EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-01-18 19:18
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-03-02 20:30
  • Number of Posts: 1,187
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 840

Nolak Ataru

Security Status 5.0
  • KarmaFleet Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Trakow wrote:
    No, I do not, yourself and others have claimed that you can activate modules across multiple clients just as fast as using Round Robin by just Alt+Tabbing, or using a "Focus on MouseOver" feature. There's also claims like THIS ONE (last para) from Lucas Kell which says that it's impossible to prove that someone is using Round Robin because they can tile windows etc, but it is, because of activations per second, for which I'm also asking for proof of ability to do the same as RR manually.

    This is YOUR post

    In which you disputed my reply to ShadowandLight HERE (2nd paragraph) who claimed that Alt+Tabbing too fast means you're breaking the EULA, but it can't because you cannot switch clients and activate that quickly. And also challenging Sgt Ocker from several posts of his like THIS ONE where he claims that CCP cannot determine a Round Robin user from someone Alt+Tabbing or manually switching clients too fast. Therefore, I'm asking them, and anyone else who agrees with them, to prove that they can manually be as fast as a Round Robin user. And from the looks of it, nobody can prove their claims.


    I was referring to your earlier posts where you made the claims regarding the speed, and where Kinete argued against it afterwards. So the burden of proof is still on you and CCP. Additionally, you're arguing guilty before proven innocent, something which no civilized society uses in court anymore. I wonder how big a proponent of "guilty before proven innocent" you would be if you got caught in a ban wave that was targeting, oh, lets say ISK buyers. And finally, CCP Peligro (I think) himself stated that they do not have a client-side detection method at Fanfest, and you can ask them yourself directly by submitting a ticket.

    Check. Mate.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
    Just like you provide proof for all your claims. Roll You do realise he is asking someone to back up their claim that they can swap clients just as quick manually as they can with a RoundRobin set up.?
    When are you going to provide proof for your claim that CCP are banning people who are obeying the EULA?
    You're doing it again Nolak, stop telling people to provide proof when you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself. Its not a very nice characteristic.


    We gave you the proof. CCP removed said proof. We posted on the dual-boxing forum said proof and contact information for those who didn't post their proof. You keep saying "That doesn't count" every time we either give you the proof, or the means to obtain the proof yourself.
    *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

    He first made the claim himself that no human player could match an ISBoxer. Pain Time used to 10-box PVP pre-ISBoxer. The WH corp is doing just fine without broadcasting. Kinete's doing just fine. And the fellow down in Deklein with 10+ ishtars is doing just fine. With practice, Kinete can easily trump whatever standard you have for being "too efficient", which is what we've been saying for ages now: That practice makes perfect. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Or, in EVE terms, "Any sufficiently skilled and experienced EVE player is indistinguishable from a bot or macro". Leigh Brackett also had something to say: "Witchcraft to the ignorant; simple science to the learned".

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Trakow wrote:
    And that's my point. Until someone can prove they can do it, they can just stop saying that it's possible. You even said that you can't do it that fast, and I stand by my statement that nobody can until they prove me wrong with a video. And I'm making it easy by saying 8 clients within a second, because someone doing it with 15+ clients within a second or two is even more obvious.

    Burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim that nobody can do it that fast, you must provide the proof.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
    There is no new EULA.

    Now you're just arguing semantics because you have no real argument.

    Quote:
    RoundRobin breaks Eve's EULA/TOS & policies.

    One output for one input. How does it break the EULA/TOS? And more specifically, how does it break the EULA/TOS without including EVE-O Preview, Mumble, TS3, and Steam Overlay?

    Quote:
    VideoFX manipulation can be used to break Eve's EULA/TOS & policies, when for example it is used to create those dashboard set ups.

    VideoFX is using Windows Aero and as such does not fall under the purview of CCP, unless they magic-wanded $100B into existence to buy Microsoft. Additionally, there is no part of the EULA that would ban VideoFX that would not ban the aforementioned programs without disabling people from moving their UI around.

    Quote:
    Stop incorrectly telling people what is allowed, you may end up getting them banned if they believe you.

    Stop incorrectly telling people what isn't allowed. Just because you can't handle multiple clients doesn't mean everyone should not be able to.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    You might want to talk to Nolak then, since he's blowing your cover with his ranting about Teamspeak and EveMon and stuff.

    CCP wanted to look at a strict interpretation of the EULA, so I'm merely pointing out some programs that they may have missed. You may be surprised by it, but we want to play by the EULA as well.

    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    And thus far, the one time someone has tried to provide proof to me of that, they exposed another person using macros.
    So I really don't buy that. No one ever got banned for alt tabbing, and no one ever will. This sneaky **** with keyboard macros, auto scrolling, and twenty client windows? I certainly won't miss anyone doing that.

    Wrong. The person I "exposed", as you put it, was using either RoundRobin or VideoFX manipulation, both of which are allowed under the new EULA.
    As for the "twenty clients", do you realize that Borg is still out in the fields with his 50-odd ships? We have entire fleets of similarly-named Procs down here, not even counting the guys with 10+ Thanatos running sites. If you want CCP to limit us to 1 client per IP or person, say it. There's already 2 CCP devs and at least 1 CSM member who supports the idea.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Trakow wrote:
    Round-robin(isboxing) and alt-tabbing is nowhere near the same thing. With round robin you only need to hit the action trigger (F1 for example) 15 times in a row, where alt-tabbing you need to hit F1 AND THEN Alt+Tab, 15 times, which takes 2-3x longer. And don't even try to deny that hitting a single button 15 times takes half the time as hitting a sequence of 2 buttons 15 times does because that's just fact and common sense.

    Wrong. Windows Function "OnMouseOverFocus=True" means all you need to do is to tile your clients small enough or use enough monitors and you can move your mouse over each client and press F1 each time. So we ask you again: are multiple monitors considered a cheat / hack?

    Quote:
    Nolak Ataru wrote:
    Actually, for Synergy, you can define certain commands that you input on computer 1 and that are "processed" on computer 2, and you can tell it to focus certain computers after a command has been issued and processed.
    Round Robin is nothing more than an electronic active KVM switch.
    Seriously, you're arguing automatic transmission vs manual transmission on a current-gen car and then attempting to define paddle-shifting manuals as something completely different.


    SO wrong. Again, making ridiculous comparisons and telling lies. Round Robin is NOTHING LIKE an electronic/software OR hardware KVM switch. A KVM switch is MANUALLY SWITCHED from computer to computer using a hardware button or special keyboard combination, where Round Robin will automatically switch focus after a command has been issued, JUST LIKE YOU SAID (underlined). KVM's do not do this, hardware OR software ones. Lies and deceptions again...

    As for automatic, manual and paddle-shifter cars, yes, they ARE completely different. Automatic is just automatic shifting controlled by the transmission. Manual transmission is completely controlled by the driver and can go from any gear into any gear, and also, the driver must use the clutch pedal disengage the clutch before shifting unless he is powershifting. Paddle-shifters are driven by using the paddles to switch gears SEQUENTIALLY, unlike a manual, and also does not have a clutch pedal like manuals do. Quit spouting BS to try to make a point by using things you know nothing about.


    Not all KVMs are hardware. That's why I specifically said "Electronic KVM". Synergy is an electronic KVM. It uses the monitor borders to define it's switching. But let's take a look at a proposed RoundRobin setup by Charadrass. He would bind F1KeyDown as F1 in-game, and then F1KeyUp as the action that tells the KVM to switch to client n+1. That would be legal as it sends 1 action to the client (F1) for one input and 1 action to ISBoxer for the 2nd input. I believe he still has yet to receive a straight answer from CCP about it.

    For my car analogy, I must apologize. I was referring more to the situation with NASCAR and the debate over automatic or paddle-shifting transmissions being allowed. Currently, automatic transmissions are much safer than manual transmissions whilst being much more efficient and "better" than a manual driver. Car and Driver I believe had an article about it that was a good read.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    Nolak Ataru wrote:

    Neither do you, of course.

    I absolutely do, I'm not going to be dishonest about it like you guys.

    Uh, we weren't dishonest about it either. We came out from the start opposed to this, and were pointing out from day 1 that there are multiple programs that also violate 6A2 and 6A3 that CCP has not touched.

    Quote:
    I am extremely glad that CCP finally decided to stand up to this cheating, it took them far too long to begin with.

    You still have yet to prove that it is cheating without resorting to circular logic and fallacies.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    ShadowandLight wrote:
    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    I love the insinuation that Steve is the one with an agenda here. Roll

    he doesnt have an agenda as much as he as had a bias and narrative

    But you guys definitely dont, no sir. Roll

    Neither do you, of course. I handed to you on a silver platter the easiest way to get me to switch sides, but you so far have not even come close to providing what I asked for, instead falling back to slinging slurs and insults as if you were a monkey at a zoo when you realized you don't have any evidence to support what you or CCP said.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Now, as for round robin, Round robin isn't a KVM. A kvm is where you can use the same keyboard, video and mouse for controlling multiple computers, switching the input between them (as a seperate action. For a software based one like synergy, that can be 'move the mouse between the monitors), but not sharing any input.
    As far as I've seen with round robin, it's for sending the same input to multiple processes, switching which process it goes to per keystroke. Similar, but not the same.


    Actually, for Synergy, you can define certain commands that you input on computer 1 and that are "processed" on computer 2, and you can tell it to focus certain computers after a command has been issued and processed.
    Round Robin is nothing more than an electronic active KVM switch.

    Seriously, you're arguing automatic transmission vs manual transmission on a current-gen car and then attempting to define paddle-shifting manuals as something completely different.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Interesting conversation with CSM Steve Ronuken

    This is mildly disturbing.... If the people who are supposed to represent us to CCP weren't informed of the full features of the program, how are they supposed to make informed decisions about it?

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    I revealed a player using RoundRobin, which by Steve's OWN ADMISSION IS FINE. If anyone's moving goalposts, it's you, as you keep shying away from providing any evidence or proof that ISBoxer magically makes a player more efficient than an identical fleet. But hey, if CCP doesn't want me to be a productive member of this game, I'll happily afk-rat all day long, creating zero content.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Rastafarian God wrote:
    The only good question I remember reading was about controlling more then one PC with 1 keyboard and mouse with splitters, but they may have been answered, Ive started to skim.

    If you're meaning, click with the mouse and multiple computers receive that click, that's against the published rules. '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'
    If you're meaning a kvm, where you can select which computer the output goes to, but it only interacts with one at a time, that's fine.

    We have a built-in software KVM switch with ISBoxer where it only sends one output to one computer per input, and it got a player banned, so clearly either you or CCP is misinformed.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Archie is falling into the "absence of evidence" fallacy, but with a twist. We have invited him multiple times to ask for the proof on other forums that were not controlled by CCP, but he steadfastly stuck his head in the sand like an ostrich.

    Please explain in 5000 words or less how RR breaks 6a2 that would exclude programs like Logitech Gaming Software and Razer Synapse.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Dustpuppy wrote:
    Forgive me but I don't understand this or your statements are simply speaking wrong. Again: A change which has no consequences on the way people play cannot have any influence on the player population or game's health. So either your statement about the main usage of ISboxer is wrong and the main usage was input broadcasting or the change simply had no effect on the players base.
    Your first statement by the way is not logical and therefor wrong. Only if input broadcasting was important the change had an influence and those players relying on it left the game (see above). And I (just like many others) am absolutely convinced that the change wasn't needless and/or hurt the game but helped it. It wasn't loosing players but getting rid of people playing in a style which hurt the game.

    Except the change did have a consequence. It led to people who were following the new guideline to get banned, and it led to the banning of a player who was not using broadcasting in any form. Needless =/= no consequence.

    Quote:
    Just like someone said: I don't have problems to loose against a fleet with 10 players. I hate to loose against a single player steering ten ships.

    Would you have a problem if you won vs a 10-box fleet? Would you have a problem if you and your three friends won vs a 10-box fleet?

    Quote:
    Last comment: if your correlation between health of the game and input broadcasting would be right then EVE would be broken/dead. 4.5 months are enough time to see what consequences a change has, and EVE is still alive.

    I've already talked about this, but I'll repeat. I never said that EVE would die with this change. During the last Fountain War we regularly hit or broke 50k concurrent players. Right now, the maximum 24h from Chribba's website is 35k. When you have players who are living under the threat of being banned for being "too efficient" you start to see players not want to play. When you have devs who regularly refuse to talk to their playerbase, who refuse to use logic and reason with their changes, then you start to see players question why they're playing a game where the devs don't give a damn anymore.


    Quote:
    Concerning 2)
    Just because you found one who was banned by accident there is no reason to turn around. No matter what you do, no matter what is changed, you will always (be) someone who feels he was or is treated in a wrong way. And there is always someone who doesn't like the change and who is using the first guy as example why the whole thing was a bad idea.

    Counter: Just because there's one who we know about who was banned by accident does not mean there are not more.
    Do you know me personally? You seem to think you do, despite only ever really seeing me on this one issue. I've been active in a few subforums, and a good portion of the time I was happy with my interactions with the devs. For example, I was semi-active during the Marauder re-balance, and was quite happy with the Bastion Module. I was quite happy with the new Burner missions as well, not to mention the Bowhead. I wasn't happy with the HML nerf, agreed, because I was watching Tengus get sniped by Navy Apocs and achieve near-zero ISK efficiency. I didn't quite agree on the Tengu rebalance, but I understand why CCP did what they did, and I can live with it. So please don't pretend you know who I am.
    I've made our points quite clear on the issue of ISBoxer. If you don't want to read it, fine.

    Quote:
    Hurr durr leave.

    I thought so.

  • Dev blog: A quick update from Team Security - Recap from Fanfest 2015 in EVE Information Center

    Dersen Lowery wrote:
    So CCP have to be able to rule out the use of system tools and features if they enable impossible levels of speed or efficiency.
    Because that really is the goal.

    You're talking about actual bots, not ISBoxer. ISBoxer is no faster than an identical fleet with identical pilots, fits, implants, SP, an experience. ISBoxers are still subject to human error; bots are not.

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
    Nolak Ataru wrote:
    1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
    2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.

    1) That's your opinion. CCP disagrees with you and given a choice of believing CCP, who have all the data available to them and someone who has consistently lied in this thread. I'd say CCP are better placed to make that judgement.
    2) No there are not. They are getting banned for breaking the EULA because they are to pig-headed to accept what they are doing is breaking the EULA. As well as having people like you tell them its ok, when it clearly goes against the EULA/TOS & other policies.

    1) It's not just my opinion, and I would wager my alt accounts that if CCP released a poll tied to API keys right this instant with neutral wording that made a clear distinction between an ISBoxer and a botter, you would see that the first majority of people would be indifferent, and that the next largest percentage would be in favor of removing the ban on ISBoxer's functionalities. Additionally, you have failed to meet the bar for proving that I lied. You cherry-picked statements from me and attempted to both straw-man and outright twist what I said for your own use.
    2) Yes, they are. That 5-boxer was not using any broadcasting tools and got banned. I've stopped giving advice to players other than fitting changes, and "Solo C5 Capital escalation fleet" (which, by the way, earns more money than any ISBoxer, including Bikkus's HQ fleet, after taking PLEX costs into account, and only takes 5 accounts, 4 if you dont mind spending a lot of ISK on Nanite Paste).

  • Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation in EVE Communication Center

    Dustpuppy wrote:
    208 pages and I still have no clue why some people complain about a change which happened 4.5 months ago.
    If the change had no influence on the style of playing EVE (which is what they all pretend), why do you care so much about it?

    1) Because it was a needless change that hurt the game's health and
    2) Because people are getting banned for following the new interpretation of the EULA.

  • Dev blog: A quick update from Team Security - Recap from Fanfest 2015 in EVE Information Center

    Dirk MacGirk wrote:
    I can only suggest you send your specific inquiry to CCP via petition, as they have requested individuals do. They won't answer generalizations in public areas. You may get a crappy EULA copy/paste, but a petition is the best chance for you to get an answer specific to you.

    Any tickets sent in that even brush near multiboxing are responded with "Go look at the thread". CCP says "send a ticket", GMs say "look at the thread".

  • Dev blog: A quick update from Team Security - Recap from Fanfest 2015 in EVE Information Center

    CCP Peligro wrote:
    Dear ShadowandLight, I understand your frustration. I've seen your posts on pretty much every discussion forum on the internet talking about this exact topic.
    The EULA is designed to cover as many "situations" or scenarios as possible, but it cannot realistically expect to cover everything in great detail. We believe the current interpretation of the relevant EULA clauses to be in the best interest of the game and our players.
    As for your key remaps, you can use the in-game remaps and key bindings at your leisure. The moment you start using third-party tools to remap keys or "change the way the game is played" in any way, you are in murky territory, because of 6.A.2:
    "You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played."


    What is your and CCP's definition of "how the game is played"? You didn't expect people to live in wormholes, yet they did. You didn't expect people to min/max their PVP, but they did. Are they in violation of the EULA?
    Are you confirming that EVE-O is banned then? That Pyfa, EFT, and Fuzzworks are banned? They change how the game is (was) played from EVE's release. TS3, Mumble, Overwolf, and Steam output an overlay on the screen; are they banned too? No, CCP Peligro, I didn't think so. Neither does ISBoxer, unless you have some contrived answer or proof. You want to enforce your EULA for ISBoxer? Fine, we say. But enforce it unilaterally. You can't pick and choose which parts of the EULA you want to enforce simply because it isn't convenient to you if you make us abide by it's entirety.
    As for "best interest", you make me laugh. You provided zero evidence supporting this cockamamie statement even as players came out and told you that more people quit because of CODE in a single month than an ISBoxer in it's entire lifespan. You want to talk about the health of EVE? Fine, lets. While I am relatively neutral on hyperdunking, it's a serious issue that can and has driven players away. I'm saying this both as a freighter pilot and as a ganker.
    Are you going to ban every Russian player who remaps their keyboard from Cyrillic to English? How about from Korean to English? Am I going to be banned for using Logitech's software to change the side-keys of my G600 to something other than "1-12"? How about that vet that came back from Afghanistan without his hand? If I remember correctly, he purchased a G13 Gamepad so he could be competitive in EVE. These are the questions that have been asked of CCP for the past two+ years, and time after time we have received silence, shrugs, or outright hostility from both CCP devs and the rest of the player-base.

    We used to be able to do our thing with only the weekly "grr ISBoxer" thread in GD, and whoever wanted to smacktalk in local. We were not immune to ganks, we were not immune to server hiccups, and we were not immune to human error, so no, we are not playing the game differently than how it is played. You're confusing ISBoxers and botters, and that is not the kindergarten-level mistake a professional in the game development industry ought to make.

    Stop attempting to scapegoat every problem you have in the game on ISBoxers. ISBoxers were one of your most dedicated and supportive player groups. We were contributing positive members of the community. We weren't "leveling our Raven"; we were dedicated to the game you created. Arguably we were as dedicated as those who owned Titans and Supercarriers (I must interject here and say I found it very interesting how many people finally trained a supercarrier and left. It was quite startling) and we were very happy to take time out of our day to sit down with a player, either from EVE or outside the game, and discuss both EVE itself, and multiboxing. We were loyal fans, and CCP did nothing more than kick us in the teeth.

  • Dev blog: A quick update from Team Security - Recap from Fanfest 2015 in EVE Information Center

    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    Nolak Ataru wrote:
    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    Nolak Ataru wrote:

    And finally, can CCP comment on the fact that NOBODY anywhere has yet to give a logical reason why this change was enacted?

    the reasons why input broadcasting was banned were clearly explained
    don't whine that nobody has given a reason when your actual complaint is you don't agree with the reason

    If by "clearly explained" you mean "We kinda thought it was a AFK bot despite all evidence to the contrary, so we banned it after a CSM member QQ'd loud enough" then sure, it was explained.

    you whined a change was not clearly explained, not a ban, see above

    It wasn't explained period.The change led to bans.