Questions for CCP regarding January 2015 rules

[Lax]

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

Here's some examples of things that seem clear:

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


Here's examples of things that are not clear:

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



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

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




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


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

[gomeler]

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

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

[pinotnoir]

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

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

[thedevilyouknow]

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

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

What a disappointment.

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


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

Hell no

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

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

[pinotnoir]

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



Hell no

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

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

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

[thedevilyouknow]

It's worth asking.

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

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

[pinotnoir]

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

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

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

[thedevilyouknow]

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

But yes may as well ask everything.

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

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

Will we get compensation if we do get banned unfairly

[Alex66]

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

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

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

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

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

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

^^ yep, sorry about that.

[Crionic]

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





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


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

[thedevilyouknow]

Setting up a programmable keyboard to press F1 then F2 then F3 then F4 then F5 to automatically send inputs to all of the windows in the above example: not okay, this has not been okay, this will not be okay, no no no, die in a fire.

Not really clear on what this means to be honest

[Lax]

Not really clear on what this means to be honest
It means pretty much what it says. Programmable hardware (e.g. just about any "Gaming" keyboard/mouse) can be configured to press several buttons in a row for you, including with delays. Combine that with the example line directly above it, where F1 is sent to one window, F2 to another, and so on. This would mean you press one button on your programmable keyboard to initiate, and then watch as keys are sent to all windows.

[thedevilyouknow]

was under the impression that gaming keyboards / mice were okay to use, is it specifically in conjunction with isboxer?

[gomeler]

was under the impression that gaming keyboards / mice were okay to use, is it specifically in conjunction with isboxer?

Macros are not legal and never have been legal. A programmable gaming keyboard/mouse operates via macros if it is playing back a sequence of keystrokes. If it is simply remapping F1 to a button on the mouse, that is legal, as it isn't a macro.

Solid definition of a macro -> a single instruction that expands automatically into a set of instructions to perform a particular task.

[thedevilyouknow]

Macros are not legal and never have been legal. A programmable gaming keyboard/mouse operates via macros if it is playing back a sequence of keystrokes. If it is simply remapping F1 to a button on the mouse, that is legal, as it isn't a macro.

Solid definition of a macro -> a single instruction that expands automatically into a set of instructions to perform a particular task.

I hate this grey area nonsense

Quick search of the Eve forums from people who have asked via ticket or general forum mongering, that keyboard macros are legal

Edit: can't find a more recent dev post on a forum but:

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1321518

[Khatovar]

was under the impression that gaming keyboards / mice were okay to use, is it specifically in conjunction with isboxer?

I'd venture at least 75% of the users here have a gaming mouse and/or keyboard. I myself have a g600 gaming mouse and previously used a Razer Naga. I am free to use MOST functions of the mouse in any game. What you can NOT do is use the macro functions in the mouse/keyboard {or whatever other peripherals} software to create macros or buttons that repeat an action on its own {either upon 1 press or while held down}, initiates a string of commands or otherwise violates a game's rules. There's nothing wrong with gaming keyboards/mice - it's using the automated functions of the software {which use loops/repeats/delays/strings} that is against the rules. It has nothing to do with ISBoxer or any program in particular, you can get banned for automating no matter how you do it. Just because a specific program is allowed {or even "not disallowed"} does not mean the rules change. The rules are always the first step and last step in the "Is this ok?" flow-chart.

Also keep in mind, automation is not exclusive to multiboxing. Automating is against the rules for everyone, thus the "automation guideline" of "1 keypress = 1 action." Even though it seems to get tied to multiboxers all the time, the only part that applies to us specifically is the addendum in each game that states whether or not that 1 action can take place in multiple windows at a time or not.

If anyone has questions about what is and is not automation, I'd suggest reading the WoW Blue Posts thread. (http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/46453-Blues-on-Boxing) Even though we are talking about EvE, they very explicitly and repeatedly explain what is and is not automation. Their definition is generally a good starting point for understanding what many game companies view as automated play/botting. Keep in mind, that's only a starting point; Blizz doesn't make the rules for the whole world.

[Alex66]

Here's the one directly from EVE forums, but pretty much says what Khatovar says above

"Hello there,

To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.

Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).

An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!

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.

I hope this clears up this matter."

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10&_ga=1.149389429.272871826.1414934473#274

[thedevilyouknow]

Regardless of what the rules for hardware and the software that could tag with them are

It is simply a symptom of the disease, CCP's M.O for wanted to talk about any positive spin on the company and its game
I.e. answering questions about new features, talking up ideas on reddit, hyping them up

But when it comes to anything possibly controversial (the grey zone) they dodge, don't return petitions and are generally evasive


For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed

Exactly what I was looking for thank you

[Alex66]

Exactly what I was looking for thank you

Note he also said "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" and now it is being reversed. So...

[thedevilyouknow]

Note he also said "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" and now it is being reversed. So...

Yes but that wasn't the part I was looking at

(lazyquote)If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted.(/lazyquote)

Synergy in this case being isboxer
Other program, in this case being the keyboard button that presses F1-F?

The scenario I had in mind was to just use keyboard buttons to operate if for 1 stroke per client, not send a command to more than 1 client at once

[Lax]

Alright.. I updated the original post to put the programmable keyboard under "unclear".

[Seethingmadness]

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

[/LIST]

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

I did the same thing and advised them that I traveled internationally work.

[Seethingmadness]

I use my Gkeys to transmit Alt-Ctr-1 and such to open inventory windows. Technically this is a macro?

[shadowandlight]

I use my Gkeys to transmit Alt-Ctr-1 and such to open inventory windows. Technically this is a macro?

Technically? I suppose if there is at least 2 actions done by the keystroke then yes. However the current war with CCP is are you sending 1+ keystrokes to 2+ clients

[Alex66]

http://isboxer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29674#p29674

So it has started already, 4-man miner team banned for broadcasting, even though the new policy is officially not in effect yet. The sooner the talk takes place, the better.

[gomeler]

http://isboxer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29674#p29674

So it has started already, 4-man miner team banned for broadcasting, even though the new policy is officially not in effect yet. The sooner the talk takes place, the better.

Eh, that's one guy reporting that, and it is highly suspicious. CCP might be taking a hardline approach towards multiboxing but they've clearly stated a time/date. If all you are doing is broadcasting, and an ignorant GM smacks you with the hammer, it should be a trivial process to get that reversed. Come Jan 1st however, that may not be the case, if you are coordinating with ISBoxer but not broadcasting and are reported as doing so.

[LordsServant]

Eh, that's one guy reporting that, and it is highly suspicious. CCP might be taking a hardline approach towards multiboxing but they've clearly stated a time/date. If all you are doing is broadcasting, and an ignorant GM smacks you with the hammer, it should be a trivial process to get that reversed. Come Jan 1st however, that may not be the case, if you are coordinating with ISBoxer but not broadcasting and are reported as doing so.

This p. much. If he was banned for broadcasting, it should be easy to get unbanned.

If he was banned for something else (hmm, miners) and is assuming it's broadcasting, could be a bit different.

It could also be someone just trying to whip ppl up into a frenzy for whatever reason.

I wouldn't worry that much about that specific instance.

[thedevilyouknow]

Any news from CCP? or are they still mute to any attempt at communication regarding ISBoxer and things we can do with it?

[Khatovar]

Ok, I guess my words were broken last time (http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/51758-CCP-prohibiting-input-broadcasting-multiplexing-beginning-January-2015?p=394795&viewfull=1#post394795). I'll spell it out again -

Excessive Swearing = Forum Vacation
Flaming other members = Forum Vacation
Otherwise violating Wheaton's Law (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law) = Forum Vacation

This isn't the Jerry Springer Show. Attacking other members is not acceptable. If you've got a point to make, make it civilly and be done. If you have a problem with another member, Ignore them by going into their profile and clicking the "Add to Ignore List" link. If someone is violating the rules (http://www.dual-boxing.com/threads/49138-Dual-Boxing-com-Community-Rules-Read-Before-Posting), report them and let the mods deal with it.

These threads are important to people here and you can bet your booty that people outside this community, including those you are looking to sway, are reading it. This personal squabble is not doing anyone any favors.

[LordsServant]

Any news from CCP? or are they still mute to any attempt at communication regarding ISBoxer and things we can do with it?

Yes, I have arranged a meeting with CCP directly.

When I have more info, you guys will have more info.

All we need to do is chill out and wait for the meeting to happen.

They've agreed to meet with us and will discuss things and answer our questions at that time.

Everyone needs to relax and not post on the forums - the relevant people are at best ignoring you and waiting for the meeting they agreed to, and at worst, getting ticked off at the people acting like spoiled 2 year olds.

Chill out, WAIT for the meeting, ATTEND THE MEETING, and then we'll have a powwow in regards to how we as a the Eve multiboxer community plan to move forward with multiboxing in eve.

I'm usually reachable ingame through the channel "Oatmeal", or through any of my characters (asking in oatmeal will usually get a response from me if I'm there, or someone can usually tell you).

I also idle relatively often in the isboxer irc chat with the username "Lords".

[IronSatan]

http://praisebobpodcast.blogspot.com/2014/12/multiboxers-crucified-episode-23.html

[K'man]

http://praisebobpodcast.blogspot.com/2014/12/multiboxers-crucified-episode-23.html

All I want to ask is why was this podcast/write up necessary?

[bugme143]

My list of questions for CCP:

Has anyone in CCP used ISBoxer before? If so, what kind of fleet/setup? How complicated was it? How long did it take you to create it?
Has anyone in CCP ever sat down with Lax or MiRai before and asked questions regarding the limitations of ISBoxer?
Are the rumors true of multiboxers being banned preemptively? How can we be sure that we won't be banned if we follow your new guidelines?
Has CCP made any effort to consider solutions to the more "in-the-spotlight" multiboxing, namely, 4-digit arming code for bombs, active minigame for miners, and reducing ISK reward while increasing LP reward for incursions?
Has CCP considered that ISBoxers are at a disadvantage when it comes to adjusting to new conditions on the battlefield, including EWAR, and are slower to adapt or respond to the new conditions than non-boxers?
What is the official comment on CCP Seagull going around at Fanfest telling people "multiboxers have nothing to worry about" and other notable CCP Devs doing the same at EVE Vegas?


And finally, what is CCP's comment on the notion that CODE leads to more players quitting than an ISBoxer?
e:
Is CCP willing to make a distinction between "interaction in the community" and "useful interaction in the community"? CODE "interacts" with the EVE playerbase quite a bit, however that interaction, while noble in it's anti-bot origins, has degraded to "shoot any miner in any belt" and cannot in any way be constituted as "useful interaction".

[Lax]

Has anyone in CCP used ISBoxer before?
There is at least one CCP employee with an active personal ISBoxer account. The same can be said about most MMORPG publishers.


Has anyone in CCP ever sat down with Lax or MiRai before and asked questions regarding the limitations of ISBoxer?
A CCP employee has figuratively "sat down and asked questions" but nothing related to input or broadcasting.

[Crayonbox]

All I want to ask is why was this podcast/write up necessary?

Saw this on reddit and ignored it. I'll listen to it i guess -_-;; I'm sure this is going to be a whole lot of whining.


edit: 10 minutes in and whatever this guy has to say afterwards is completely negative and ignored due to the one fact that he admitted to botting in other games.

Good job. Learn to rhetoric.

[LordsServant]

Hello,

I am writing to you because I can't register on dual-boxing for some reason. This should be a contribution to the Questions to CCP thread.
I am multiboxing nullsec ratting and followed the discussion from the beginning. Things that came to my mind that are not entirely clear:

1. (only applies if round robin is okay) What would happen if I configure ISBoxer to send F1 to a character whenever I press F1 OR F2 (you can extend this to any number of buttons), for example by a multistep action with multiple hotkeys? So I could spam F1+F2 at the same time and 2 characters would activate their weapons/tank modules/whatever at the same time, but I also pressed two buttons for it (2 Buttons -> 2 actions). This can be extended to lots of buttons of course, so it would be theoretically possible to make 10 characters fire at the same time by pressing 10 different buttons, but each of these buttons sends the same command (for example F1) to one character at a time.
What also comes up here is false positives of course. If I smash 10 Buttons all at the same time then for the server it looks like I just sent 10x F1 to different chars, just like when I am broadcasting, will CCP be able to detect this?

2. This one came up for me when I thought about how to handle targeting, but might be useful for other stuff, too. The idea is basically the same as the one described in the first post on dual-boxing in the category "Here's examples of things that are not clear:" in the third point.
When I click the left mouse key, then it will click ingame and then switches to the next character (hold down STRG while you do it and you are targeting). If this is okay, then what would happen if I assign the action "Click left mouse button" to the scroll wheel of a programmable mouse? I could scroll non stop, hold STRG and move the mouse along the overview to target all the things on different characters within seconds (or do something else).
So in short: Is it okay to assign actions to your scroll wheel (because you can click extremely fast with it)? Taking this one step further: If you had a free mouse wheel (frictionless) then you could start it once and it would keep scrolling automatically for a few seconds (=> automated gameplay?)

Both of these seem small, but it could result in perfect anomaly ratting (which might also be what CCP does not want with 10+ accounts) by:
1. Spam F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 with your left hand => 4 characters fire at a time (false positives!)
2. Hold STRG (or an assigned button on your mouse), scroll with your mouse wheel non stop and move your mouse over your overview

I would have posted this on dual-boxing if I could, you may quote parts or all of this anywhere you want. Maybe you can get this to somewhere where it matters, if you think it's shit just leave it here.

Best regards,
Elmira

Post edited -- Feel free to refrain from posting if you have no valid input on the matter.
-MiRai

[K'man]

Everyone said it for me so I don't have to about that podcast but at least it does bring up other perspectives from others not on this site.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2o8ucr/isboxer_tears_on_podcast/

[bugme143]

There is at least one CCP employee with an active personal ISBoxer account. The same can be said about most MMORPG publishers.
A CCP employee has figuratively "sat down and asked questions" but nothing related to input or broadcasting.

Please do not misconstrue my questions as anger or hatred against you or Mirai or anyone else involved in the development of ISBoxer. I have the utmost respect for you in the creation of ISBoxer and your wondrous videos. I'm simply tired of getting hit over the head with a rubber dildo whenever I try to have fun or challenge myself in EVE.

[IronSatan]

Everyone said it for me so I don't have to about that podcast but at least it does bring up other perspectives from others not on this site.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2o8ucr/isboxer_tears_on_podcast/

WOW you guys are dicks to people trying to help the community out. Just saying, instead of bitching and bitching do something constructive like help us represent ourselves better. I agree I probably should have not mentioned my activities in other games but its just that, other games. Either way, start helping...or quite whining pick one.

[bugme143]

WOW you guys are dicks to people trying to help the community out. Just saying, instead of bitching and bitching do something constructive like help us represent ourselves better. I agree I probably should have not mentioned my activities in other games but its just that, other games. Either way, start helping...or quite whining pick one.

Meh, it's the same thing that's starting to happen with GamerGate. There, people are starting to get pissed off that the companies that they purchased from and is the target audience not step forward and defend themselves or their userbase. People are not happy.

[EaTCarbS]

ultimately, we'll have to adapt or die. I'm sure plenty of folks have already adapted to the change instead of spending their time complaining about it. I'm not boxing right now, but I already have a plan ready to handle the change if I ever do again. Sky isn't falling, EVE will live on. Multibox bombers in pvp and incursions is supreme bullshit and everyone knows it. Its the easiest and most appealing to the community method for CCP to approach the problems. It's unfortunate they couldn't actually balance/fix the game.

[bugme143]

Meh. Most of the "hurr bombers OP" BRs I've seen (and videos) lack any sort of anti-bomber support or defensive bubbling to prevent it. Literally just a fleet of Pests and Rokhs and zero canes, zealots, or other anti-bomber support boat, or anyone dropping defensive bubbles around the current fleet.

As for most of the "hurr incursions" idiots, they're trying to compare the ISBoxer's top deadspace fitted ships and know-how to the likes of EVE-Uni's kitchen sink fleet. Fallacy of equal comparison.

[EaTCarbS]

Meh. Most of the "hurr bombers OP" BRs I've seen (and videos) lack any sort of anti-bomber support or defensive bubbling to prevent it. Literally just a fleet of Pests and Rokhs and zero canes, zealots, or other anti-bomber support boat, or anyone dropping defensive bubbles around the current fleet.

So the opposition immediately blaps all your 0 tank instacanes, then goes to work on the battleships. You know theres a reason why nobody uses battlecruisers as a support fleet (mainly because they're just terrible overall right now). I actually do anti-bomber work for large fleets, and using instacanes is the worst idea ever. There are cheaper and more effective alternatives.

The trend now is to drop battleship doctrines altogether in favor of t3/hacs so you don't have bomber problems.


As for most of the "hurr incursions" idiots, they're trying to compare the ISBoxer's top deadspace fitted ships and know-how to the likes of EVE-Uni's kitchen sink fleet. Fallacy of equal comparison.

Because only isboxers bling fit their incursion ships... lol. The problem with incursions isn't that people box them, but they give way too much isk vs risk. of course ccp wont nerf them cause half their playerbase would quit.

[bugme143]

So the opposition immediately blaps all your 0 tank instacanes, then goes to work on the battleships. You know theres a reason why nobody uses battlecruisers as a support fleet (mainly because they're just terrible overall right now). I actually do anti-bomber work for large fleets, and using instacanes is the worst idea ever. There are cheaper and more effective alternatives.
The trend now is to drop battleship doctrines altogether in favor of t3/hacs so you don't have bomber problems.
Because only isboxers bling fit their incursion ships... lol. The problem with incursions isn't that people box them, but they give way too much isk vs risk. of course ccp wont nerf them cause half their playerbase would quit.

Meh, I saw armorcanes and ahacs used very effectively against bombers back in the Fountain war, not to mention MWD sabres successfully bubbling the bombers / their exit route before they could warp. I haven't been in nullsec for quite some time, so no doubt stuff has changed. But yeah, now with Ishtar Online and BL's Tengu fleets, bombs aren't as effective due to aiming issues.

I'm not saying only boxers bling, I'm just saying people aren't comparing the ISBoxer's bling to ISN or DKY's super shiny elite fleets as they should be. They're instead comparing the shiny elite boxer to a kitchen sink fleet and saying "this is unfair", while hiding the fact that they're engaging in a false comparison fallacy. And as I told CCP, if we reduced the raw ISK payouts and increased the LP payouts, people would be forced to engage in the ISK sink that is the CONCORD LP store, or use the sink that occurs when people xfer to other corporations.