CCP prohibiting input broadcasting/multiplexing beginning January 2015

[pinotnoir]

ISBoxer 41.10.1128.1 is now available for manual update. (changelog) 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/1...p=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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

[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