The simultaneous sending of keystrokes is considered illegal in EQ2...

[faulteroy]

I won't be cancelling or uninstalling just yet, as I have no issue with being banned. This really isn't the first stupid statement SOE has made about one of their games.

When EQWin was released for EQ1, SOE immediately came out and said that it was bannable and that alt-tab was disabled in the client "to prevent cheating." About a year later, they integrated EQWin into the client and removed the keyhook for ALT+TAB, allowing users to use windowed mode or alt tab from fullscreen.

Kiara is a dumb windbag (I know, I played EQ1 with her for years) and frequently talks out of her ass. It really wouldn't surprise me if she said "OH MULTIBOXING THAT'S CHEATING" and went to moving her hamfists across her keyboard in some motion as to create her post without ever cross-referencing it with a GM or policymaker. It also wouldn't surprise me if it was completely accurate and reflects a policy change at SOE that's going to screw us all over.

The most likely outcome is that yes, some people may be banned, but the majority of multiboxers will go ignored and never have any issues. Botting is illegal, but how many harvesting bots do you see on a daily basis? If I'm running through JW or KP and I *don't* see a harvesting bot, something is wrong. Sure, some of them get banned but the majority don't.

[Lokked]

The problem is with the new risk involved and the upcoming expansion. Do you people really want to invest ~$250 with this looming over your heads?

I'm not saying this statement like, "You've gotta be stupid to do that!"

I'm saying curses to SOE for causing this sort of stress from what used to be a form of stress release.

**EDIT** - I've removed a distasteful statement, and added an important update: Please see my next post.

[faulteroy]

True enough. That's also exactly why I canceled 6 pre-orders for Sentinel's Fate. Until SOE clarifies this, they aren't getting anything outside of my subscription fee, and I'm fairly sure that many others will be doing the same.

The additional revenue generated by multiboxers may seem insignificant to their resident hambeast of a community manager, but I'm sure their sales and marketing departments will notice the impact.

[Lokked]

I've received a sort of calming PM back from Kiara, only calming in the way I choose to interpret it. I'll not bother posting my original PM, as it is rather lengthy, but you can gather the jist of it from the response:

People wanted an answer, I got it from CS and gave it to you exactly as given to me.

I haven't interpreted anything. It isn't my place to enforce the EULA. It's CS and thus their call. That is and has been the official stance for as long as I have played EQII.

Nothing has changed in our policies.

Just because we err on the side of the customer and don't harshly enforce a rule, doesn't make that rule non existent. It's in place so that we can (and very often DO) get rid of plat farmers and those who abuse it.

Just because people don't like the answer doesn't make the answer wrong or invalid. Those who wish to do so, will still look for the loopholes and grey areas all they can. I can't stop that.

I've read the threads to which you allude and it makes no difference. As I said. Policy is policy. We err on the side of caution and leniency. But that still doesn't change the underlying policy that allows us to stop abuse of the system.

Happy Holidays!

My analysis of this, biased based on her need to stick to relating policy:

Nothing has changed in our policies.

Just because we err on the side of the customer and don't harshly enforce a rule, doesn't make that rule non existent. It's in place so that we can (and very often DO) get rid of plat farmers and those who abuse it.

I've read the threads to which you allude and it makes no difference. As I said. Policy is policy. We err on the side of caution and leniency. But that still doesn't change the underlying policy that allows us to stop abuse of the system.

I read this a few times. I see this as the EULA being grey enough for rules to be enforced based on personal decision (as expected). There are 2 instances where she alludes to the rules being enforced on those who are breaking another rule or abusing "the system". I've asked for a description of "the system", although I can probably guess.

Quote 1 references the primary purpose of this rule, and this makes sense. I would guess SOE has no desire to ruin anyone's day, however, they will ruin the day of someone who is breaking this rule while ruining someone else's day.

All in all, it comes down to what the GM you are dealing with thinks is fair play. No EQ2 boxer has been banned yet (that I've heard of, and who are legit). If you currently multibox, don't change servers. If you are thinking of multiboxing, choose a server that is inhabitted by boxers. If you are going to PM a GM to ask about multiboxing, phrase it in a way that brings his personal view on the subject into play and avoids the request for a policy spew. I CERTAINLY would not play on PvP servers, as you will be banned FOR SURE, as GMs will just get tired of dealing with complaints about you and just get rid of you.

Good Luck.

[Inactive]

Thank you very much Lokked, this does indeed make a ton of sense.

While i wish they would have as open and clear a policy as blizzard, this is good enough for me!

[Khatovar]

IMO, we're not going to get anywhere. These GMs, TSRs, CSRs keep saying nothing has changed, and it has always been this way. I 100% disagree and see it more as a means of them turn the "grey" against us so they don't look like the ones pulling the rugs out from under valid, paying customers. It is not just one or two random people saying "no" now. from the tone of the response I received, this is a BIG issue, not something that the people answering your questions don't know about.

I am calling it a policy and/or tolerance change and will NOT continue to call it a greenlight in the MB and MMOs thread.

Hello,

I have sent you several tickets previously asking about your stance on multiboxing. Those tickets are 090210-001499 and 090306-000046. In both tickets, I was informed that multiboxing, via a means of sending single keypresses to multiple copies of the game was perfectly acceptable.

Quote - Multi-boxing is definitely allowed. What we do not allow is automated botting.

Quote - it is permissible to use one keyboard to control several computers through a selector switch. You are allowed to use 3rd party software, as long as you do not in any way manipulate or change the client

Quote - If you are at your computer while the character is being played, then multi-boxing is fine. Generally speaking we will only take action against people who automate their characters to play unattended.

In these tickets, I specifically stated what multiboxing is.

Quote - What is Sony's stance on SOFTWARE multiboxing? IE the use of the Programs Keyclone http://www.solidice.com/keyclone/ and Innerspace http://www.lavishsoft.com/joomla/ in particular?

Quote - If you are unfamiliar with multi-boxing, it is a play style in which a single person will play multiple accounts in a game simultaneously.

Quote - Software multi-boxing is using one computer to run several accounts via hardware emulators or scripts that send a single key press to all open instances of a game window.

Quote - Many games have a 1 press = 1 action rule in that 1 input action from a key press can only equate to 1 single action taking place in game on each account.

Quote - I press 1, my mage casts fireball, my hunter shoots a flame arrow, my tank taunts, my healer casts a buff, as that is the single action on each account located in the "1" hotbar location. 1 press, 1 action.

I believe I was very clear in defining multiboxing, in as far as my inquiry, was the simultanious reciept of a single key by EACH open client. I also believe that the reps who responded were clear on that fact as well, telling me repeatedly that the ACTIONABLE offense was automated and/or unattended botting, NOT attended simultanious keybroadcasting.

Now I have people being told that simultanious keybroadcasting is automation, and actionable :

091215-002136 - Response (GM Yxyran)
12/16/2009 12:49 AM

[shortened]…The problem occurs when you…send commands…at the same time…it is important that you understand why you cannot use any device or program to allow you to control more than one character with one key stroke.

It offers you an unfair advantage over players using the game and interface as designed. It essentially accomplishes an action that…could not be done in the course of play. There is no way to link the actions of two separate characters in game. No way to make them work in sync where you take action with one character and it triggers an automatic action from another. You have to use separate keystrokes for each character's actions. Each character must be under the direct control of the player at all times. Anything that circumvents that direct control constitutes automation. Automation makes them a bot.

Thank you for your time,
Game Master Yxyran
"The Moon Moth"


Response (GM Kaerytha)
12/15/2009 08:58 PM

[Shortened – message relayed from the Lead GM on Nagafen]…In addition, simultaneous key broadcasting is not permitted. So if you are pressing one key on your keyboard, and it's causing all 6 of your characters to cast, or attack or perform any action simultaneously then that is something we would consider character automation, which is prohibited….

Safe Travels,

GM Kaerytha
EverQuest II
Sony Online Entertainment


However, TSR DanielH was recently given tips on how to use one of these programs to send simultanious keystrokes to multiple clients at the same time, where he thanks the poster and says he'll try it out -

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/p...457105#5100073


So, what's the deal? Is the act of sending a keypress to all open instances of EQ2 suddenly considered automation? And does this apply to all SOE games now? Please clarify.

Thank you.

Greetings,

Thank you for contacting Sony Online Entertainment.

There has been a lot of questions surrounding the issue of multi-boxing lately. I recognize a lot of those quotes you mentioned in your ticket in an e-mail I have received recently. Essentially what it boils down to is this... Multiboxing is allowed so long as each character performing an action requires a unique and separate keystroke.

If you have any other questions or issues please don't hesitate to contact us again and we'll be happy to assist you.

The reference number for this ticket is (091217-000026). Please use this number if you need to refer back to this contact for any reason.

Update your ticket by accessing http://station.com/kb and viewing the "Questions" section under "Service History". Simply click the name of the incident to update it.

Thank you again,

Chad A.

Technical Support Representative

Sony Online Entertainment

[Gomotron]

Of interest, in the exit interview when canceling an EQ2 account, there are MANY references to Multiboxing (sometimes referred to as solo-grouping, which I though was a clever term).

Weird that the exit interview thing has MB'ing so prominently placed as a play-style and yet is now considered against the EULA?

[Gadzooks]

This is where PvP gets in the way of a game which was NEVER intended to support it. The game was never built around PvP; it was never balanced around it. You can’t balance classes for PvP and yet make them interesting to play in PvE (see WoW). And yet because people complain about an unfair advantage, this sort of things happens.

It's a fault/attitude of the PvP junkies, who complain if another class gets one more dps than they do, and wage campaigns on forums about it, because another class is OP vs. theirs.

Look at how rogues are treated in WoW - they're not especially OP in any way, if you know your class, and know how rogues work, but the forums are littered with "OMG NERF ROUGES".

PvP attracts a certain kind of player, the same ones who play ContraStrike on XBox live, and spend all day spewing racial slurs and offensive comments at everyone - the "hur hur" crowd, as I like to call them. They discovered WoW during BC, and brought all their friends.

They're pretty much anywhere you go, now. Luckily, the general consensus within the WoW community is that MBers are fine, stop crying. I doubt the current leadership of WoW will change their stance, they understand MBing, know we don't exploit, and try to not annoy/interfere/cheat other players.

[zenga]

I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea of the past. But in my country (and many more EU contries) the law supersedes any eula/contract. Even if you sign and agree with it, it doesn't make the contract valid. My point is:

- one asks and official representative if it's ok to multibox: answer = yeah.
- based on that answer & their eula that does not forbid it you spend / invest money
- they change the eula out of the blue and make it no longer possible for you to play the way they agreed with

I'm really curious to know what would happen if someone with enough money/ free time goes to court for fun. Again, it's not because you agree with the eula, that it makes their eula valid. There is still something like 'bait and switch'.

If someone can get mcdonalds because their coffee was too hot, then regardless of all the expensive words in their eula, it wouldn't surprise me if a judge would enforce the rights of the customer in one of the eu countries.

If some have tried that in the past, then consider my post as bs and ignore it.

[Velassra]

Well, I've contacted SOE and they are sticking to their: "There is no change in policy. The same restriction regarding multiboxing have always been in place." etc etc

Probably trying that approach protects them vs credit card disputes sine: "nothings changed."

Either way. I'm going to dispute the charges on principle. Too bad other people's support tickets off a gamne forum can't be used as "evidence" to support my dispute.