EVE Search - BAN ISBOXER ALREADY CCP

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

BAN ISBOXER ALREADY CCP

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lelob ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.23 12:30:15 - [1] - Quote Ok, so apparently it has gotten to the point where: - incursions isboxer multi-boxers absolutely destroy gangs of players in highsec - isboxing bombers pose a greater threat then actual gangs of bombers in nullsec - people in gangs doing WH cap escalations are at a disadvantage to 1 person who can happily multi-box C5/C6 capital escalations (Try it without isboxer) -1 person can happily multibox an entire logistics wing more efficiently then a gang of people working together -systems like Rancer have been completely changed by multiboxers -suicide gankers using isboxer can happily gank high-value targets with incredible ease that would be impossible without a gang In essence, isboxer gives players using it an incredible advantage over those not using it and has in many cases totally changed the way the game is played. (IE: pvpers in nullsec being on the look-out for people like odell who are multiboxing bombers) From EVE EULA: CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System. 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. 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. I bolded the part that needs to be said. ISboxer is a macro program that allows 1 person to basically become an entire gang, often to the point where they are more effective then most player-based gangs. Get rid of it already.
King Fu Hostile Imperial Collective Unsettled. 183	Posted - 2014.10.23 12:33:28 - [2] - Quote Fully supported & inb4 the same old tired defenses
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 614	Posted - 2014.10.23 12:51:41 - [3] - Quote As a guy who has over 10 high SP characters I am ok with this. Isboxer is a plague. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 51	Posted - 2014.10.23 13:06:41 - [4] - Quote +1
Lugh Crow-Slave 179	Posted - 2014.10.23 13:19:58 - [5] - Quote +1 but good luck with this it would hurt ccps subs they would rather just change their game around it
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 34	Posted - 2014.10.23 13:20:01 - [6] - Quote yep. ban isbotters. full support.
Kaerakh Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 463	Posted - 2014.10.23 13:49:00 - [7] - Quote I don't isbox, and only have 2 active accounts with more than 5m sp. This thread looks like people whining about people having more RL money than them. (Let the hate commence) `[Schrodinger's Hot Dropper](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4374522#post4374522) - [The Fate of Forum Alts](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4710575#post4710575) - [Click me! Click me!](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=316093)`
Zmikund Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 29	Posted - 2014.10.23 13:57:12 - [8] - Quote Kaerakh wrote: I don't isbox, and only have 2 active accounts with more than 5m sp. This thread looks like people whining about people having more RL money than them. (Let the hate commence) this post looks like someone who has no sence for fairness ...
Herrin Asura Covert Agency for Surreptitious Annihilation 8	Posted - 2014.10.23 13:59:07 - [9] - Quote Kaerakh wrote: I don't isbox, and only have 2 active accounts with more than 5m sp. This thread looks like people whining about people having more RL money than them. (Let the hate commence) Troll. Lelob wrote: Ok, so apparently it has gotten to the point where: ....... +1 I too do not believe CCP will do anything on the subject because of Subscription numbers.
Valkin Mordirc 326	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:02:46 - [10] - Quote Zmikund wrote: Kaerakh wrote: I don't isbox, and only have 2 active accounts with more than 5m sp. This thread looks like people whining about people having more RL money than them. (Let the hate commence) this post looks like someone who has no sence for fairness ... I am usually one of the 'EVE isn't fair deal with it.' crowd. However...The ability to buy unfairness that is in your favor, because you happen to have a better job then somebody else. Is probably out of the line and CCP could at least come up with a compromise that fixes the issue. The bomber nerf coming soon, is not the fix to the problem it only hurts actually bomber fleets made of real people. And only makes a minor problem for the Isboxers. `#DeleteTheWeak`
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4408	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:04:55 - [11] - Quote CCP has defined by precedent what happens when one group gains an advantage. They do not remove that advantage. They instead give it to everyone.* Obviously, they aren't going to give everyone high end gaming rigs, with multiple monitors. But then, in order to effectively control multiple clients, they do not need to. All they simply need to do, is have the clients capable of being controlled by a master account. Each still being paid for individually, and requiring micromanagement for things such as ship fittings and skills. But all capable of following simple orders, as well as basic tactics. To use an old expression, if you can't beat them, join them. *Citing the change to local chat, where standings had been added for everyone in response to one group's effective work-a-round that gave them the ability. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 34	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:08:44 - [12] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: To use an old expression, if you can't beat them, join them. CCP can beat them very well. first 30 day ban, permaban at second attempt.
Gwailar School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 47	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:09:30 - [13] - Quote Yes. +1 "Mmmmm. PoonWaffles."-á-á --Mittens the Cat
Leonard Nimoy II Dark Force Protectorate Special Operators Federation Alliance 31	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:16:49 - [14] - Quote +1 to this, yes plz.
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4408	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:18:35 - [15] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: Nikk Narrel wrote: To use an old expression, if you can't beat them, join them. CCP can beat them very well. first 30 day ban, permaban at second attempt. That assumes they have a motive to punish holders of multiple accounts. Considering some of the past promotions to encourage second accounts, if not additional to that, I do not believe that will happen. CCP wants you to have multiple accounts, which begs the point of their being significantly less useful if not online at the same time. Some people may be using a third party tool for this, which lets CCP enjoy the added income while not seeming to encourage any negative emergent game play. But unless CCP wants to be seen as catering for players able to afford high end rigs, they will add in the ability for all. ISBOXER just makes it easier for some. You can still do it without that software. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Rayzilla Zaraki Tandokuno 269	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:23:40 - [16] - Quote I used to agree with CCPs view on ISBoxer, this is a sandbox after all. That, and being someone who runs three accounts, I thought I'd be hypocritical. However, I run those three on three separate machines varying in quality from pretty darn good to boat anchor. I also have three monitors, three keyboards and three mouses. I put my combat guy on the good machine, the back up combat guy on the OK machine and the logistics/salvage/hauler guy on the boat anchor. I adapted tactics and fits to keep NPC fire o n the first two, thus saving the third. I have seen up to 10 toons sitting on a gate camp capable on insta-locking and destroying a cloaked ship coming into the gate in the split second it decloaks before gating. They also go into the ice fields with an Orca, and Archon and 8 Skiffs all controlled by one player, one one machine giving a single direction that mirrors onto all ships. They clear fields in 30 to 45 minutes. CCP doesn't allow the use of marcos (right?). How is ISBoxer different? I would even say it is worse than macros and scripts. How is it more harmful if I click one button and my ship does three things off that one click than to have one click control 10 ships? I understand CCP wanting to work with and support the various third parties out there that create tools for the Eve players, but ISBoxer creates such a ridiculously huge advantage that it needs to be banned or somehow restricted. Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
Ghaustyl Kathix Rising Thunder 39	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:26:50 - [17] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: ISBOXER just makes it easier for some. You can still do it without that software. It's the way it makes it easier. Bomber gangs, for example, can't really be multiboxed without ISBoxer, and it makes bombing runs far more efficient and artificially so. For applications like incursions and suicide ganks, I agree, it really doesn't make much of a difference. But it gives a massive organizational advantage for null-sec bombing runs, so much so that it badly limits the diversity of fleets in null-sec (and the proposed cloak changes just make ISBoxer the only way these bombing runs will work the same way).
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 794	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:29:53 - [18] - Quote You'd have to ban them all, not just isboxer. Took a quick look for alternatives to isboxer, it ain't alone, it's just the perferred one for eve. Get rid of it if possible. Plus 1 Yaay!!!!
Kaerakh Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 463	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:31:34 - [19] - Quote Zmikund wrote: Kaerakh wrote: I don't isbox, and only have 2 active accounts with more than 5m sp. This thread looks like people whining about people having more RL money than them. (Let the hate commence) this post looks like someone who has no sence for fairness ... The game is unfair. If you're looking for preorganized fights go back to counterstrike or WoW. And as for the other comments, it's pretty laughable to say CCP should give your computer components to compete. I play with a single monitor, but I don't complain when I hear corpmates or other people talk about doing stuff on their other monitors. To take my previous example a step further; if my monitor was only capable of 1024x768, and you had a 1920x1080 monitor. Would that give me grounds to complaint hat you have an unfair advantage? Technically yes, but that's not CCP's responsibility. That's my responsibility. Oh and before any of you say that completely unrealistic and ridiculous, you should all look up a game called StarCraft. Blizzard purposefully restricted the resolution of the game because of that scenario. Because it was seen as an unfair advantage. Whoop de doo, deal with it. Nothing's fair about getting snagged by your lonesome by a 20 man fleet. That's the game, get over it. If I want to spend money on out of game hardware and software to give myself an advantage, that's my prerogative. If I want a new fancy saitek joystick for Elite Dangerous and you can't afford to get one well f***ing tough nuts. `[Schrodinger's Hot Dropper](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4374522#post4374522) - [The Fate of Forum Alts](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4710575#post4710575) - [Click me! Click me!](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=316093)`
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:35:40 - [20] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: ISBOXER just makes it easier for some. You can still do it without that software. well if you can do same things withut ISBOTTER then CCP could as well ban them, right? I'm not generally against multiboxing, I'm against botting personal fleets of 1 by 3rd party ISBOTTER software, as even explicitely prohibited by Eve EULA (read Lelobs post), CCP just isnt enforcing their own policies for sake of additional isbotter subscriptions.
King Fu Hostile Imperial Collective Unsettled. 186	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:50:05 - [21] - Quote Kaerakh wrote: The game is unfair. If you're looking for preorganized fights go back to counterstrike or WoW. The game is not unfair, we love it. However, this thread is about a botting program, not whether you feel mistreated in EVE or not.
Kaerakh Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 465	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:56:31 - [22] - Quote King Fu Hostile wrote: Kaerakh wrote: The game is unfair. If you're looking for preorganized fights go back to counterstrike or WoW. The game is not unfair, we love it. However, this thread is about a botting program, not whether you feel mistreated in EVE or not. It's not botting because it requires an active user. `[Schrodinger's Hot Dropper](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4374522#post4374522) - [The Fate of Forum Alts](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4710575#post4710575) - [Click me! Click me!](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=316093)`
Bl1SkR1N Euphoria Released Triumvirate. 43	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:59:40 - [23] - Quote +1
Systemlord Rah Mechanized Industrial Warfare Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 11	Posted - 2014.10.23 14:59:55 - [24] - Quote not again didnt ccp say they cant bann isboxer because they only need to rename it and the cant say isboxer is ok because if isboxer updates and a new feature is addet against the eula the users can say you allowed it
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 515	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:03:16 - [25] - Quote Kaerakh wrote: I don't isbox, and only have 2 active accounts with more than 5m sp. This thread looks like people whining about people having more RL money than them. (Let the hate commence) Problem is isboxing makes multicleint idiot proof. Most have no problem with traditional multiclient. If they can handle alt tab multiclient well...good on them. I am mostly good up to say 2 running pve in funky combos (glass cannon + logi, meatshield rattler and torp spec bombers done in past as well). Key word is mostly. When I am not on my game...dual box can get ugly. We aren't not liking multiclient....we want some (shrug) effort put into it is all. this problem leads to other problems. Its now affecting other game mechanics. Bombers now getting decloak back is based on isboxing abuse in many peoples opinions. Some like to isbox this....a bit too much. this would be why decloak is coming back. People are is boxing bomber gank squads. Traditional multiclient this is a pita. If old boy could coordinate 5 torp spec bomber with the APM (actions per minute) to hop across 5 clients and be as effective.....my hats off to them. Isboxer made this too easy however. If isboxing was kept to pve I and other could give a rats ass tbh. It bleeding into pvp however and because of isboxing we can't have nice things. Which is kind of messed up as ccp seems to be treating the symptoms of the disease...but not curing the disease itself.
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4408	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:03:53 - [26] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: Nikk Narrel wrote: ISBOXER just makes it easier for some. You can still do it without that software. well if you can do same things withut ISBOTTER then CCP could as well ban them, right? I'm not generally against multiboxing, I'm against botting personal fleets of 1 by 3rd party ISBOTTER software, as even explicitely prohibited by Eve EULA (read Lelobs post), CCP just isnt enforcing their own policies for sake of additional isbotter subscriptions, this is sad. That is why I expect CCP to make this a universal ability. Consider, if you please: 1. CCP is not going to stop encouraging multiple accounts. 2. You can hook up multiple monitors to a single box. Conservatively, 3 monitors if you dial down the video demands enough. That means you can run three accounts, and not necessarily needing bleeding edge hardware. 3. A second box gives you an additional three monitors. If you buy a cheap KVM switch, you can swap through multiple displays easily. That example gives you 6 accounts online. If you are creative, you don't need ISBOXER. The software just takes some of the details and smooths them out. Some people like playing like this, and I don't see CCP throwing away that income. I see them giving everyone that ability instead. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1815	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:04:32 - [27] - Quote I do not think it needs to be banned. But a limit must be put upon. Somethign like max 4-5 accounts. Still helps mining and some activities, but do not allow you do do absolutely everything alone. Other day we say a high sec PVP fleet of 17 Golems.... that is beyond stupid and bad for the game community. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 846	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:10:18 - [28] - Quote Do you want to run in Bomber fleets day in/day out to get stuff done? Do you want to sit in bombers and camp systems and stations in hostile areas for extended periods of time? Do you want to participate in Incursion fleets day in/day out? Unless you can't answers these and other, similar questions with yes, you are in no position to demand the ban of ISBoxer.
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4410	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:11:11 - [29] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: I do not think it needs to be banned. But a limit must be put upon. Somethign like max 4-5 accounts. Still helps mining and some activities, but do not allow you do do absolutely everything alone. Other day we say a high sec PVP fleet of 17 Golems.... that is beyond stupid and bad for the game community. Certainly unusual, by the sound of it. Bad for the game? If they were 17 different players, it would be beyond reproach. We would be praising them. What if it were 9 players, though, with 8 of them dual boxing a second client? Many, if not most, would still be good with this, too. Where exactly is this line drawn, then? I think it appears where we perceive the lack of ability to duplicate to normal players. If everyone could control 17 accounts, and do so effectively enough to duplicate the above situation, WE would NOT care about this at all. CCP might even offer them a multi-account discount, for all I know. That is why I expect CCP to make this something everyone can do, rather than punish those who make extra effort, buy additional software, or a combination of the two. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:13:19 - [30] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: That is why I expect CCP to make this a universal ability. how would you imagine this? Key broadcast across clients? Well then they could leave isbotter where it is. Nikk Narrel wrote: Consider, if you please: 1. CCP is not going to stop encouraging multiple accounts. they shouldnt. All I'm personally asking for is to ban isbotter. Nikk Narrel wrote: 2. You can hook up multiple monitors to a single box. Conservatively, 3 monitors if you dial down the video demands enough. That means you can run three accounts, and not necessarily needing bleeding edge hardware. 3. A second box gives you an additional three monitors. If you buy a cheap KVM switch, you can swap through multiple displays easily. That example gives you 6 accounts online. from me, they should do that, I'm all fine with it. Nikk Narrel wrote: If you are creative, you don't need ISBOXER. The software just takes some of the details and smooths them out. well then, they should be creative, I'm ok with that as long as they have to deal with each single client manually. What I'm not fine with is isbotter which allows certain tactics which arent viable or mount tooo many possibilities to ** and and thus render it ineffective eventually, you know it, I know it, CCP knows it, so be honest. If someone manages to command a fleet of 10 bombers without ISBOTTER, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH IT and would tip my hat to him. Nikk Narrel wrote:** Some people like playing like this, and I don't see CCP throwing away that income. with same argument, they could've kept all those ratting bots too I guess, for income reasons. No? This is why this bothers me so much, they allow bots for income sake. wtf? How bad have things got about eve?
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4410	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:20:16 - [31] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: Nikk Narrel wrote: Some people like playing like this, and I don't see CCP throwing away that income. with same argument, they could've kept all those ratting bots too I guess, for income reasons. No? This is why this bothers me so much, they allow bots for income sake. wtf? How bad have things got about eve? That is comparing two radically different items, and I think you are perfectly aware of this. This multi-boxing tool lacks the ability to REACT. That is the key element. It is blind, effectively, and relies on a player to direct it. Botters have used tools removing the need for direction, as the tools can react on a players behalf. Please try to avoid such comparisons, they only throw up confusion for some. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Kaerakh Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 465	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:25:58 - [32] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: ISBOTTER Calling things names like it's elementary school all over again doesn't make your point any better, in fact it makes it worse because you're going out of your way to try and use a fallacy to convince us you're right. I won't claim to have the best reasoning skills or never committing a fallacy, but it doesn't give your argument any additional weight by resorting to straw man and guilt by association in a single stride. `[Schrodinger's Hot Dropper](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4374522#post4374522) - [The Fate of Forum Alts](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4710575#post4710575) - [Click me! Click me!](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=316093)`
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:26:32 - [33] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: That is comparing two radically different items, and I think you are perfectly aware of this. This multi-boxing tool lacks the ability to REACT. That is the key element. It is blind, effectively, and relies on a player to direct it. Botters have used tools removing the need for direction, as the tools can react on a players behalf. Please try to avoid such comparisons, they only throw up confusion for some. AI or acting on its own is not a key feature of a bot/automation. A character which is replicating real player's actions on its own is kind of a bot too (via 3rd party key/mouse input replicating software for example). Lets not go into that.
Tij Lamor University of Caille Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:33:30 - [34] - Quote I believe the line should be drawn at the point where a single command can be sent to multiple instances of the client simultaneously. The practical limit for multi-boxing where each instance is controlled separately is probably 3 and even that is hard work. With ISBoxer you can easily control a full squadron of gank ships, mining barges, bombers, etc... because you can tell them all to lock or fire with a single command. If CCP has trouble distinguishing between these modes of operation, simply limit the number of clients that can be active on a machine to 3. Multi-boxers will rarely if ever want to play more characters than that at the same time and ISBoxers will rarely want to play less since the tool wouldn't be necessary.
Lenestar Tinsolis Knight Market Logistics Inc. 8	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:37:33 - [35] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Other day we say a high sec PVP fleet of 17 Golems.... that is beyond stupid and bad for the game community. I would rather see 17 ISBoxed Golems than no Golems or only one or two. Ditto with stealth bomb fleets. Look, we all know that coordinating with people is THE joy and THE challenge of EVE (or any MMO for that matter). To experience the game to its fullest (especially in EVE where the scale is massive), you have to work with other people. But to really work well with other people on that level--on the scale that EVE is designed for--requires time commitments that can be very difficult to support in the face of real life commitments. I mean, right? That's the struggle we all face. How to find the blocks of time required to both keep the ISK flowing in and coordinate kick-ass fleet ops . . . How to find enough likeable people that can reliably do the same . . . In an ideal world, New Eden would be teaming with interesting, varied fleets with a 1-1 relationship between players and ships. But that's just not realistic. For my part, I would rather have ISBox fleets filling New Eden space than not have them. More content is better than less content, even if the content is admittedly less than ideal. I see it as just another challenge that makes the New Eden sandbox unpredictable and challenging. I'll never be a big player in EVE. But I enjoy the fact that even being a small player involves challenges that simply don't exist in other games. Not to mention the fact that if all this space technology were real, the kind of coordination among fleet members that ISBox enables would be completely possible--even normal. So even from an RP point of view I don't mind it. Or the fact that those ISBoxer subs pay the same developers that I need to keep the goodness flowing for me as well. -1
Kaerakh Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 465	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:40:23 - [36] - Quote Tij Lamor wrote: I believe the line should be drawn at the point where a single command can be sent to multiple instances of the client simultaneously. The practical limit for multi-boxing where each instance is controlled separately is probably 3 and even that is hard work. With ISBoxer you can easily control a full squadron of gank ships, mining barges, bombers, etc... because you can tell them all to lock or fire with a single command. If CCP has trouble distinguishing between these modes of operation, simply limit the number of clients that can be active on a machine to 3. Multi-boxers will rarely if ever want to play more characters than that at the same time and ISBoxers will rarely want to play less since the tool wouldn't be necessary. That really does nothing. There's software to get around that artificial limitation. `[Schrodinger's Hot Dropper](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4374522#post4374522) - [The Fate of Forum Alts](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4710575#post4710575) - [Click me! Click me!](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=316093)`
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2014.10.23 15:43:19 - [37] - Quote Lenestar Tinsolis wrote: For my part, I would rather have ISBox fleets filling New Eden space than not have them. for my part, I would rather unsub than play a game full of isbotters. Like everyone else I guess who is not isbotting, because at some point it would become mandatory in order to keep up with the rest.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 846	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:10:11 - [38] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: Lenestar Tinsolis wrote: For my part, I would rather have ISBox fleets filling New Eden space than not have them. for my part, I would rather unsub than play a game full of isbotters. Like everyone else I guess who is not isbotting, because at some point it would become mandatory in order to keep up with the rest. How about you start playing the game then for a change? People like you (non-targeted), who only log in if a Jabber ping goes out, are the reason why ISBoxer and the likes are a necessity these days.
Iain Cariaba 548	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:12:57 - [39] - Quote Lelob wrote: (insert standard whine about ISBoxer here) And now for this week's edition of "Let's Whine About ISBoxer!" A few things I get to say, yet again. 1) There is a hardware method of replicating the main features of any command multicasting software, thus the reason multicasting software is permitted by CCP. I'm not refering to the sticks and tape method. Go google "usb multicaster" and find it yourself, I'm not posting the link again. 2) If CCP were to ban all command multicasters, they would have to ban using the MacOS, because the ability to multicast commands is native in MacOS. I'd guess that alienating Mac users would take a good chunk out of the budget, since CCP still makes a Mac client. 3) Looking at the thread, I see all the usual anti-ISBoxer people posting. Guess what, one average ISBoxer has more subs than all of you combined, therefore represents a larger chunk of the subscription base. Want to guess who CCP is more likely to listen to? 4) Also, I see the usual solution of "limit the number of clients allowed per machine" in the thread. To those people I say, whenever you come up with a way to limit the number of clients I can run at a time, I can come up with half a dozen ways to bypass that restriction. Seriously, people, stop the pathetic whining. If the bad ISBoxers are taking all your highsec ice, grow a pair and go do something about it. Ask CODE. how to make a smartbomb megathron, grab half a dozen buddies, and go nuke an ISBoxer fleet. Regardless of the examples OP gave, I know it's just another highsec carebear whining about someone taking his ice, because those are the only ones who ever complain about ISBoxer. Hiding behind a PL alt doesn't matter. Simply put, no one else cares. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 180	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:19:44 - [40] - Quote +1,000,000 ISBoxer is a plague that needs to be eradicated. Make the game fair for everyone.
FunGu Arsten Fungu .Inc 27	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:28:38 - [41] - Quote The real question is this: do you feel like you can not compete? do you feel like others are getting an advantage? do you feel like others are getting more return from their time ingame? > you can compete as ccp has stated they are not against it > what advantage is there when it is allowed and you too can do it if you choose to? > has it not always been a min-max setup for most players to spend as little time on PVE to PVP? Yes i believe multiboxing has alot of great features and it improves my game, gameplay. But in all honnesty, you are discussing the wrong issue. isboxer to multibox =/= ability to multibox There are many other ways to multibox, some that you might not know about. As said before, there will always be other software packages, and even the odd mechanical setup to multibox. Hardware changes can make multiboxing possible too... So if isboxer is banned you can still do the same thing through other means, and we will keep having this threadspam on every other program, pc setup etc... So stop making shitthreads about only one of many software packages and other crazy inventions one might have ( woodensticks) and ask ccp to remove the ability to multibox? Either you force 1 client per player or allow multiboxing -> banning one software package will do nothing... pretty simple...
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:31:43 - [42] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: 1) There is a hardware method of replicating the main features of any command multicasting software, thus the reason multicasting software is permitted by CCP. I'm not refering to the sticks and tape method. Go google "usb multicaster" and find it yourself, I'm not posting the link again. "its possible to stab people. lets allow guns for everyone." pathetic argument Whatever tool people might use for it, it should be banned for specific purpose of input broadcast over multiple eve clients. Simple and effective. Iain Cariaba wrote: 2) If CCP were to ban all command multicasters, they would have to ban using the MacOS, because the ability to multicast commands is native in MacOS. I'd guess that alienating Mac users would take a good chunk out of the budget, since CCP still makes a Mac client. i'm pretty sure there is a way to exclude eve from macOS multicast somehow to make platforms equal. Iain Cariaba wrote: 3) Looking at the thread, I see all the usual anti-ISBoxer people posting. Guess what, one average ISBoxer has more subs than all of you combined, therefore represents a larger chunk of the subscription base. Want to guess who CCP is more likely to listen to? so following this pattern, have fun in isbotter vs. isbotter universe at some point in the future. Iain Cariaba wrote: 4) Also, I see the usual solution of "limit the number of clients allowed per machine" in the thread. To those people I say, whenever you come up with a way to limit the number of clients I can run at a time, I can come up with half a dozen ways to bypass that restriction. nah. just enforce EULA and ban violators. This works perfectly fine and isbotters are obvious. Iain Cariaba wrote: Seriously, people, stop the pathetic whining. If the bad nope. Bad game design is.. bad and should be spoken about.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 567	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:32:08 - [43] - Quote People talking about three clients per computer are simply being stupid. CCP will never implement a restriction like that. What kind of sound business model is that? For another thing, how many people here have actually used ISBoxer? Because I'm seeing a lot of claims about it that do not square with my own experience. One, it is very clunky and generally finds a way to ** you. It does not work that well with Eve's interface. It really only works at all if you have all your clients perfectly configured and in carefully controlled circumstances. It works if you are using identical ships all doing the same thing to the same target. If your UI gets at all ** up you are totally screwed. I've been on the receiving end of Ammzi's bomb runs and it sucked. I've also totally killed one of those Bomber wings when something went wrong on a gate and they could not evade. For that reason, I don't n use ISBoxer for PVP, except to sit three snipers off a gate at range. Even that is a pain unless someone broadcasts a target. As a small gang FC, I'd rather have eight people in my gang than one player with eight alts.but sometimes you take what you can get. The thing I like most about ISBoxer is that it makes it so I can see most of three clients info on one screen at the same time. Before I had to alt tab frantically to make sure all my ships were still shooting the rats. CCP should build these abilities into the game so I don't have to rely on third party tools to have some control more than two of my six accounts at once. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.**
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:50:59 - [44] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: For another thing, how many people here have actually used ISBoxer? Because I'm seeing a lot of claims about it that do not square with my own experience. One, it is very clunky and generally finds a way to ** you. It does not work that well with Eve's interface. It really only works at all if you have all your clients perfectly configured and in carefully controlled circumstances. It works if you are using identical ships all doing the same thing to the same target. If your UI gets at all ** up you are totally screwed. Obviously, isbotter isnt too bad and worth the trouble as increasingly more and more people use it for their own 1-man fleets. FT Diomedes wrote: I've been on the receiving end of Ammzi's bomb runs and it sucked. I've also totally killed one of those Bomber wings when something went wrong on a gate and they could not evade. good for you. Bombers are dirt cheap and disposable. FT Diomedes wrote:** The thing I like most about ISBoxer is that it makes it so I can see most of three clients info on one screen at the same time. Before I had to alt tab frantically to make sure all my ships were still shooting the rats. CCP should build these abilities into the game so I don't have to rely on third party tools to have some control more than two of my six accounts at once. noone is argueing about screen management features of isbotter, its input broadcast which people point at, which should get eliminated. Wasted keystokes on your part here.
FunGu Arsten Fungu .Inc 27	Posted - 2014.10.23 16:52:57 - [45] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: [qote=Iain Cariaba] 1) There is a hardware method of replicating the main features of any command multicasting software, thus the reason multicasting software is permitted by CCP. I'm not refering to the sticks and tape method. Go google "usb multicaster" and find it yourself, I'm not posting the link again.[/qute] "its possible to stab people. lets allow guns for everyone." pathetic argument banning isboxer is proposing a ban on 9mm guns, and alloving 0.45relvolvers to be sold aslong as you dont know who uses them? Mark Hadden wrote: [qute=Iain Cariaba] 2) If CCP were to ban all command multicasters, they would have to ban using the MacOS, because the ability to multicast commands is native in MacOS. I'd guess that alienating Mac users would take a good chunk out of the budget, since CCP still makes a Mac client.[/qute] i'm pretty sure there is a way to exclude eve from macOS multicast somehow to make platforms equal. ill hand you some tinfoil.. make a hat Mark Hadden wrote: [qute=Iain Cariaba] 3) Looking at the thread, I see all the usual anti-ISBoxer people posting. Guess what, one average ISBoxer has more subs than all of you combined, therefore represents a larger chunk of the subscription base. Want to guess who CCP is more likely to listen to?[/qute] so following this pattern, have fun in isbotter vs. isbotter universe at some point in the future. following your pattern, you say multiboxing is allowed until X clients , anything more is bannable? So your solution is to only have "X-client-multiboxing online"? > I refuse to go down to stupid level and rename a software package to make it look like its a botterprogram.... as the software pack has zero influence on your issue... its just one of many. Mark Hadden wrote: [qute=Iain Cariaba] 4) Also, I see the usual solution of "limit the number of clients allowed per machine" in the thread. To those people I say, whenever you come up with a way to limit the number of clients I can run at a time, I can come up with half a dozen ways to bypass that restriction.[/qute] nah. just enforce EULA and ban violators. This works perfectly fine and isbotters are obvious. you dont need software... , nor does the EULA prevents me from using the software under its strict lettering... you should learn to read the full thing, and not pick half of the words out of a sentence. Try to understand them too before talking about what they mean... Mark Hadden wrote: [qute=Iain Cariaba] Seriously, people, stop the pathetic whining. If the bad [/qute] nope. Bad game design is.. bad and should be spoken about. Agreed, bad game design is bad, so remove all ability to multibox. Can you now stop beeing butthurt about one software package and start directing your issues towards the real issue -ccp allowing more then 1 client per player. All in all you seem to hate ISboxer, Innerspace? Can i give you this: http://www.liquidsilver.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/eve-keyboard.jpg This is totaly legal right!
Mark Hadden Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2014.10.23 17:22:52 - [46] - Quote FunGu Arsten wrote: banning isboxer is proposing a ban on 9mm guns, and alloving 45mm relvolvers to be sold aslong as you dont know who uses them? so, controlling 10 clients separately vs isbotting them is also 45mm vs. 90mm.. mmmhkay. FunGu Arsten wrote: following your pattern, you say multiboxing is allowed until X clients , anything more is bannable? So your solution is to only have "X-client-multiboxing online"? > I refuse to go down to stupid level and rename a software package to make it look like its a botterprogram.... as the software pack has zero influence on your issue... its just one of many. no. Following my pattern any tool which enables automating of x clients is prohibited. As it already is in EULA. FunGu Arsten wrote: you dont need software... , nor does the EULA prevents me from using the software under its strict lettering... you should learn to read the full thing, and not pick half of the words out of a sentence. Try to understand them too before talking about what they mean... I'll return this to you. FunGu Arsten wrote: Agreed, bad game design is bad, so remove all ability to multibox. Can you now stop beeing butthurt about one software package and start directing your issues towards the real issue -ccp allowing more then 1 client per player. here again. Im not against multiboxing, stop acting like a tard. I'm against automated multiboxing. and yeah, learn quoting.
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4411	Posted - 2014.10.23 17:43:04 - [47] - Quote Give everyone the ability to multibox. It can be server side or client side, the difference would not be significant. (Server side could be more practical, as client side would scale limited by hardware purchased by real life money, creating an indirect form of pay-to-win from one viewpoint) You would have the accounts linked to each other through the account management tool. It would be a violation of the eula to transfer accounts to another player on this level, as that would be account sharing. The player themselves is the limiting factor in this. The player would log into the master account, and have two options regarding each slave account. Direct control, (swap into the slave account directly, for first person traditional play). Indirect control, which would be logging that account in as a menu driven set of choices, while maintaining control from the master account in direct mode. This might resemble a fleet screen UI, more than anything else. Ship fittings, inventory control beyond basic, all of these would require direct control. Group actions, would be possible through Indirect control. EVE should be all inclusive, as software goes, concerning options for play. I would call it Legion. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Iain Cariaba 550	Posted - 2014.10.23 17:43:34 - [48] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: "its possible to stab people. lets allow guns for everyone." pathetic argument Whatever tool people might use for it, it should be banned for specific purpose of input broadcast over multiple eve clients. Simple and effective (which is actually already prohibited per EULA btw). Your example is irrelevant to the discussion. My example of a hardware solution for multiboxing is the reason multicasting software is no longer banned. Since you are uninformed, using multicasting software was, at one point in time, a bannable offense. When someone proved it's main features could be duplicated with hardware, CCP relented and allowed it. Mark Hadden wrote: so following this pattern, have fun in isbotter vs. isbotter universe at some point in the future. As said earlier, calling things names like it's elementary school all over again doesn't make your point any better, in fact it makes it worse because you're going out of your way to try and use a fallacy to convince us you're right. Also, your example of an ISBoxer vs ISBoxer universe is not only unreasonable, but reactionary and unfounded in reality. Outside of a very few circumstances, multicasting software and hardware is more of a hinderance than a benefit. In nearly every case, a well organized fleet of 10 players will overcome a 10 man ISBoxer fleet. Mark Hadden wrote: nah. just enforce EULA and ban violators. This works perfectly fine and isbotters are obvious. Sure, because the EULA is utterly black and white. If you wish to enforce the EULA to it's strictest sense, then anyone who uses multiple accounts should be banned, because that is an exploit giving those able to afford multiple accounts an advantage over those who cannot. Anyone who buys a PLEX to sell for isk should be banned because it gives them an advantage over those tho cannot afford a PLEX. Anyone who uses any software not available to the general public, like GTS before it went public, should be banned because they have an advantage over those who don't have the software. Mark Hadden wrote: nope. Bad game design is.. bad and should be spoken about. Third party software is bad game design? How could something not written by CCP and not actually a part of the game be bad game design. You're really starting to reach to justify this now. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 2527	Posted - 2014.10.23 17:58:02 - [49] - Quote Thread locked. The Rules: 17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked. As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.