You're going to have to explain this statement to me (and probably others). What are the two actions you speak of?Originally Posted by LordsServant
You're not going to get a reply that says "X feature is allowed." How many times do people have to keep repeating this?
Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.
Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology
X feature is not allowed is very similar to X feature is allowed, just a matter on semantics and which what we do to our checklist, tick or cross
Ive already gotten a response as to what is not allowed, however am not taking that is "everything i did not mention is allowed" so excuse me on wanting clarification
So, when they say that X feature is allowed, and then X feature changes because it's out of their control... Then what? Then you wait for a new response? What if they change their minds about feature X in two months and they stop allowing it? Are you on a mailing list to get that updated information? What if you don't know that they changed their mind for that one feature and now you're at risk for using it?
This is the exact same in every single game that we, as players, multibox. Blizzard doesn't tell us what features aren't allowed, they give us a guideline for what is allowed and we adhere to it because they would never, and probably cannot legally, state publicly, on their forum, what features of X third-party program are allowed, and aren't allowed. The same goes for Trion, SquareEnix, CCP, NCSoft, etc. because if they do not control what that feature of the third-party program can do, then they cannot make that statement with confidence. If they were to give specifics like what you're asking, then people would take those statements, build a setup around that statement, and then try to play innocent when the banhammer comes because they weren't actually adhering the original guideline.
Video FX can break the "one action, per key press, per game client" rule set by CCP if you configure them a certain way, so for them to specifically state that the Video FX feature is 100% allowed would be highly unlikely. So, instead, they say what is allowed, which is "one action, per key press, per game client," and you adhere to those rules instead.
With everything said above, I'm not here to argue about what others have or haven't been adhering to and why they've been the victim of temporary suspensions, I'm just making an argument for why you won't get them to state that X feature is allowed, and even if you could, it's likely unofficial or "off the record."
Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.
Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology
You clearly haven't been paying attention, they sent out petitions in copy paste glory, they've changed their stance
Even those who may have previously abiding by the 1 to 1 rule, if anyone is overly efficient to anyone else who plays the game then the multiboxer would get banned
So in that regard, if they can change the statemented "rule" they made official - unofficially - then it isn't too much to ask for what is if they have already listed every other feature of isboxer as illegal or legal and im waiting for the last little clarification
Well, on one hand you ignored my entire post and picked out one sentence, and on the other hand, you've reinforced exactly why it's silly to ask for specifics, but I'd also ask that you provide a link to CCP giving an unofficial statement about how being too efficient when multiboxing will land you a ban, because if you don't have a link then it's based purely upon the speculation in this thread.
Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.
Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology
NP, thought I'd mentioned it here somewhere, but I'll explain it again.
----------
Input on Left, Action on Right:
Vanilla Player:
f1 OR click module --> activate module on eve client 1.
alt tab OR move mouse to other eve window --> swap focus to different eve window.
f1 OR click module --> active module on eve client 2.
Isboxing Round Robin:
f1 --> f1 on eve client 1.
f1 --> f1 on eve client 2.
Isboxing Simple VideoFX:
f1 OR click module --> activate module on eve client 1.
move mouse to other eve window OR hit ctrl+"some number" (in my setups case) --> swap focus to different eve window.
f1 OR click module --> activate module on eve client 2.
-------------------
You'll notice two of these are almost identical.
Can you tell me which of those is not like the others?
If you said Round Robin, you'd be correct.
Somewhere between:
"f1 --> f1 on eve client 1."
and
"f1 --> f1 on eve client 2."
there is a:
???? --> Swap Window Focus.
You argue it differently if you want, but you still end up with:
"f1 --> f1 on eve client 1."
"f1 --> swap window focus to eve client 2."
"??? --> f1 on eve client 2."
You can't explain to me how you're swapping window focus - that is an action that must be taken by a vanilla user, and using round robin completely circumvents it.
I'm not sure how Rollover works, since it's not the rollover I originally envisioned (manually spam f1, then move your mouse over various eve windows to hit f1 when your mouse moves over it), but if it does ANYTHING like round robin - then it is also breaking the 1 input, 1 output rule.
Anyone can argue these points til they're blue in the face, but the evidence sorta speaks for itself. I'm not banned, despite putting up a video myself, and with one of my accounts stolen a month or so ago, CCP went over my shit with a fine-toothed comb - they knew my accounts, how many I had, what they flew, what they did, etc etc - no bans or mention of isboxer(or "macro use" as they'd call it when done illegally).
------------
I also want to echo Mirai again with a "CCP will NEVER say 'isboxer feature xxy is perfectly ok,' since they cannot talk about specific stuff." If you want, just think of translating a different language.
Macro Use = any program interacting with the game. Isboxer is such a program. They're not gonna call you out for "isboxer use."
Hopefully that clears some stuff up.
I would never consider changing window focus to be an in-game action since it's a function of the operating system, but if what you say is true, then...
Two Mapped Keys:
Pressing F1, from Slot 1, sends F1 to Slot 1
Pressing F2, from Slot 1, sends F1 to Slot 2
Those are two completely separate Mapped Keys not using round-robin, but they can both function just fine w/o having to change window focus, so... Where (or when) is the window focus change happening in my example?
Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.
Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology
It's happening when you press f2. You instantly swap focus to slot 2 and send the f1 there. If you say "but I'm still focused on window 1" then it's even worse - you're swapping focus to window 2, activating a command, then swapping back to window 1 all in one go.
Even if you want to argue that it's not for arguments sake - vanilla players cannot do the same thing no matter what.
It's been well established for a very long time (see: Bacon back in 2007 or something, along with many others) that using a program that specifically gives you the ability to do something impossible to do as a player in the vanilla game is a big "NOAP."
Isboxer entirely aside, throwing commands out to various clients without having to swap windows/window focus is entirely against the EULA for that reason.
I'm happy to casually debate in a friendly manner, but the evidence speaks for itself - I'm not banned, despite CCP having an EXTREMELY close look at my actions and accounts, while everyone who we know for a FACT has been petitioned that uses round robin/rollover - has been banned.
Looks pretty cut and dry to me.
Unless of course they're using multiple computers where multiple windows can stay in focus, and you can control both with the same keyboard by moving just your mouse between the computers.
If it's so well established and such a big "NOAP" (as you put it), then how come it has only become a concern 8 years later? CCP had stated many, many times in those 8 years that ISBoxer was allowed, but if it was doing things that fell into a category as extreme as the "NOAP" category (I have to assume that because it's in quotes, capitalized, and spelled incorrectly that it must be an extreme category) then why did it take almost a decade for them to get around to actioning people for using it?
You have nothing to back that statement up with. Please show me the excerpt from CCP's EULA which states what you claim, and I'll ask that you not twist some general statement into your own statement for your convenience. You are very adamant that you're correct, so we're going to need some hard evidence and not your interpretation of a general statement from within the EULA.
And what evidence is that? The only thing I see is you just spouting words and claiming they're facts because you believe them to be so. You've convinced yourself that you've figured it out even though you don't actually have anything beyond your own speculation and assumptions to back up anything that you claim in your last post.
It's a fact that CCP has not given you, or any of us, any information on what they're "logging," or even looking for, so for you to claim that you know otherwise is complete ignorance.
That is untrue, as well.
Everything you've said so far, and every claim you seem to be making is based off of the incredibly small sample size which is this forum, and this forum alone, since not a single player up to this point has posted on the ISBoxer forum claiming to have been banned. So looking at the few threads from this forum, there must be less than 20 (maybe 30) people who have actively participated in these discussions... and this is your sample size for a game with a very large multiboxing playerbase?
If the evidence speaks for itself, then show it to us and let it speak because during this dark time, EVE multiboxers need factual evidence more than ever. What they don't need are your assumptions, or opinions, which you're trying to pass off as fact, and there is a very large difference between saying, "I have factual evidence," and, "This is what I believe." If you have facts that you can provide links to, then I ask that you present the information, for you cannot cite yourself and expect others to believe what you're saying -- This isn't religion, or politics, this is a multiboxing forum where we value actual facts.
Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.
Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology
Just like you can move your mouse between windows with a certain isboxer setup that's legal?
TY for proving my point.
CCP has banned all sorts of stuff in between, from macros, to the very thing I pointed out in my example - Bacon.
If it's so well established and such a big "NOAP" (as you put it), then how come it has only become a concern 8 years later? CCP had stated many, many times in those 8 years that ISBoxer was allowed, but if it was doing things that fell into a category as extreme as the "NOAP" category (I have to assume that because it's in quotes, capitalized, and spelled incorrectly that it must be an extreme category) then why did it take almost a decade for them to get around to actioning people for using it?
I don't know why CCP took as long as they did to ban these features of isboxer, but they have - as they should. Your point here has absolutely nothing to do with the relevant discussion.
I pointed out Bacon specifically. You seem to have issues with reading things when posted. Claiming "nothing" when I specifically cite a source is a very bad way of going about a debate. Re-read above if you need to. Arguing that it took CCP a while to notice one particular thing while they banned all sorts of other stuff (again, lemme list the example of Bacon) does not constitute me not backing a statement up, nor does it have anything to do with the discussion at present.
You have nothing to back that statement up with. Please show me the excerpt from CCP's EULA which states what you claim, and I'll ask that you not twist some general statement into your own statement for your convenience. You are very adamant that you're correct, so we're going to need some hard evidence and not your interpretation of a general statement from within the EULA.
Don't strawman (or w/e other :shenanigans: - I can't be bothered to debate over THAT) in this discussion please, it doesn't speak well of you.
Read above, this isn't worth responding to beyond these words.
And what evidence is that? The only thing I see is you just spouting words and claiming they're facts because you believe them to be so. You've convinced yourself that you've figured it out even though you don't actually have anything beyond your own speculation and assumptions to back up anything that you claim in your last post.
Well, no. They gave us all the same thing - you're the one trying to argue that something which is clearly 2 actions is magically one. Re-read things again if you need to understand, or re-read what I've already posted if you'd like someone to lay it out to you.It's a fact that CCP has not given you, or any of us, any information on what they're "logging," or even looking for, so for you to claim that you know otherwise is complete ignorance.
I'm not sure if this is your first time "friendly" debating, but usually you actually provide your own evidence to back up statements, rather than trying for the "never mind me, you're wrong BECAUSE I SAY SO."
That is untrue, as well.
Everything you've said so far, and every claim you seem to be making is based off of the incredibly small sample size which is this forum, and this forum alone, since not a single player up to this point has posted on the ISBoxer forum claiming to have been banned. So looking at the few threads from this forum, there must be less than 20 (maybe 30) people who have actively participated in these discussions... and this is your sample size for a game with a very large multiboxing playerbase?
If the evidence speaks for itself, then show it to us and let it speak because during this dark time, EVE multiboxers need factual evidence more than ever. What they don't need are your assumptions, or opinions, which you're trying to pass off as fact, and there is a very large difference between saying, "I have factual evidence," and, "This is what I believe." If you have facts that you can provide links to, then I ask that you present the information, for you cannot cite yourself and expect others to believe what you're saying -- This isn't religion, or politics, this is a multiboxing forum where we value actual facts.
Your response had absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to back up your points, beyond validating my original point in your very first response. Let's not sensationalize things, and instead use (very simple) logic to reason here.
Provide me evidence that disproves any of what I said and/or my evidence, and then you may attempt to make a statement of this substance again. You can't claim that anything I've said is wrong while having absolutely zero evidence or backing logic to what you're saying.
Posting Rules
Connect With Us