Who cares, people trying to circumvent a multiboxing ban via more physical machines won’t be a big problem because they cannot multibox like 10 or 15 of them, simply because no human can switch quickly between all those machines. At least it would tear down the convenience and efficiency of such fleets by a lot. And the maybe hand ful of people who would still do it could simply be ignored, they won’t have any noticable impact on the game.
Sure you can. It’s called a KVM and it works just like using Alt-Tab…
I can have twenty 1U blades in a server rack along with a KVM switch and play it just like I was using 20 accounts on the same computer.
1 Like
Thats still way more inconvenient that the current way and the fact alone that you would need 5 physical machines would make like 90% of the current multiboxers not do it. Because they simply won’t buy 5 machines and run them all. Massmultiboxing these days is so popular because you can do it on a single machine and its extremely convenient to let the clients run in windowed mode and easily switch between them, starting them in launcher groups and so on. Remove that and the overwhelming majority of massmultiboxers would simply stop.
And even if not, you can still detect them if you would really want to, because humans are humans, you cannot hide human behaviour over a prolonged timespan. If watched for long enough, every somwhat sophisticated algorithm could tell if these chars are from 5 different persons or all controlled by the same person. It’s really easy peasy to detect.
2 Likes
I’m sure it would. You know what would also stop? CCP’s revenue…
1 Like
I don’t argue that. Thats why massmultiboxing won’t go away. That train has left long ago. I am discussing the point that some people claim “it cannot be banned because xyz”. It could be. And it could be enforced, quite easily. But CCP won’t do it, because it hurts their wallet, at least short term. Nobody knows if an EVE without multiboxing would gain enough attractivity from just offering a better gameplay experience to set off those losses over time. I am pretty sure with the right design decisions in the past 10 years EVE could easily have 50.000 or even 75.000 players online at prime time. But it’s moot to speculate, because it didn’t happen and we have to deal with the reality as it is.
2 Likes
But that’s the nature of sandbox games. If I was limited to one account and pretty much forced to group up with other players, then I can’t go do what I want when I want. Thus the popularity of multiboxing…
1 Like
I started multiboxing 3 toons because I needed scouts to fight the null blks way back when. In the end, they just made rich with PI. Meh…
1 Like
Oh there are ways to detect it, people are creatures of habit and you can easily start to identify patterns in behaviors, all 3 accounts on different machines all login and check the same things each day in the same order over a prolonged period of time, all have the same writing patterns all have the same flying patterns etc
There are ways to identify individuals and you can even use these patterns to identify when someone is logged in to an account they don’t play, its a little more resource intensive to do but you can do it if you actually want to, players do it all the time when they notice that certain players prefer to dodge in one specific direction each time etc
And if we can do it with limited access to player input then CCP can do it given they have access to every single click and input in the client
1 Like
The subscribers on that page is an entirely made up number.
EDIT: Fixed wrong part quoted.
There are, but are they compatible with the United Nations Declaration Of Universal Human Rights article 12?
Anyways, to actually answer this (thanks to Kezrai tossing the link to the source).
It is just a small quote from 3:05 in the video, It is a general statement about a year of Eve, not about 2025.
He does say players, whether that is actually accounts or players is usually rather vague in Eve, but in this context it could be the actual player (as best CCP can make out) and not accounts.
EDIT whoops spelling.
Easy, that is a historic fact. With multiboxing however, not without.
Yes its not interfering with their human rights, its the same thing advertisers do, they use patterns to identify the same entity as doing x things, it ultimately doesn’t require them to know the actual persons personal information, they just identify that GUUID x and GUUID y exhibit identical behavior and are therefore likely to represent the same individual for the purposes of identifying that an account is operated by the same individual, regardless of who that individual actually is
Which is also interfering with people’s right to privacy. Completely incompetent / corrupt governments are just slow to catch up - or unwilling / paid not to.
Oppressive governments are also unwilling to make laws, they just want this information on their desk in the morning.
You have the right to live your life privately without government interference.
Last i checked CCP isn’t a government entity, you also have no expectations of privacy in a public space, which covers EVE Online, if someone wants to watch what you do ingame and aslong as that monitoring doesn’t break an actual law, there is nothing wrong other than you don’t like it
This is true, but that large scale companies isnt included is also an error in many laws and rulesets, including the UN document, which is being worked on corrected.
EDIT: clarification
Ok, going to actually bother write the whole thing.
UN does that the issue with governments, but it seems Cypherous 's quote is actually from article 8 from the Humans Rights commission, so pure trolling. And the UN privacy article does not contain the problem.
United Nations Universal Human rights Article 12 “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
(of course still an issue with the his his).
But for the main purpose of writing more details is Article 30.
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
Here it does specify, that the areas where governments is mentioned is an error, that is not what they mean, the rules are not restricted to only governments.
CCP isn’t a large scale company either lol
LinkedIn has them at between, 200 and 500 employees, which is pretty small, for reference the company i work for is listed as having 10k+ and is only UK based, 500 is not going to be counted as a large company ever
I mean its in relation to your expectation of privacy, so its still pretty much the same thing
Cool and what part of being monitored when accessing private systems is covered by that exactly?
They aren’t interfering with your human rights as access to EVE isn’t a human right
So i still fail to see what the human rights bill has to do with any of this
No, but the tracing of activity isn’t necessary for access.
It is however required for improving performance, troubleshooting issues and for enforcement of the rules you agreed to when you joined
You’re not going to win a human rights argument in relation to EVE
1 Like