Last week
I wrote a bit about
CCP Falcon's post explaining the concepts of input automation, input broadcasting and input multiplexing. I didn't, however, try to figure out exactly why CCP made the announcement. I don't have any special inside knowledge, but since so many people are asking "Why?", I thought I'd try to provide an answer today.
First, before CCP Falcon's post, the
Third Party Policies contained references to two practices that players engaged in that CCP stated violated the EULA: cache scraping and the use of the multiboxing software ISBoxer. CCP removed the reference to ISBoxer last week but is still available
using the Wayback Machine:
 |
| The reference to ISBoxer (underlined in red) was removed last week. |
Quite frankly, having such exceptions is pretty bad. The exceptions, however, stem from the era when CCP devs didn't really care too much about the EULA if players wanted to do something that sounded cool. Cache scraping should soon go away, with
real time market data on the verge of becoming available through a CREST API.
ISBoxer, the "multiboxing application" referred to in the previous version of the Third Party Policies, was listed as also violating the section 9C of the EULA, just like cache scraping. While CCP stated that they would not take action against those using ISBoxer,
"However, if any third party application or other software is used to
gain any unfair advantage, or for purposes beyond its intended use, or
if the application or other software violates other parts of the EULA,
we may fully enforce our rights to prohibit such use, including player
bans. Please use such third party applications or other software at your
own risk."
Since this language was part of the Third Part Policies going back to the spring of 2013, I'm slightly surprised that anyone would argue that CCP had no problem with players using ISBoxer. But only slightly.
I believe in the old adage when researching a story, "Follow the money." I think the most significant part of the paragraph is one rarely mentioned. In-game overlays like Mumble and Teamspeak are also listed as violating section 9C of the EULA. What else uses an in-game overlay?
Steam. CCP is trying really hard to integrate itself with Steam. I have the feeling that no one at CCP headquarters in Reykjavik wants to tell Gabe Newell that the Steam client violates the
EVE Online EULA. Really, pissing Mr. Newell off
isn't a good move.
Did that theory contain too much tin foil? How about another service with a social component:
Raptr? Raptr also has an in-game overlay and CCP has
worked with the company in the past. Perhaps CCP is considering joining companies like Blizzard, Riot, EA, and Trion as
business partners in order to attract new players.
As I mentioned before, I have no special sources within CCP. But a date of 1 January 2015 for implementing the changes for input broadcasting/multiplexing sounds more like a business agreement than just someone at CCP pulling a date out of a hat. If the change was completely internally driven, I would expect the planned change to begin on a Monday, not a holiday Thursday. But even if I'm wrong about CCP beginning a business relationship at the beginning of the year, such a change in the EULA would help with any such deals in the future.
Whether I'm right or wrong about the reasons for the change, the new terms "input broadcasting" and "input multiplexing" definitely clarify the meaning of
Section 6A3 of the EULA. The section currently reads:
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other
stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate
acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or
status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You
may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate
data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character
attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in
the Game."
Basically, the definitions of input broadcasting and input multiplexing can replace the first sentence and make the paragraph more understandable.
Before I continue, I should add I never felt comfortable about Section 9C. The section works well for those developing software, especially botting software. But how is a typical user going to know if an application created by a third party developer violates this section? Trust me, I was amazed when I discovered that EVEMon is one of the applications that
relies on cache scraping. For those who don't know, players using software that performed functions like intercepting data packets or cache scraping that violates Section 9C are subject to an immediate permanent ban of all accounts for client modification. Subject to the caveats in the Third Party Policies, that is, which is why people can use EVEMon without receiving a ban letter.
In the case of the ruling on input broadcasting and input multiplexing, I'm happy that CCP is banning the practice. I'm even happier that the definitions are clearer than the existing ones. My only concern is enforcement. Let's take ISBoxer as the most prominent example. Joe Thaler, the owner of Lavish Software and creator of ISBoxer, has every financial incentive to try to ensure the users of his software follow the
EVE Online EULA. He has already announced a version of ISBoxer that
will lock down input broadcasting by default on 1 January. But will all of the users obey the new rules against input broadcasting? Even some vocal supporters have doubts. One, a user named shadowandlight who I believe will appear on the DJ Big Country Show on EVE Radio at midnight Wednesday
EVE time,
posted the following on the Dual-Boxing.com forums:
"You know the more I think about the solutions or look at other peoples
idea how to get around this newly imposed limitation I think the end
result is your going to have a tremendously hard time differentiating
between people who are using input duplication vs those people using hot
keys, clickbars / menu bars or round robin.
"In fact if someone had time to make a quick video or link something
already done I think we have a good chance in the next month + to get
ccp to change their mind.
"If I setup a round Robin keymap that on every press hits "f1" I could
smash that key extremely quickly, sending the f1 command to 20 clients
in no time. People with logitech or similar keyboards will probably
end up setting up an auto repeat in the logitech software to save them
the hassle.
"Using click bars, menus or vfx could accomplish the same task, yes
you have to click a button each time but that's pretty fast if you line
all the buttons up close together.
"Now all that aside, I have a hard time believing that in every single
case people are going to stop using broadcasting all together. The
honest ones will do their best to create workarounds and in most cases
it will be very easy to do, the only time it will be tougher is
targeting or jumping through gates and I'm pretty sure that using round
Robin key maps we can do that in a second flat for dozens of clients.
"All you've accomplished is less then an hour of setup to get around this really ignorant rule."
If I didn't know better, I'd think shadowandlight is trying his best to get ISBoxer banned from
EVE, but I don't think he'll succeed. ISBoxer's windowing feature is too useful to fleet commanders and as long as people don't abuse the ability to use the software, I think CCP will treat that functionality of ISBoxer like a Mumble overlay. Also, from what I've read, Team Security has gone to a lot of effort to come up with an algorithm to detect players using input broadcasting so they don't just have to ban ISBoxer entirely.
As mentioned in the first graphic, CCP removed the mention of ISBoxer from the Client Modification section of the Third Party Policies last week. I don't believe that means that CCP will now begin banning ISBoxer users (although some people are
claiming differently). Instead, I believe that ISBoxer will no longer trigger bans under Section 9C, although starting on 1 January players who take off the safeguards will face bans for violating the newly clarified Section 6A3.
Speaking of bans, I know that some ISBoxer users were indignant that input replicators
1 will receive the same punishment as input automation, which is defined as botting and/or macroing. But when looking at the effects of input automation vs. input broadcasting/multiplexing on EVE, one can make a case that input replication is more damaging to EVE than botting.
Botting and input replication are credited with having adverse affects on the EVE economy. Whether in the form of mining bots or ISBoxing mining fleets, both types of EULA violations fuel resource faucets in the form of ice and ore streams. Both ratting and mission bots and input broadcasting fleets both increase the ISK flow in the form of bounties and other ISK rewards.
 |
| An ISBoxer ice mining fleet |
Where input broadcasting becomes more damaging than bots is the types of content that input broadcasters monopolize compared to bots. Botting basically occurs in three areas: mining/ice harvesting, mission running, and ratting. Input replicators, in addition to the famous massive ice mining fleets, also are able to monopolize certain types of incursion sites. Also, unlike bots, input replicators have proved effective in PvP, especially in bomber and ganking fleets. Many players consider the ability of one or two input replicators running bomber gangs to stymie the efforts of two hundred players game breaking. If CCP removed the area of effect doomsday from titans because the devs did not like one player wiping out a hundred ships in a drive-by attack, do players think a single player should still have the ability to do the same using the much less expensive area of effect weapons sported by a gang or two of stealth bombers?
In my mind, I do not believe the ability of a group to monopolize content is necessarily a bad thing. If one group can control an area and the resources therein, that drives conflict. But the design of the game requires a group of players to accomplish these goals. Keeping as many players occupied with content is good game design. Input replicators defeat that design goal.
Of course, speculation exists about the effect of input replicators using ISBoxer on the price of PLEX. The theory is that most people who use ISBoxer PLEX their alt accounts. How many accounts is that? While CCP probably knows, the players don't. However, I don't think too many people doubt that the number runs into the thousands. With the great earnings potential of PvE fleets utilizing input replication, ISBoxers are less affected by higher PLEX prices than the average null sec line grunt.
 |
| EVE Central Bank Mission Statement From Fanfest 2012 |
The PLEX market is a sensitive part of the
EVE economy. So sensitive, in fact, that at Fanfest in 2012, CCP announced the formation of the
EVE Central Bank to monitor and, if necessary, intervene in the market. PLEX is the only item in which CCP will directly intervene in an otherwise player-run economy. These interventions occur when CCP, with the CSM acting as a watchdog, feels that a market manipulation too severely impacts the average player's ability to subscribe to
EVE using PLEX.
If CCP is willing to directly intervene in the PLEX market, does anyone believe the devs would not work to end shady practices that threaten the ability of the average player to unfairly maintain an EVE subscription using in-game currency? Team Security has done so for years in their continuing War on Bots. Why would CCP not employ the security team against those utilizing input broadcasting and input multiplexing?
The former CCP Stillman on the input broadcast ban.
At the end of the day, ISBoxer, if I read CCP Falcon's forum post correctly, will go from an officially barely tolerated software to one that players can use as long as they disable the input broadcasting function. I think a lot of ISBoxer users who don't use input broadcasting and input multiplexing are happy at the prospect. However, a lot of ISBoxer users who depended on input broadcasting will either cancel a lot of accounts or even completely leave
EVE. The question is: how badly will their departure hurt
EVE? Just judging by the reasons for taking a tough stance on input broadcasting/multiplexing, I don't think the game will miss them at all.
NOTES:
1. A term first used by EVE Radio's Dirk MacGirk in
a piece published yesterday on TheMittani.com.
For your next MMO, consider consulting bot builders about anti hacking mechanisms."