These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Update regarding Multiboxing and input automation

First post First post First post
Author
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1581 - 2014-11-27 17:42:30 UTC
I believe any short term loss in players is offset by CCP putting themselves in a position to make a better game overall. As has been said already, all these ISK generating alts that exist solely to farm and funnel resources to a single player does nothing for the game environment. ISK becomes trivial to the player, which should never happen as it totally skews the whole concept of "risk vs. reward". The only player interaction they offer is stripping entire belts, driving up prices with their inflated wallets, and dumping ISK on various forms of pure griefplay because the loss of a ship is inconsequential because ISK is inconsequential and "lol so bored lol tears".

I anticipate that while there will be initially a dip in minerals on the market and production, non-isboxer miners and industrial/mining corps will see an increase in profits in the short term that will even out as more people fire up their mining alts as the money becomes less of a "joke" since the same money one guy was getting with 20 accounts is now distributed among 20 different players.

If ship prices should suffer, CCP can always tuned the material cost to be more inline with the materials. But I doubt this as I think more miners will eventually arrive to collect the money left by any isboxer's void.

As far as PVE, similarly it will curtail single players using multiple accounts to gain inordinate amounts of ISK or LP from incursions, missions, rats, anomalies, etc in spans of time to again, make ISK a trivial commodity. In PVP it eliminates single players having the power of an entire squad or small fleet. You can be sure if you go up against a small gang you are fighting a gang, or if you need a bomber squadron you will need to have individual pilots to put in the hulls. Longterm the ISK value of a fleet comp more of an issue if ships that could be replaced with individual player revenue streams of a billion/hr are now an order of magnitude lower. Management of you corps or individual assets become more of a thing now that ISk doesn't drop out of the sky.

Long term I think that this move will foster a more player-driven (not PLAYER driven) symbiotic environment, better economy, and better Risk/Reward mechanic. This change in addition to the Power Projection changes makes me optimistic about the future of EvE as it is slowly seems to be becoming the game it claims to be. A sandbox where every player can have an impact in their own way, not just the ones with the biggest bankroll (ingame and out).
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1582 - 2014-11-27 17:43:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lee Sin Priest
In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)

Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?

You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client

You know...the ones that have the negative stigma

....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?


Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1583 - 2014-11-27 17:47:10 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

isbotter accelerates gameplay on PER TOON BASIS. I explained why few pages back.
This accelerated gameplay is the exact reason people used it.

I dont know how the ruling and policy enforcement from 2010 is relevant for this discussion,
Many others and me already explained many times, even on this page why isbotter automates gameplay,
dont get it why you you quote these statements.


1. Just because they use it doesnt mean it's against the rules. Derpaherp.

2. You've been grasping at straws without the knowledge of what the program does. You see some dude in local with "Jonny 1-8" and immediately assume he's a bot. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please watch some videos regarding how to setup ISBoxer and EVE, instead of watching the end-product and thinking "a 5 year old can do this". The ruling clearly explained in user-friendly terms that ISBoxer was allowed because it did not let him get up from his keyboard and get a smoke while the program kept flying him around and doing stuff.

[quote[] For over a year, CCP stated that they would not enforce the EULA where ISBoxer was concerned. Now, they've given a 5 week notice that the policy is changing and that using some optional features of ISBoxer starting on 1 January 2015 will result in player bans. ISBoxer itself is not banned, so users can still use the windows management features in ISBoxer.

Look, if you don't like the fact that CCP published its ruling under the Client Modification section of the Third Party Policies that specifically refers to Sections 6A2, 6A3, and 9C, then yell at CCP and tell them they don't know what does and does not violated their own EULA. I can just go by CCP's published policies. [/quote]

CCP also stated that cache-scraping was banned but they wouldn't police it. I've also explained *why* this change is illogical just because a few nullbabies cried in a petition that they got bombed sitting on a station AFK. I went to great pains to explain what this change represented in terms the average player could understand and to give an analogy that someone with a triple digit IQ could understand.

And the bolded part which you tried your best to tie to broadcasting keys and mouse movements to ISBoxer makes zero sense when reading the whole sentence. If you need me to spell it out for you, I shall. ISBoxer allows one to reposition multiple clients windows. It also allows one to take portions of client A and place a viewer on client B and allow one to interact through the viewer. This is not banned. Never was.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#1584 - 2014-11-27 17:48:41 UTC
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)

Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?

You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client

You know...the ones that have the negative stigma

....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?


Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast



Thats the problem that people have there panties in a bunch about. If its just that where you press that button and it turns on a couple mods that doesn't seam to be against the rules. If you make it so that you press the button and it targets an asteroid and starts mining lazors than that is against the rules. Its like isbox its still legal just not every function of it is legal anymore.
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1585 - 2014-11-27 17:52:04 UTC
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)

Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?

You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client

You know...the ones that have the negative stigma

....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?


Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast


Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already.
Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.)
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1586 - 2014-11-27 17:53:46 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
If I get ganked by ten players at a gate camp, that is fine and dandy.

If I get ganked at a gate camp by one ISboxer player it is wrong.

At least the ten gate campers had to organize the camp.

In any case, CCP have made their decision, so ISboxers need to adapt, stop using ISboxer, or well..rage quit.


ever heard about drone assist?
5x10=50. assist to one. =11 charaters.
so, you can do that without isb boxer. so same person can do that to you With or without it.
1 player buy 10 ships means he risk way more isk (on his overall eco) than if he just had 1 ship to lose. so the loss is the same per charater.
Lee Sin Priest
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1587 - 2014-11-27 17:57:16 UTC
Tappits wrote:
Lee Sin Priest wrote:
In light of the input automation....broadcast....blah blah blah nonsense could I ask (because I've searched on the forums and keep getting confused beyond all measure)

Are keyboards like razer and g15, with the inbuilt functions allowed?

You know the ones that you can make so if you press 1 button it could say...spam f1-f8 for a single client

You know...the ones that have the negative stigma

....the one that starts with Mah and ends in Crow?


Edit : no BS where it mines for 23 hours or anything, the kind of thing I could still do raking my hand across the keyboard, headbashing it or spamming it really fast


Prob not no as its possible to do F1-F8 by any abled bodied person already.
Its were you program it to do something allot more complicated than activating all your guns or something (you can all ready do with with one key press anyway in-game with stacked guns.)


Sorry you confused me abit there when you said "probs not no" and then went on to make it sound it it was okay...

My question was whether or not it was okay, because a quick search on the forums says it is
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1588 - 2014-11-27 17:58:30 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

1. Just because they use it doesnt mean it's against the rules. Derpaherp.

it was always against the rules, CCP just didnt police it - however they will past Jan. 1st.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

2. You've been grasping at straws without the knowledge of what the program does. You see some dude in local with "Jonny 1-8" and immediately assume he's a bot. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please watch some videos regarding how to setup ISBoxer and EVE, instead of watching the end-product and thinking "a 5 year old can do this". The ruling clearly explained in user-friendly terms that ISBoxer was allowed because it did not let him get up from his keyboard and get a smoke while the program kept flying him around and doing stuff.

grasping at staws? for what? When did I do that?
here again, what are you trying to tell? Refer to my exact quotes which you think are wrong and try to relate
your replies properly.


for the rest of your posting, I dont think they were directed at me, misquoted or whatever you messed up while posting.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1589 - 2014-11-27 18:13:00 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

1. Just because they use it doesnt mean it's against the rules. Derpaherp.

it was always against the rules, CCP just didnt police it - however they will past Jan. 1st.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

2. You've been grasping at straws without the knowledge of what the program does. You see some dude in local with "Jonny 1-8" and immediately assume he's a bot. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please watch some videos regarding how to setup ISBoxer and EVE, instead of watching the end-product and thinking "a 5 year old can do this". The ruling clearly explained in user-friendly terms that ISBoxer was allowed because it did not let him get up from his keyboard and get a smoke while the program kept flying him around and doing stuff.

grasping at staws? for what? When did I do that?
here again, what are you trying to tell? Refer to my exact quotes which you think are wrong and try to relate
your replies properly.


for the rest of your posting, I dont think they were directed at me, misquoted or whatever you messed up while posting.


It was never against the rules. The most you could argue was that using it to automate flying without any input was and always is against the rules.

I'm accusing you of grasping for a reason, ANY reason, that ISBoxer repeating should be banned or was against the rules. "Muh feelings" and "muh AFK battleship got bombed" don't count. The accelerated gameplay clause had been explained by CCP numerous times in the past to be referring to a per-toon basis. There has also been a lack of knowledge for the general public on the difference between a bot and a multiboxer; the biggest difference is that the multiboxer is sitting behind the keyboard and can adjust to sudden situations like someone ragebumping him with a machariel, while the bot is a "dumb program" running over and over without anyone behind the keyboard.
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1590 - 2014-11-27 18:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Cervix Thumper
Going back a few pages...

Mike Azariah wrote:

3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.



This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh.

Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents.

This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression.

In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Banning AN account would. Banning all no.

Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway?

That just doesn't fit right.


Edit after thought... if a player owns 10 toons and 3 were involved in the transgression.. all 10 are baned?
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#1591 - 2014-11-27 18:15:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rosewalker
Nolak Ataru wrote:

CCP also stated that cache-scraping was banned but they wouldn't police it. I've also explained *why* this change is illogical just because a few nullbabies cried in a petition that they got bombed sitting on a station AFK. I went to great pains to explain what this change represented in terms the average player could understand and to give an analogy that someone with a triple digit IQ could understand.

And the bolded part which you tried your best to tie to broadcasting keys and mouse movements to ISBoxer makes zero sense when reading the whole sentence. If you need me to spell it out for you, I shall. ISBoxer allows one to reposition multiple clients windows. It also allows one to take portions of client A and place a viewer on client B and allow one to interact through the viewer. This is not banned. Never was.


If you know me, you know that I also hate cache scraping and want to see it removed from EVE as soon as possible. Hopefully, real time market data will soon be available to third party developers for sites like EVE-Central through Auth CREST as soon as Rhea and these sites can stop relying on cache scraping for their data. EVE-Central has already indicated they will stop using cache scraped data as soon as they can implement an Auth CREST solution.

And why wouldn't I tie input broadcasting to ISBoxer? That is one of the software's optional features that makes ISBoxer so appealing to its users. Here is a video that demonstrates an ISBoxer user running a Vanguard site utilitizing input broadcasting/multiplexing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAbDPHnxLU4

I think in both of my previous posts that I've indicated that ISBoxer is not getting banned, just that using some of the optional features will result in bans. And those may not be a concern in the future, as I've seen posts from Joe Thaler, the creator of ISBoxer and owner of Lavish Software, stating he is considering automatically disabling those features that violate the EVE EULA if ISBoxer detects that the game being played is EVE.

Honestly, all I want at this point is for CCP to enforce a 1 key = 1 action in one client rule. That is what I thought the EULA stated, and that is what the Third Party Policies page implied for over a year. I am glad that CCP is finally explicitly stating this principle and their willingness to enforce that rule.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1592 - 2014-11-27 18:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Nolak Ataru wrote:

It was never against the rules. The most you could argue was that using it to automate flying without any input was and always is against the rules.

it always was, see the 3rd party tools part in connection with accelerated gameplay clause, which always was incorporated in EULA (section 6) - this is why CCP didnt even have to adjust EULA for their new policing, because it always covered isbotter and similar tools.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

I'm accusing you of grasping for a reason, ANY reason, that ISBoxer repeating should be banned or was against the rules.

I'm not grasping at anything, dunno how you concluded that.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

"Muh feelings" and "muh AFK battleship got bombed" don't count.

pls more rant.

Nolak Ataru wrote:
The accelerated gameplay clause had been explained by CCP numerous times in the past to be referring to a per-toon basis.

ye, per toon basis. like in case of isbotter. so? what are you trying to point out here?

Nolak Ataru wrote:
There has also been a lack of knowledge for the general public on the difference between a bot and a multiboxer; the biggest difference is that the multiboxer is sitting behind the keyboard and can adjust to sudden situations like someone ragebumping him with a machariel, while the bot is a "dumb program" running over and over without anyone behind the keyboard.

there is a difference between a botter ant multiboxer but its lot slimmer than you'd think.
In fact, some (including me) could argue that copycat characters/ships following and replicating your "main" client on their own (without direct player control) would classify as bots. But again, what are you trying to tell me here what hasnt been already discussed billions of times?
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1593 - 2014-11-27 18:38:12 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
-snip too many quotes


No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.
I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.
I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.
You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1594 - 2014-11-27 18:47:51 UTC
Lee Sin Priest wrote:

Sorry you confused me abit there when you said "probs not no" and then went on to make it sound it it was okay...

My question was whether or not it was okay, because a quick search on the forums says it is


Yer sorry.. but its prob OK as long as your doing something that is already possible without using a G15 or something.
I use a G710+ and a G13 but i only use it to do things that i could do on a $5 keyboard with my own fingers anyway.
kraken11 jensen
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#1595 - 2014-11-27 18:47:59 UTC  |  Edited by: kraken11 jensen
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
-snip too many quotes


No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.
I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.
I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.
You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.



i understand you get ''pissed'' (frustrated'etc) because of him (Robert Caldara, and you are right, no matter how much times you tell him something he just change direction/dont answer to it:) (ignore as you say, probably right Word) and he trolls a lot -> robert <- (not personal attack, just facts. and i dont talk about anything personal about him, i just see how he behave in this forum :)
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#1596 - 2014-11-27 18:59:14 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.

it was. 3rd party tool covers pretty single each 3rd party tool out there, this is actually obvious,
and this is why they didnt even have to extend the EULA for new policing. How cant you understand this?
I dont need to do any research, reading and understanding text is enough of skill to understand this.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.

I'm not talking about boxers at all, I talk about isbotters, in case you missed that.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.

more empty accusations and rant please..

Nolak Ataru wrote:

You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.

I explained how isbotter is reflecting accelerated gameplay (on per toon basis), go back and read it if you are interested at anything but ranting.

Miomeifeng Alduin
Lithonauts Inc.
#1597 - 2014-11-27 19:12:55 UTC
Cervix Thumper wrote:
Going back a few pages...

Mike Azariah wrote:

3) Yes there are workarounds, some using ISBoxer, others using scripted mice or keyboard. Some are fair game others skate close enough to the edge that they risk a ban. Basically it comes down to a question of economics. Are you willing to risk ALL your accounts (and assets) being banned by skating on the thin ice knowingly? Risk vs reward in the metagame.



This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh.

Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents.

This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression.

In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Banning AN account would. Banning all no.

Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway?

That just doesn't fit right.


Edit after thought... if a player owns 10 toons and 3 were involved in the transgression.. all 10 are baned?


Thats why there's a month ban first. As stated in the OP. I'm also pretty sure that only those accounts which are actually broadcasting/recieving the broadcasts will get banned, since all detection will be on their servers when commands enter. The other people will not constantly hit every button at the exact same time.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1598 - 2014-11-27 19:16:56 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

No, it wasn't. The 3rd party tools part was and has always been talking about bots that require no input. I've told you a dozen times to do your own research yet you continue to ignore it to satisfy some bizarre hateboner against boxers.

it was. 3rd party tool covers pretty single each 3rd party tool out there, this is actually obvious,
and this is why they didnt even have to extend the EULA for new policing. How cant you understand this?
I dont need to do any research, reading and understanding text is enough of skill to understand this.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

I concluded that because you refuse to do even a modicum of research, and you continue to refuse to make a distinction between boxers and bots and classify all boxers on the same level of someone who RMTs or hacked the client to turn him invulnerable.

I'm not talking about boxers at all, I talk about isbotters, in case you missed that.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

I'll ignore your pathetic attempt to dismiss my dismissal of 90% of the trolls in the thread who hate boxers simply because they got ganked once.

more empty accusations and rant please..

Nolak Ataru wrote:

You just agreed with me that the clause is on a per toon basis. Comparing incursion boxers to a "public" fleet and attempting to say that there is accelerated gameplay is laughable at best, and outright lying at worst.

I explained how isbotter is reflecting accelerated gameplay (on per toon basis), go back and read it if you are interested at anything but ranting.


It wasn't. Lax talks to devs in order to make sure his tools aren't in violation of the EULA. CCP did nothing but ban a specific part of the program. If it was against the EULA, they would have banned it outright. But since it isn't, they didn't.

A ratting carrier bot or a mining bot is very different from someone behind the keyboard controlling multiple accounts. Stop trying to say they're the same thing when one requires a person to continually input commands and one doesn't.

Deflecting my accusations. How quaint.

As I thought, you have no problem comparing a Honda Civic to a Formula 1 car. You first claimed that the clause was on a per human basis, and when you were informed otherwise, you then changed your claim to say that ISBoxer improves the rate for each toon by comparing someone who has invested billions of isk into his fits, hours of tweaking into his setup, and months in training, to a kitchen sink fleet. You are grasping at straws and moving your goalposts.
Terino
Widgit Inc
#1599 - 2014-11-27 19:24:16 UTC
Cervix Thumper wrote:
Going back a few pages...

This is very disturbing. For a few reasons. A 1 man team of 10 gets caught... 10 accounts banned? As opposed to the main that is commanding the fleet that is the account that ISboxer is logged into? That is kind of harsh.

Then 10 acct fleet teams up with some buddies for a roam... All parties involved would have to be investigated and I am sure the ban hammer would not spare some of the innocents.

This seems like it would be an administrative nightmare investigating false claims, alt accts replying they were acting independently, and the fleet members that really had nothing to do with any transgression.

In reality the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Banning AN account would. Banning all no.

Oh wait then if the TOS / EULA isn't updated to include this and some will say they haven't read THIS forum discussion.. oops they still get banned anyway?

That just doesn't fit right.


Edit after thought... if a player owns 10 toons and 3 were involved in the transgression.. all 10 are baned?


As a normal player, I would see this as CCP looking at the logs and seeing what "toons" were on what "IP" address at the time and probably a machine ID generated by the client when it sends transactions to the servers and those would be the ones cautioned/banned

this is just how I would implement it, CCP have their own guidelines.
ashley Eoner
#1600 - 2014-11-27 19:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Robert Caldera wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:

You always knew ISBoxer or any other 3rd line program was technically banned, just not enforced. Guessing it's same as with old AP0 hack, CCP now has way to detect it more accurately and will start enforcing the rule.


yep, what he said. if you subscribed on basis of EULA violating gameplay its your fault.


Technically banned? CCP has told us in writing this was not the case.


not technically banned but against EULA all the time already (accelerated gameplay part).

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you have isboxer doesn't mean you're accelerating anything on a single account basis. It doesn't make your ship fly faster it doesn't fire it's weapons with a shorter cycle time. There is absolutely nothing there to accelerate an account. There was also nothing automated by the isboxer program. Every command has to be issued by a person at the keyboard.

There was nothing in the EULA that was being violated by isboxer or other repeater based systems. That's why they had to make this thread and amend the EULA to begin with. So despite your delusions CCP clearly saw that their own EULA as it stood wasn't banning the repeaters and thus changed it.
Devious Johnson wrote:


The point is this. Eve is a MMO. It is designed so if you work together with other people you can achieve more. Isboxer removes the requirement to work together with people. It enabled you to do almost everything solely and more efficently than working with others.

And it removed content (incursions, ice, minerals, rats and pvp content from the game) for others at faster rate than a single player not using the software could remove that content.

Isboxer made a single person too efficent and did not encourage teamwork with other real people.
It is therefore not healthy for the longtime health of eve. Eve relies on player interaction (see the latest eve trailer) to survive.

Isboxer was hurting Eve.


You do realize your entire argument is against all alts and against having more then one account. This is what they were talking about when they said first it'll be the broadcasters then they cryers will move on to multiboxing in general.