These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

CSM, pressure CCP to ban IsBoxer.

First post First post
Author
Lothros Andastar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-06-23 13:36:48 UTC
Simple stuff.
De'Veldrin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2014-06-23 14:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
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.

Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#3 - 2014-06-23 15:29:40 UTC
No.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&search=Search%20forums

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

Lothros Andastar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-06-23 17:37:39 UTC
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.

Simple. #1: Client can check to see if the IsBoxer program is installed or running.
#2: Automatically flag IPs that have 5+ simultaneous accounts coming from them and ban them until they can prove that they are using hardware methods.
De'Veldrin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2014-06-23 17:49:57 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
Lothros Andastar wrote:
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.

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


For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken

#1 is troublesome - WoW's own Warden (anti-cheating) program often gets false positives, and frankly, this is pretty easy to circumvent for anyone with half a second to do some googling.
Edit: Circumventing this is as simple as wrapping the ISBoxer process with an innocuous or mandatory appearing process name - you just need one that a large majority of the player base are likely to have running (chrome.exe *32 or svchost.exe for example)

#2 is just ridiculous - you'd essentially just ban every major university (for example) out there, since they pretty much use proxies, so it might look like a hundred or so accounts coming from one IP. Not to mention the de facto banning of your customers on a guilty until proven innocent basis is probably not a sound business strategy.

And the simple fact is - you're mad at the program, not the results - your own response shows that. How is using ISBoxer any different than using a hardware method of achieving the exact same result? Your suggestion treats the symptom not the (supposed) disease, and so would, in the long run, be a waste of time, and cost CCP customer loyalty and goodwill to boot.

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.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#6 - 2014-06-23 18:10:56 UTC

My question would be why?

For most activities in the game, having 10 individuals controlling 10 characters is far more effective than having 10 one individual controlling 10 characters. These are some exceptions.

These are the reasons I could think of:

1.) ISBoxers artificially bump the population engaging in an activity. For something like mining, which is a quasi-finite resource, this means more focused competition. In the classic example of highsec ice belts, gathering ice before someone else gathers it is basically a race, and the bump in competing characters diminishes the gains of an individual player.

2.) ISBoxer allows several characters to coordinate some actions far more effectively than 10 non-ISBoxer players could achieve. This has been utilized for mining ice, bombing runs, suicide ganking, and even running incursions. However, this is also a major weakness of ISBoxer, especially when they game mechanics encourage spreading targets out.

The benefits of ISBoxer are:

A.) More accounts which results in more money for CCP.
B.) "Emergent gameplay" that keeps niche players playing the game.

I feel like I'm missing some pro's and cons. I honestly don't care all that much about isboxers, mainly because the areas of game play they impact the most are the areas of game play that bother me the least. That being said, I do occasionally mine ore and ice, but the local ISBoxer just doesn't bother me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#7 - 2014-06-23 18:12:47 UTC
Why?
Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-06-23 20:04:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Why?


Q) Why ban multiboxing software?

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

Q) Why has CCP not banned it?

A) Because they are making money from it, albeit indirectly.
ashley Eoner
#9 - 2014-06-23 20:35:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Lothros Andastar wrote:
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.

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

So you are going to ban tens of thousands of people because you want a lazy mans "solution". I'm sure CCP's customer support would love the huge influx of support tickets. I'm also sure that players will love waiting weeks for responses about any problem in game.


Also my solution for your "solution" is to use a proxy for each machine. A little added ms doesn't matter a lot in eve.


EDIT : Universities is just the beginning of the problem. Apartment complexes condos ISPS with certain NAS setups all kinds of areas have many people under one IP from the point of view of CCP.
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#10 - 2014-06-24 01:12:02 UTC
Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz wrote:
Q) Why ban multiboxing software?

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

Luckily, CCP's interpretation of their EULA, which they wrote and police, is the only interpretation that matters.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2014-06-24 05:06:13 UTC
No.



I'd rather CCP look at common uses for IsBoxer and come up with inventive ways to reward individual players or individual players working cooperatively.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#12 - 2014-06-24 06:04:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Why?


Q) Why ban multiboxing software?

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

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

Quote:
Q) Why has CCP not banned it?
A) Because they are making money from it, albeit indirectly.
So laughably incorrect that it borders on the absurd.
They haven't banned it because it doesn't do anything that is ban-worthy.

The idea that they don't ban because the number of accounts a person has is instantly proven 100% idiotic by looking at how they treat botters.
Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2014-06-24 12:29:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:

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

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

Quote:
Q) Why has CCP not banned it?
A) Because they are making money from it, albeit indirectly.
So laughably incorrect that it borders on the absurd.
They haven't banned it because it doesn't do anything that is ban-worthy.

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


Firstly, I have no problem with multiboxers, I am one.
What I have a problem with is someone using third party software to control ingame events, which is tantamount to botting. And btw, if you are using multiboxing software, YOU are not multiboxing, because you are controlling one character and relying on the third party software to control the 'X' amount of characters.

Secondly, under the terms and conditions of the EULA, CCP state that "You may not use third party software to change how the game is being played." and also "You may not use third party software to gain ingame currency or items at an accelerated rate.". Whatever you think of multiboxing software, it is in violation of both of these and if CCP doesn't think that, then I think they have been taking too much of their own blue pill and crash :)

Simply put, if CCP want people to take the EULA seriously then they should rethink and rewrite large parts of it.
De'Veldrin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2014-06-24 12:50:27 UTC
Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz wrote:

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


Unfortunately (for you anyway) CCP doesn't agree. And frankly, since their interpretation of the matter is the only one that actually has any impact on the situation, I'd say you're probably SOL.

I will ask my question again:

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

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

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.

poJARneG
You Died To Renters
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
#15 - 2014-06-24 13:04:36 UTC
I'm just seeing "but ccp says its legal!" over and over. Anyone mind trying to explain why its actually beneficial to the game? OP isn't doing a good job of justifying why it should be banned but its proponents aren't defending it very well either.
De'Veldrin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2014-06-24 13:42:21 UTC
poJARneG wrote:
I'm just seeing "but ccp says its legal!" over and over. Anyone mind trying to explain why its actually beneficial to the game? OP isn't doing a good job of justifying why it should be banned but its proponents aren't defending it very well either.


Maybe because we don't feel the need to. Honestly, I'm not for or against it - I could care less either way, but as with suicide ganking and AFK cloaking, CCP has repeatedly, constantly, and directly said it's not against the rules of the game and therefore is OK to do.

in the case of IS Boxer, they even specifically made it "legal" - it used to be bannable offense. How much more clear do they need to be?

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.

Lothros Andastar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2014-06-24 14:54:01 UTC
Just because CCP says it's legal, doesn't make it the correct decision.

It's a shame that so many people actually take the side of cheaters.
Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2014-06-24 14:56:42 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:

I will ask my question again:

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

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


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

Because it does mention third party software.

The big problem with this is that it is open to interpretation and if the EULA is "legal" as CCP says, then it should clearly state what is acceptable and what isn't.

That is why there are so many posts regarding this, because the way it is worded is open to interpretation.

If you want to play the game with blinkers on and agree to something that we are told is "legal" without fully understanding it, that my trusting friend is up to you.
De'Veldrin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2014-06-24 15:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
Lothros Andastar wrote:
Just because CCP says it's legal, doesn't make it the correct decision.

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


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

Take your time, I'll wait.

Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz wrote:

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

Because it does mention third party software.


So the method matters more to you than the actual results?

And yes, EULA's are open to interpretation - they have to be, or they would be so specific as to be unusable. Just like modern day legal codes, EULA's are as vague or as specific as they need to be to get the job done. Some things they're very specific on (Though shalt not reverse engineer thy client). Others, not so much (Asshattery shall be punished).

But who defines asshattery? CCP does. They serve as judge, jury, and appeals court in their own little legal enforcement zone, otherwise known as The Game Environment.

And let us not forget, ISBoxer is (I'll say it again) legal now BECAUSE THAT PROCESS WORKS. Someone appealed it being bannable, and CCP agreed with that, specifically allowing it be used because in their opinion, it doesn't violate that clause of the EULA you keep quoting.

Edit
I realize that I am either preaching to the converted or I am spitting in the ocean depending on which side of this particular topic you're on. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But it's important to me that we (a) have all the facts presented, and (b) get people to realize this is not a new discussion - it's been hashed over (repeatedly) and ruled on by CCP (repeatedly). At least I have company while I'm tilting at windmills.

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.

Lothros Andastar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-06-24 16:17:11 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Cheaters get banned. It happens all the time, so how is CCP taking their side, exactly?

Because ISBox is cheating, regardless of what CCP claims. CCP might allow it because it makes them money, but it is still cheating.
123Next pageLast page