How would you expect them to enforce it? Short of not allowing more than one client to open from any given IP address at a time (which is another nightmare due to shared IP's), how are expecting them to stop people from multi-boxing? Remember, ISBoxer WAS against the EULA, until some inventive chappie demonstrated a totally hardware way of doing the same thing.

ISBoxer became "legal" simply because there's no way for CCP to tell when people are using it versus when they're not.

Inh otherwords, OP, please demonstrate how to tell when someone is using ISBoxer versus a couple of these.

Simple. #1: Client can check to see if the IsBoxer program is installed or running.
#2: Automatically flag IPs that have 5+ simultaneous accounts coming from them and ban them until they can prove that they are using hardware methods.

Why?

Simple. #1: Client can check to see if the IsBoxer program is installed or running.
#2: Automatically flag IPs that have 5+ simultaneous accounts coming from them and ban them until they can prove that they are using hardware methods.

Q) Why ban multiboxing software?

A) Because, as far as I am concerned it is violation of the EULA which as players we are supposed to abide by.

Q) Why ban multiboxing software?

A) Because, as far as I am concerned it is violation of the EULA which as players we are supposed to abide by.
A) Because, however you see it, it is having an effect on the in game economy which affects everyone.

Q) Why has CCP not banned it?
A) Because they are making money from it, albeit indirectly.

Your concerns are irrelevant. As far as CCP is concerned, it's not a violation of the EULA and they have very clearly said so many many times. Furthermore, there is nothing in the EULA that even remotely suggests that it would be a violation to control multiple clients at once. As for your second answer, so what? A single person doing a single thing with a single account affects the economy GÇö should he be banned too because of it? What's so bad about isboxers affecting the economy (same as everyone else) that makes it particularly heinous?

So again, why? Why should they ban something that very clearly does not violate any of their rules?

So laughably incorrect that it borders on the absurd.
They haven't banned it because it doesn't do anything that is ban-worthy.

The idea that they don't ban because the number of accounts a person has is instantly proven 100% idiotic by looking at how they treat botters.

Simply put, if CCP want people to take the EULA seriously then they should rethink and rewrite large parts of it.

I'm just seeing "but ccp says its legal!" over and over. Anyone mind trying to explain why its actually beneficial to the game? OP isn't doing a good job of justifying why it should be banned but its proponents aren't defending it very well either.

I will ask my question again:

How is using IS Boxer any different than using a hardware solution that HAS THE SAME RESULTS?

Until you can come up with a legitamate answer to that question, we're pretty much done here.

Just because CCP says it's legal, doesn't make it the correct decision.

It's a shame that so many people actually take the side of cheaters.

Does it mention anything about using hardware to gain any form of advantage in the EULA?

Because it does mention third party software.

Cheaters get banned. It happens all the time, so how is CCP taking their side, exactly?

Because ISBox is cheating, regardless of what CCP claims. CCP might allow it because it makes them money, but it is still cheating.

We do not endorse or condone the use of any third party applications or other software that modifies the client or otherwise confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. 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.

Yeah just like buying plex is cheating. Cause like it totally gives you an unfair advantage!!! PAY TO WIN !! at it's most basic!!



Also apparently owning more then one account is cheating. Having PI alts on one account is cheating. Reading about the game and using that knowledge to make more isk then the complainers in this thread is also cheating..

Because ISBox is cheating, regardless of what CCP claims. CCP might allow it because it makes them money, but it is still cheating.

The sections I've highlighted I think are usable by both sides of the argument, although I'm not hopeful the discussion will get any better.

Not even pointing out the one glaring fault in his arguement?

It is literally CCP's game, they determine what is cheating. Its like your best friend bobby inviting you to play bobby-ball, if the goal fo the game is to hold the ball as long as possible, but any redheads or girls who touch it are disqualified, and hes the only not-ginger dude playing, they are still his rules and you either have to follow them or not play. Hell, its like going into a casino and saying the Dealer is cheating because he isnt playing by the same rules as you, well no crap, he plays by the house's rules, which are different from the betters rules, because its their game.

It's so blatantly obvious that I didn't feel the need to even try to argue that angle. i just took their arguments to the logical conclusion. Figured that might have more of an effect then "ccp says it's legal deal with it"..

Ok so I'll attack this from a PvP perspective. How is one guy with 100 domi's fair to the 1 guy with 1 domi? CCP changed how drone assignment works for a reason. ISBoxer is one way to circumvent that change.

That's a ridiculous argument. 1 domi against 100 of them is going to get fubar'd in short order regardless of how many people are controlling the 100 domis.