These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM, pressure CCP to ban IsBoxer.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#61 - 2014-07-02 12:39:41 UTC
Naj Panora wrote:
For those arguing that a 40 man fleet doesn't make more isk an hour than a solo miner add fleet bonuses and Orca bonuses in. You will find the fleet makes vastly mope money than a solo player and each member past point X only exaggerates the isk difference.


One character with mining boosts (you know, like in null you usually have in standing fleets) does exactly the same amount of income than an another character in a fleet of 40.

Where's the multiboxing reference in this?
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2014-07-02 15:25:47 UTC
Lothros Andastar wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Lothros Andastar wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Then why are you lot so focused on ISBoxer and not on EVERY other method that allows for exactly the same thing? I have yet to hear a single one of you call for banning people using hardware solutions.

I love people keep taking about "hardware solutions".

Show me someone who has 40 mice glued together on 40 computers and i'll show you a damned fool. You simply cannot control 40 accounts solo without cheating.


Repeaters and identically configured UI's have existed for ages. Hardware solution does not mean a bazillion of mice and keyboards.

Repeaters are software.


No, they aren't, as I explained to you way back in post number 2 of this thread - but please do not let facts get in your way.

De'Veldrin wrote:
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.


De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#63 - 2014-07-03 23:13:01 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
He's earning isk at the same rate per account as anyone else. There's no acceleration involved...


Exactly the same with ratting/mining/marketing bots, they earn ISK at the same rate per character as everyone else.

No acceleration involved in traditional notting either, just a 3rd party program controlling the game client, like ISBotter does.
LtCol RTButts
Abandon AII Hope
#64 - 2014-07-04 06:47:40 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
LtCol RTButts wrote:

and now math for advanced players.

player A has finished his 40 hours for his PLEX. he does 4 hours a day so he has finished it after 10 days. in the next 20 days he earns another 2 PLEX, thats his yield per month after paying his PLEX.

player B has finished his 40 hours with his 40 characters for his PLEX, he also does 4hours per day = 10 days. in the next 20 days he earns another 80 PLEX.

so, you really want us to explain that 80 PLEX is equal 2 PLEX ??? and yes, nobody is able to control a 40 character fleet without tools.


And yet, on a per character basis, it's exactly the same - 2 Plex per character per month after the initial 1 PLEX per character is earned to pay for the account.

So the 40 man ISBoxer fleet is not earning that amount any faster than any other 40 man fleet. Which means, based on a common sense reading of the EULA about gathering "at an accelerated rate" it is not in contravention of the rules, since the rates per character are exactly the same (3 total plex per month per character).

LtCol RTButts wrote:

and yes, nobody is able to control a 40 character fleet without tools.

Then why are you lot so focused on ISBoxer and not on EVERY other method that allows for exactly the same thing? I have yet to hear a single one of you call for banning people using hardware solutions.


this is a topic about ISBoxer so yes, i am focused in such a topic on ISBoxer. but anyways, i sad also they should search for characters doing exactly the same thing at the same time to find such tools or hardware. but yeah, don't read it ....

about "a single character in the 40 men miner fleet is earning only the same amount of income than an equal solo player doing the same". to be honest, why are people mining with 40 ships if there is no advantage at the end ?

your argument is he earns nothing more when you compare character by character. you drop the main part, he is flying 40 ships. it really doesn't matter if he uses ISBoxer or any other hardware/software solution, he is not able to do it without any tools/hardware. if you would compare your argumentation to a car and the speed limit, you would be allowed to drive 4000 miles/hour in a 100 miles/hour zone because every single car would only "drive" 100 miles/hour ? and sure, you will never reach your destination any faster than a single driving car. 4000 miles/hour are equal to 100 miles/hour.

thats complete bullshit. people use software or hardware solutions to get a benefit, new options and possibilities. the benefit here is, you earn ISK much more faster with a system you can't do without such tools.

@ashley Eoner
about drone assist in vanguards ..... i think you know exactly why people will not use drone assist in vanguards instead of ISBoxer and real DPS ships.

and there is still the major question, why is this topic a problem for ISBoxer (and what to ever repeater solutions) a problem when you have really not a single advanatage and benefit ?
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-07-04 08:11:30 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
He's earning isk at the same rate per account as anyone else. There's no acceleration involved...


Exactly the same with ratting/mining/marketing bots, they earn ISK at the same rate per character as everyone else.

No acceleration involved in traditional notting either, just a 3rd party program controlling the game client, like ISBotter does.


A client run by ISBoxer does nothing if there are no player inputs.

A bot does what it is programmed to do without player inputs.

See the difference?
LtCol RTButts
Abandon AII Hope
#66 - 2014-07-04 10:23:40 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
He's earning isk at the same rate per account as anyone else. There's no acceleration involved...


Exactly the same with ratting/mining/marketing bots, they earn ISK at the same rate per character as everyone else.

No acceleration involved in traditional notting either, just a 3rd party program controlling the game client, like ISBotter does.


A client run by ISBoxer does nothing if there are no player inputs.

A bot does what it is programmed to do without player inputs.

See the difference?


you see the difference between 1 and 40 mouseclicks ?
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-07-04 14:29:35 UTC
LtCol RTButts wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
He's earning isk at the same rate per account as anyone else. There's no acceleration involved...


Exactly the same with ratting/mining/marketing bots, they earn ISK at the same rate per character as everyone else.

No acceleration involved in traditional notting either, just a 3rd party program controlling the game client, like ISBotter does.


A client run by ISBoxer does nothing if there are no player inputs.

A bot does what it is programmed to do without player inputs.

See the difference?


you see the difference between 1 and 40 mouseclicks ?


Yes, but how is that relevant?
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2014-07-04 16:17:54 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
He's earning isk at the same rate per account as anyone else. There's no acceleration involved...


Exactly the same with ratting/mining/marketing bots, they earn ISK at the same rate per character as everyone else.

No acceleration involved in traditional notting either, just a 3rd party program controlling the game client, like ISBotter does.


The significant difference is that the bot does not require continuous human input - you start it and it runs for hours at a time with no further interaction required on the part of a human player.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Adunh Slavy
#69 - 2014-07-04 16:19:30 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Yes, but how is that relevant?



It is entirely relevant. No one human could control so many other characters with out automated assistance. No one human, without assistance, could control two characters as well as one human with the assistance.

This debate hinges on the definition of automation. Some seem to demand that "automation" is more than "one event", such as two mouse clicks, on the same character as opposed to two clicks on two characters.

This canard of "input" is just that, a canard. Programmatic assistance is being used to accomplish more than one human could do alone, end of story.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-07-04 18:23:06 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Yes, but how is that relevant?



It is entirely relevant. No one human could control so many other characters with out automated assistance. No one human, without assistance, could control two characters as well as one human with the assistance.

This debate hinges on the definition of automation. Some seem to demand that "automation" is more than "one event", such as two mouse clicks, on the same character as opposed to two clicks on two characters.

This canard of "input" is just that, a canard. Programmatic assistance is being used to accomplish more than one human could do alone, end of story.


Now you're going into the debate if we should use computers at all. What is allowed is clearly outlined in the EULA/TOS and ISBoxer is not currently breaking it. If it does start breaking rules, ban it, but for now this discussion is just a pissing contest.
LtCol RTButts
Abandon AII Hope
#71 - 2014-07-04 19:56:40 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Yes, but how is that relevant?



It is entirely relevant. No one human could control so many other characters with out automated assistance. No one human, without assistance, could control two characters as well as one human with the assistance.

This debate hinges on the definition of automation. Some seem to demand that "automation" is more than "one event", such as two mouse clicks, on the same character as opposed to two clicks on two characters.

This canard of "input" is just that, a canard. Programmatic assistance is being used to accomplish more than one human could do alone, end of story.


Now you're going into the debate if we should use computers at all. What is allowed is clearly outlined in the EULA/TOS and ISBoxer is not currently breaking it. If it does start breaking rules, ban it, but for now this discussion is just a pissing contest.


it's really fantastic how people spin a topic just to keep their advantages they couldn't keep without a third party to and without automation via reteating commands on different characters. it's really fantastic. till now, you have brought not a single arguemtn why such tools should be allowed.

an about the EULA. only because CCP is currently doing nothing is not equal to it is fine with the EULA.

6. CONDUCT

A. Specifically Restricted Conduct

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.

3. 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.

We do not endorse or condone the use of player-made software or any other third party applications or software that 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. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or is used 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 player-made or other third party software at your own risk.

CCP may allow currently ISBoxer, but it breaks all rules of the EULA.
- it is a 3rd party software tool
- it accelerate things
- it modifies the User Interface
Mag's
Azn Empire
#72 - 2014-07-04 20:12:44 UTC
LtCol RTButts wrote:
it's really fantastic how people spin a topic...............
Indeed. It's also funny when people suggest that their understanding of the EULA is better than CCP's.

Things we know:

  1. It doesn't break the EULA. As told to us by CCP.
  2. It does not gain you items at an accelerated rate. See point 1.
  3. It does not modify the UI. See point 1.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Adunh Slavy
#73 - 2014-07-05 02:41:47 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Now you're going into the debate if we should use computers at all. What is allowed is clearly outlined in the EULA/TOS and ISBoxer is not currently breaking it. If it does start breaking rules, ban it, but for now this discussion is just a pissing contest.



Oh please, you're argument is just stupid, give it up.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2014-07-05 02:42:10 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
LtCol RTButts wrote:

CCP may allow currently ISBoxer, but it breaks all rules of the EULA.
- it is a 3rd party software tool
- it accelerate things
- it modifies the User Interface


How exactly does IS Boxer modify the user interface? because I have to admit, that one's got me stumped, and if you can prove that someone is using it to modify the game interface then they should, indeed, be banned.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Adunh Slavy
#75 - 2014-07-05 02:52:47 UTC
Mag's wrote:
LtCol RTButts wrote:
it's really fantastic how people spin a topic...............
Indeed. It's also funny when people suggest that their understanding of the EULA is better than CCP's.

Things we know:

  1. It doesn't break the EULA. As told to us by CCP.
  2. It does not gain you items at an accelerated rate. See point 1.
  3. It does not modify the UI. See point 1.



ROFL, the argument of ignorance. "as told to us by CCP", the huge glaring caveat, full of self serving bull ****.

So let's see, CCP gains by having alt accounts, thus CCP has a large incentive for it not to be against the letter of the EULA while ignoring the spirit of the EULA. Is that the basis of your argument, and as you claim, CCP's? LOL,

Let's look at this stupid list: Doesn't break the EULA, as told by CCP - CCP is not a fair arbiter in this case, they have an incentive to break their own rules, which they are clearly doing as exposed by your item 2.

"does not gain you items at an accelerated rate" - Absolute total BS. I challenge you to prove that you can control just two characters as efficiently as can be done by IsBoxer. Go ahead, prove your assertion if you can. Good luck. Go ahead and prove it with a nice youtube vid with enough detail to pass the bull **** test.

Your argument is crap just as is CCP's position on this issue.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#76 - 2014-07-05 04:10:21 UTC
Is this STILL going on? Shocked

Adrie Atticus wrote:

Now you're going into the debate if we should use computers at all. What is allowed is clearly outlined in the EULA/TOS and ISBoxer is not currently breaking it. If it does start breaking rules, ban it, but for now this discussion is just a pissing contest.


So you do want to see ISBoxer banned? CCP basically states that ISBoxer is violating the EULA in the policy on client modification.

In The Policy On Client Modification, CCP wrote:

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.


The "multiboxing application" in the policy that violates the EULA but CCP states it will not actively police at this time is ISBoxer.

If you really want to convince CCP to ban the use of ISBoxer, you cannot base your argument on the fact that ISBoxer violates either Section 6A2, Section 6A3, or Section 9C of the EULA. They have a written policy that acknowledges that it does and that CCP doesn't care, as long as ISBoxer does not violate other parts of the EULA.

If you really want to get CCP to change its mind, you either need to demonstrate how ISBoxer breaks other parts of the EULA or how the use of ISBoxer breaks down game design. One example of that is that ISBoxer can allow a user to get around the drone assist limit of 50 drones. Are their others? If not, you probably won't see ISBoxer banned.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Mag's
Azn Empire
#77 - 2014-07-05 06:32:32 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Mag's wrote:
LtCol RTButts wrote:
it's really fantastic how people spin a topic...............
Indeed. It's also funny when people suggest that their understanding of the EULA is better than CCP's.

Things we know:

  1. It doesn't break the EULA. As told to us by CCP.
  2. It does not gain you items at an accelerated rate. See point 1.
  3. It does not modify the UI. See point 1.



ROFL, the argument of ignorance. "as told to us by CCP", the huge glaring caveat, full of self serving bull ****.

So let's see, CCP gains by having alt accounts, thus CCP has a large incentive for it not to be against the letter of the EULA while ignoring the spirit of the EULA. Is that the basis of your argument, and as you claim, CCP's? LOL,

Let's look at this stupid list: Doesn't break the EULA, as told by CCP - CCP is not a fair arbiter in this case, they have an incentive to break their own rules, which they are clearly doing as exposed by your item 2.

"does not gain you items at an accelerated rate" - Absolute total BS. I challenge you to prove that you can control just two characters as efficiently as can be done by IsBoxer. Go ahead, prove your assertion if you can. Good luck. Go ahead and prove it with a nice youtube vid with enough detail to pass the bull **** test.

Your argument is crap just as is CCP's position on this issue.

CCP's game, their rules. Learn to deal with it. Blink

As far as your accelerated rate claim, I'm not the one claiming it breaks the rules. Therefore the onus is upon those making that claim to show proof.
But talking of ignorance, I'm sure you can show that right? I mean two miners definitely mine more ore than two miners would.
Roll

Oh and your argument regarding 'CCP's incentive' would hold some water, if it wasn't for the fact they regularly ban thousands of accounts. Due to bots breaking guess what? The very rule you claim ISBoxer does. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-07-05 09:53:53 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Let's look at this stupid list: Doesn't break the EULA, as told by CCP - CCP is not a fair arbiter in this case, they have an incentive to break their own rules, which they are clearly doing as exposed by your item 2.

"does not gain you items at an accelerated rate" - Absolute total BS. I challenge you to prove that you can control just two characters as efficiently as can be done by IsBoxer. Go ahead, prove your assertion if you can. Good luck. Go ahead and prove it with a nice youtube vid with enough detail to pass the bull **** test.

Your argument is crap just as is CCP's position on this issue.



So CCP should not be the one setting and enforcing policies related to a CCP product?

Accelerated rate has been explained, no character gains anything at an accelerated pace, you are mixing up character and the actual player.

Controlling efficiency is not something which is giving you any gains at accelerated speed.

TL;DR: You think something is unfair and unjust, it's your responsibility to provide proof, not those who uphold the current status quo. You have yet failed to do so.
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#79 - 2014-07-05 14:49:19 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Naj Panora wrote:
For those arguing that a 40 man fleet doesn't make more isk an hour than a solo miner add fleet bonuses and Orca bonuses in. You will find the fleet makes vastly mope money than a solo player and each member past point X only exaggerates the isk difference.


One character with mining boosts (you know, like in null you usually have in standing fleets) does exactly the same amount of income than an another character in a fleet of 40.

Where's the multiboxing reference in this?



see the ice mining comment on page 3.
Adunh Slavy
#80 - 2014-07-05 14:57:25 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:

So CCP should not be the one setting and enforcing policies related to a CCP product?


Yep, it is their game and their reputation. If they want to look like double speaking liars, they're more than welcome to do that.

Adrie Atticus wrote:

Accelerated rate has been explained, no character gains anything at an accelerated pace, you are mixing up character and the actual player.

Controlling efficiency is not something which is giving you any gains at accelerated speed.

TL;DR: You think something is unfair and unjust, it's your responsibility to provide proof, not those who uphold the current status quo. You have yet failed to do so.


So you are saying that software, that can send key strokes and mouse clicks to other clients, is no more effiecnet than one person having to to interact with each client?

Your equivocations, and CCP's, are lies.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt