenrir with 20b in modules was ganked, followed by just about everyone in the thread saying that they would've been ganked even if we limited EVE to 1 client / computer.
Next was mining. A lot of interesting ideas, ranging from increased rat spawns and toughness and re-balance the bounties, to minigames on lasers. My personal favorites was Minigames on the lasers (reduce m3 amount, add minigame to reward non-afkers with extra yield/faster cycles) and one oddball suggestion (not in the forums, in mining chat) to implement a "interference" modifier to mining lasers so that you start to hit diminishing returns once you get to 50+ on a belt.
Next was incursions. Lots of complaints about boxers, but lots of rebuttals regarding training time, risk and numbers, and false comparisons (e.g. comparing BNI to PL or BL). One thing I did like was a reduction of ISK payouts and an increase in LP payouts, requiring a player to "work harder" for his full ISK return, just like the ESS idea for nullsec (on the record, I still thing the ESS was retarded, but I do enjoy the BRs of the carebears defending it).
Then, bombing. Fairly certain this was the largest of the groups because of the latest issue with the (supposedly (lolright)) reimbursed Rorqual. Lots of ideas, ranging from un-reversing the decloak change (remember when the boxers told CCP it wouldn't work?), to removing bombs (wasn't the rorq killed by torps only?), to some decent ideas such as increasing sig radius of bombers, or reducing agility again. My favorite was implementing a 4-digit arming-code that must be entered when a bomb is in space in order for it to explode. As for the issue with torps being unbalanced on stealth bombers, there isn't really much that CCP can do in my eyes besides increasing align time or increasing sig-rad to help "balance" them, and even then, I'd be skeptical as I've seen first-hand the effectiveness of insta-canes and Zealots used in anti-bomber roles, and I've seen them slowly disappear.

CCP wants to be taken seriously in the MMO world, but changes like the latest announcement remind everyone of the GTA V thing where a small bunch of vocal wingnuts got Target to pull the game after lying through their teeth in the petition article.

Mini game or diminishing returns on lasers is a terrible idea. You cannot afk while multiboxing mining. You have to constantly change lasers on different ice/rocks, jetcan your ore, and haul it. The only way you can afk mine is with 1 toon on a large rock. When I am in the ice belt with perfect boost "23second cycles" the ice dies fast and I am always changing targets. If they messed with that it would not only discourage multiboxers from mining it would piss off the solo players too.

[bugme143]

Mini game or diminishing returns on lasers is a terrible idea. You cannot afk while multiboxing mining. You have to constantly change lasers on different ice/rocks, jetcan your ore, and haul it. The only way you can afk mine is with 1 toon on a large rock. When I am in the ice belt with perfect boost "23second cycles" the ice dies fast and I am always changing targets. If they messed with that it would not only discourage multiboxers from mining it would piss off the solo players too.

Thank you for teaching me more about ISBoxing. I never ISBox mined, and the miners who I attempted to talk to in-game treated me like a CODE agent, so my experience is very limited.

What if they introduced the minigame without reducing the yield? As long as a player (or boxer) could re-position it and it doesn't hog the focus on screen, I think that wouldn't cause any issues.

[pinotnoir]

Thank you for teaching me more about ISBoxing. I never ISBox mined, and the miners who I attempted to talk to in-game treated me like a CODE agent, so my experience is very limited.

What if they introduced the minigame without reducing the yield? As long as a player (or boxer) could re-position it and it doesn't hog the focus on screen, I think that wouldn't cause any issues.


Things you do as a miner in null are manage your hold, jetcan when needed, change crystals, target rocks, & watch local like a hawk. It does not need a mini game. If you are multiboxing it becomes a ton of clicking.

[bugme143]

Things you do as a miner in null are manage your hold, jetcan when needed, change crystals, target rocks, & watch local like a hawk. It does not need a mini game. If you are multiboxing it becomes a ton of clicking.

My only real mining experience came from a mandatory mining op in nullsec with Rorq boosts, Orcas, and guards/scouts.
Do mining crystals not auto-reload when they become depleted?

[EaTCarbS]

My only real mining experience came from a mandatory mining op in nullsec with Rorq boosts, Orcas, and guards/scouts.
Do mining crystals not auto-reload when they become depleted?

don't recall, but you'll be swapping to new ones every time you mine a different type of ore. (because each ore has its own crystal)

[bugme143]

don't recall, but you'll be swapping to new ones every time you mine a different type of ore. (because each ore has its own crystal)
Right, knew that bit. I'm guessing that it would work similarly to pulse/tachyon lasers, in regards to timing the swaps and stuff. I know that I'd regularly hit issues with my NM fleet where broken crystals didn't always cycle in a new one so I'd have to manually unload + load it, reducing my efficiency.

[EaTCarbS]

They take a good while to deplete, so its not a huge issue.

[shadowandlight]

Have we still not heard back from CCP? They haven't responded in the main forum thread nor have I heard any activity on them sitting down to answer the questions we compiled.

I'm at a loss on why they refuse to communicate with the multiboxing community, the only thing I have read was a few sentences of "we don't plan on communicating further" on a reddit post a few days back.

[shadowssinging]

This makes most things a little bit harder, and some things a lot harder. It doesn't as some have said prevent you from multiboxing effectively, but it does prevent you from multiboxing perfectly.

For those that don't use isboxer at all, or who use it only for window management, it's business as usual. For those who relied input multoboxing and broadcasting before today, it became a little more complicated, maybe even challenging

There is a diminishing return on multiboxing without the aid of broadcasting. For me, I manage 5 clients without any difficulty for PvE, (afktar anomoly ratting or mining) and could probably manage 4-5 more if my connection and hardware could handle it, Beyond that, I'd be stretching the limits of my ability to stagger the timing between having to reposition each ship, fiddle with drones, modules, etc.

For PvP, 2-3 clients is the limit of what I can manage effectively, but that's just the characters in combat- there's room for another 2 or 3 to run cynos, scout, off grid boosts, or bridging blops/titans. That's going to be a bigger change for a lot of people - PvP is way more demanding, and trying to split attention between multiple clients is hard. The difficulty of fleet ejngagements primarily comes from coordinating multiple players with their own diffrent motivations and skills to shoot the right targets at the right time, or move together at the same time. Input broadcasting completely triviallized that element of difficulty, much to the grief of other players, which I think is one of the strongest arguments behind the ban.

There are some pretty strong remaining arguments:

As some have noted earlier. the behavior similarities of certian multiboxing PvE setups, and bot PvE have probably complicated efforts to effectively enforce the EULA. against botters.
Economics and mechanics of mining and large scale multiboxing have made it extremely unattractive for smaller operations as larger and larger multiboxed mining fleets have pushed prices down. Reasonable profits can't currently be made from mining without at least half a dozen clients, and profits competitive with other activities require dozens of clients.


With that said, mutiboxing is far from dead, and with game mechanics that actively encourage, and in many cases require muitiple accounts, we'll see it continue to be important to the game. People will have to adjust and adapt, the same activities may not be possible, in some cases the same scale may not be possible, but there will still be compelling reasons and effective ways to run anywhere from 2 to perhaps 2 dozen clients.