These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

anyone know % of suicide ganks done with iSboxer?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Six Beavers
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2014-11-26 07:59:08 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It's probably an integer.


Actually there is essentially a 0% chance that it is an integer...assuming the percentage is not 0 or 100, and given the large sample size.


really veers? gosh you are so smart about all things eve
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2014-11-26 07:59:42 UTC
I ran the math. 85%.

85% of ganks were on isboxers.

This has got to stop, you heartless bastards.
Shalashaska Adam
Snakes and Lasers
#23 - 2014-11-26 08:02:29 UTC
An interesting question for CCP now would be, if you are ganked by what appears to be isboxer, or bombed, or whatever.

If you petition, and the culprit was indeed found to be isboxing and is warned/banned, will the victims ship be reimbursed.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#24 - 2014-11-26 08:17:02 UTC
Wasn't ganking with ISBoxer already one of this gray areas that got you banned because it gives you an unfair advantage in combat? I can remember I heard something along this lines on coms once from a guy who used ISBoxer to gank once. Could be wrong about that.

Anyway, I never saw the point in that, it's much more fun to gank together with other players and that's what we do in CODE.

Evil RatKid
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#25 - 2014-11-26 08:40:17 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I just can't figure on the metric for this. The objective of botting or IsBoxer use was stats or profit. Suicide ganking was always hit or miss in both and the motivation appeared to come from somewhere else.


How do you figure it is hit or miss? I make plenty of profit by understanding the odds and requirements to make profit, and depending on what stats you choose to create metrics from, my stats are also quite good.




My premise is based on the observation that ganking is not as boring as mining and probably not as boring as incursions (those who have them down to a science anyway).

Hence there would be more people participating in ganking for the lol factor. To be profitable suicide ganking requires the cost to destroy being less than the target. You know the drill: if I put say 500 million ISK worth of stuff into a ship that takes 2 million ISK work if Catalyst to destroy, then for the player who wants green on the killboard it's a sure bet for a good gank and for the player who wants loot, the ratio stands well for at least paying for the lost ships (what with insurance no longer happening for gank loss).


What I mean by hit or miss is that it requires stupidity on part of the target to make for a profit, something CCPs "suicide ganking should not be profitable" ideal breaks on since human stupidity has no limits after all (you can only nerf something so far) but still you have to be concerned with what drops. Most players I find are hooked on certainty. It's the reason why exploration never became as popular before the most recent exploration changes because you can make big bank one day and go home with crap salvage goods the next.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2014-11-26 09:05:58 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I just can't figure on the metric for this. The objective of botting or IsBoxer use was stats or profit. Suicide ganking was always hit or miss in both and the motivation appeared to come from somewhere else.


How do you figure it is hit or miss? I make plenty of profit by understanding the odds and requirements to make profit, and depending on what stats you choose to create metrics from, my stats are also quite good.




My premise is based on the observation that ganking is not as boring as mining and probably not as boring as incursions (those who have them down to a science anyway).

Hence there would be more people participating in ganking for the lol factor. To be profitable suicide ganking requires the cost to destroy being less than the target. You know the drill: if I put say 500 million ISK worth of stuff into a ship that takes 2 million ISK work if Catalyst to destroy, then for the player who wants green on the killboard it's a sure bet for a good gank and for the player who wants loot, the ratio stands well for at least paying for the lost ships (what with insurance no longer happening for gank loss).


What I mean by hit or miss is that it requires stupidity on part of the target to make for a profit, something CCPs "suicide ganking should not be profitable" ideal breaks on since human stupidity has no limits after all (you can only nerf something so far) but still you have to be concerned with what drops. Most players I find are hooked on certainty. It's the reason why exploration never became as popular before the most recent exploration changes because you can make big bank one day and go home with crap salvage goods the next.



The metric is fun. It is fun blowing up stuff.
Agent Intrepid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2014-11-26 11:12:20 UTC
I can confirm that you don't need isboxer to suicide gank. Not unless using more than 10 gankers, manually that could be problematic.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-11-26 11:25:44 UTC
Who needs ISboxer when you have friends?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Greg Inglis
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#29 - 2014-11-26 12:04:35 UTC
Why would you need ISboxer anyway. Its pretty easy to coordinate yourself without it. Unless you're a chimp Shocked
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#30 - 2014-11-26 12:22:29 UTC
I wouldn't know the exact percentages on who uses ISBoxer the most.

I would suspect the vast majority of ISBoxers will be large mining fleets.

There will be quite a smaller percentage of ISBoxers doing Incursions.

I suspect the percentage use of ISBoxer type software by suicide gankers will be relatively small compared to the above.

Most suicide gankers are fairly distinctive in their actions, portraits, bios, corp descriptions, and forum entries. Invariably each ganker will be owned by one person. ISBoxer account use is very easy to spot to be blunt. The accounts will usually all have start dates within a month of each other and sometimes within a week or days of each other. The names of the capsuleers will be very similar or of a random & boring nature. Very little if any work will have been done to make their portraits distinctive. Worst case scenario you will see them all log on like a machine gun if you have them set on your contacts list & watchlisted. They will invariably be 'AFK' most of the time as well.

It's like a factory to make, or farm, ISK and I totally support CCPs new stance on the issue and only wish they had made ANY use of ISBoxer or similar software illegal under the EULA.

Play the game properly or GTFO.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#31 - 2014-11-26 12:54:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jvpiter
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Wasn't ganking with ISBoxer already one of this gray areas that got you banned because it gives you an unfair advantage in combat? I can remember I heard something along this lines on coms once from a guy who used ISBoxer to gank once. Could be wrong about that.


I can't imagine why. I've been killed by mini ISBoxed fleets in Low before, and it leads me to believe it's not an uncommon practice for some players in EVE.


It could be because gank targets are more vocal about a loss to PVP?

Call me Joe.
Josef Djugashvilis
#32 - 2014-11-26 13:05:55 UTC
Greg Inglis wrote:
Why would you need ISboxer anyway. Its pretty easy to coordinate yourself without it. Unless you're a chimp Shocked


I nearly spat my banana out when I read this Smile

This is not a signature.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#33 - 2014-11-26 13:05:59 UTC
Jvpiter wrote:
Call me Joe.


Ive been curious for a while now, is that an homage to the Sinead O'Connor song?


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2014-11-26 13:12:02 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Jvpiter wrote:
Call me Joe.


Ive been curious for a while now, is that an homage to the Sinead O'Connor song?




I always smile when someone gets one of my oddball references.


Though I've known for a while now that Ssabat is a smart fellow.

Call me Joe.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#35 - 2014-11-26 13:17:38 UTC
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:
Trolling aside, guys that know, give me at least a rough estimate please - Im curious how significant this isBoxer ban will be for empire ganking?


Why on earth would you assume any player would have this information? That's just silly.

As for empire ganking - it wont have much effect at all. In fact, I might take it back up as a hobby and increase it just because you asked.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#36 - 2014-11-26 13:17:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ssabat Thraxx
Jvpiter wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Jvpiter wrote:
Call me Joe.


Ive been curious for a while now, is that an homage to the Sinead O'Connor song?




I always smile when someone gets one of my oddball references.


Though I've known for a while now that Ssabat is a smart fellow.


I smile when I get something right too! lol Big smile

edit: Just throwin it out there, but I think Sinead has probably the most beautiful voice Ive ever heard.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-11-26 13:18:02 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Nobody knows except CCP, it's really that simple. How could one know all or even a rough percentage of the ISBoxers that operate in highsec? If that were possible why would they share it in a thread in GD? Are you really that daft?

the boxers might be ... seeing as cheaters generally are daft . lol. (ref to exam cheaters, and a wide artistic brush to extend that to eve playing ... meh ... ok, so it might not always corresdpond lol)

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2014-11-26 13:19:15 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Greg Inglis wrote:
Why would you need ISboxer anyway. Its pretty easy to coordinate yourself without it. Unless you're a chimp Shocked


I nearly spat my banana out when I read this Smile



oh, oh! oh! Does that mean you're a ..... omgz! Shock horror, run for the hills!! lol

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#39 - 2014-11-26 13:58:12 UTC  |  Edited by: La Rynx
We could ask loyalanon as the leader of code alliance and known isboxer.
How many alts did he use to gain first place on the killboards?
I mean other than sophia and wolf soprano and loyalanon, which he already admitted ar his.
Also he could explain how or why this would be elite pvp.

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2014-11-26 16:30:11 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
We could ask loyalanon as the leader of code alliance and known isboxer.
How many alts did he use to gain first place on the killboards?
I mean other than sophia and wolf soprano and loyalanon, which he already admitted ar his.
Also he could explain how or why this would be elite pvp.


Don't need alts to be good at PVP. What you just wrote is pretty much just libel, a demonstration of little more than your own spite.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104