These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

IS boxer Software and it's legality under the EULA

First post First post First post
Author
dark heartt
#41 - 2013-05-21 02:04:31 UTC
Othran wrote:
Snipped deleted off topic post. -- ISD LackOfFaith

Personally I've never used the s/w but it clearly gives an advantage over even keyboard/mouse macros.

CCP should have dealt with it years ago but they didn't and what are they supposed to do now - ban a sizable chunk of their subscribers?

Clearly alts are a major part of CCP's business plan (and have been for a LONG time) or we wouldn't be getting dual training, so expecting CCP to ban people using "alt management" software which they have used for years is naive to say the least.

In an ideal world ISBoxer would be banned. Eve isn't ideal so it isn't banned.



How? How does it give an advantage? It's no different to having a physical setup that allows you to run a mouse on two computers.
dark heartt
#42 - 2013-05-21 02:08:41 UTC
Beekeeper Bob wrote:

This is exactly what ISBoxer does, it facilitates the acquisition of items, currency, objects at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play, meaning a single person, playing ten accounts cannot operate as efficiently as a single person employing ISBoxer.


No, you are misquoting the EULA. The EULA is talking about gaining objects at an accelerated rate on ONE ACCOUNT, not across 10 accounts. If I multibox a mining fleet of 10 characters, I'm pretty sure I would be getting the same as someone using ISBoxer. The fact remains the same - CCP allow it as it is not automation. It doesn't break the game. It has not had a negative effect on the market. It is not game breaking.
criativa
Zugleich Techniken
#43 - 2013-05-21 02:21:51 UTC
Quote:

Imagine how a fleet of 20 miners under control of IS boxer could affect the local market mineral prices,


Do you have any idea of how hard it is to manage 20 mining accounts at the same time?

I would agree with you before the fanfest on Ice harvesting, however after odyssey it'll be very hard for multiboxers to get some spot as the anomalies have little Ice qty and the spawn is set to four hours after the current ones gets depleted. There is also the scenario where they do get a fresh anomaly and harvest it dry, but, again, they will have to wait sit for the next 4 hours or be lucky to find fresh anomalies in close systems. In either case it won't be profitable for multiboxers as long as they can't have a fixed incoming rate.

For Ore harvesting it would be a nightmare to have 20 accounts. Even on skiffs you would have to switch targets at such a rate that it would be impossible for one person to handle it all. If you consider mining in null sec (as the roids are bigger) it will now be too much a risk too because grav sites will be also moved to anomalies, so I don't think people will be dumb enough to risk losing 20 ships in a blink. And if they do, well, better for the market.

Quote:

Imagine how a fleet of PvP ships could take down your T3 ship if you didn't have to alt tab all the while or even worse, you have two gangs of tacklers IS boxing to keep your ship jammed/scrammed etc while the rest of the fleet guns you down.


Imagine how a fleet of real players would out-smart and out-maneuver any multiboxer fleet as this [multiboxer] guy can't execute simultaneous mixed strategies decisions at the same rate as a single FC with a single human on each sit of his fleet . If your rage is about not having a way to fight back multiboxers you are seeing things from the wrong perspective: it is very easy for them to kill things, and even easier to get killed. Think about it. If it was an all manned fleet would it be different? Would you survive?

Personally I understand that it seems unfair that someone can replicate keys through many game clients like that, and for any other game I would agree with you, but in EVE it is not just a matter of raw power (mostly) as it would be in WoW where you can AoE entire guilds down with a single key stroke, no, you have to coordinate and change tactics at much faster rates in order to survive. Actually, can anybody here tell me about any successful multiboxer PvPer in EVE? Are there any stories about the multiboxer one who camped a gate solely and could take any incoming fleet?
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#44 - 2013-05-21 04:06:32 UTC
Hahaha yeah I hope this thread works out for ya.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#45 - 2013-05-21 07:12:10 UTC
Ban ISBotters

.

Josef Djugashvilis
#46 - 2013-05-21 07:20:30 UTC
My view is that this topic has been done to death.

Unless CCP change their mind, ISBoxer would appear to be here to stay.

This is not a signature.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2013-05-21 08:32:08 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
My view is that this topic has been done to death.

Unless CCP change their mind, ISBoxer would appear to be here to stay.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#48 - 2013-05-21 10:38:05 UTC
CCP loves alts, as alts bring in the dough.
ISBoxer and its virtualization ilk smoothes the handling of alts.
Ergo: CCP loves them.

Furthermore .. how much are you willing to wager that the Eve client will at some point natively support virtualization/multiboxing in a manner similar to the 3rd party options.
CCP developed a thin client for testing purposes, they are opening up for plex fueled multi-training on single accounts (ie. alt nurseries), mechanics invariably favour 'more is better' as alternatives are often restrictive and they have already crossed the 3rd party bridge when they revamped the fitting interface with an expressed desire to outright mimic 3rd party fitting tools at some point.

Rolling a virtualization client into the main client makes perfect business sense .. hell, they could/should buy one of the companies responsible for such clients if only to save IP fees.

PS: Think about it. Tinfoil accessories not recommended as it interferes with logic/reasoning.
saltrock0000
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-05-21 10:39:47 UTC
Clearly OP can only afford to maintain 1 character and is mad at everyone else for being better then him.

\'''\<(o_O)>/'''/

Shaco LaRusko
Veritas Theory
#50 - 2013-05-21 11:19:04 UTC
Jassmin Joy wrote:
Shaco LaRusko wrote:
Fixy FixIT wrote:
"stuff"


Ya but 20 miners is 20 accounts. You could do far better with 20 real players. The bigger question is does 1 account = 1 player.

Could that same 20 account isboxer take down a fleet of 20 equally armed players? Probably not.


You mean could a fleet of 20 ships who all follow primes, fire at the same time and dont do stupid **** like jumping gates solo or burning off, beat a group of 20 players that have the ability to do what they want? sure.


True but how do you spread ewar to multiply targets? You cant effeciently. Whats the point of 20 people pointing the same guy? and if you only have 1 or 2 pointers its easy to figure out which and kill them off quickly.
Jassmin Joy
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#51 - 2013-05-21 12:33:26 UTC
Obunagawe wrote:
Jassmin Joy wrote:
Shaco LaRusko wrote:
Fixy FixIT wrote:
"stuff"


Ya but 20 miners is 20 accounts. You could do far better with 20 real players. The bigger question is does 1 account = 1 player.

Could that same 20 account isboxer take down a fleet of 20 equally armed players? Probably not.


You mean could a fleet of 20 ships who all follow primes, fire at the same time and dont do stupid **** like jumping gates solo or burning off, beat a group of 20 players that have the ability to do what they want? sure.


Could a fleet of 20 players who can manually pilot their ships, control range, individually warp off when taking damage, use ammo types selectively for best range, and run combined-arms fleets w/ logi and ewar and so on defeat an isboxer fleet of all 1 shiptype? Certainly.

Good fleet > isboxer fleet > scrubs


There are legitimate ways to work in logistics to isboxer too, takes a bit of messing around but it's workable.

However yes, This is a pretty fair way of putting it.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#52 - 2013-05-21 13:28:26 UTC
Ellen Thrace wrote:
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
If a click of yours immediately causes a click in 10 clients, that is not automation.


With all due respect , that is clearly an automation, simply because its not humanly possible to do that.
With all due respect, you are wrong. It's duplication, not automation.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-05-21 13:49:12 UTC
Danni stark wrote:
the new thread button should redirect to the search function.

that way we don't have to read waste of time threads like this one.

we ******* know isboxer is fine, ccp have said so in numerous threads.



I knew what this thread was about by reading the title.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
#54 - 2013-05-21 14:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Himnos Altar
Goldiiee wrote:
OP you should have started a thread called: 'General Discussion' should have its name changed to 'For Trolls And Unhelpful Responses'. )


I fully endorse this product and/or service.

Quote:
Is using IsBoxer to Cloak all your ships at the same time so you can AFK in 0.0 against the Laws of the Internets?!


I HEARTILY endorse this product and/or service.



.......I find your IDS LackOfFaith disturbing........

Also:

Why hasn't anyone linked Zkeh Kromtor yet?

Quote:

I would agree with you before the fanfest on Ice harvesting, however after odyssey it'll be very hard for multiboxers to get some spot as the anomalies have little Ice qty and the spawn is set to four hours after the current ones gets depleted. There is also the scenario where they do get a fresh anomaly and harvest it dry, but, again, they will have to wait sit for the next 4 hours or be lucky to find fresh anomalies in close systems. In either case it won't be profitable for multiboxers as long as they can't have a fixed incoming rate.


Mine the ice, mine ore while waiting for ice, mine the ice, etc. Part of me wants to have 20 accounts all mining in tandem, then "accidentally" have all of them say the exact same thing at the exact same time in local. or in a trade hub.

I wonder what would happen if I went to Jita and spammed scams with 20 accounts at the same time......would anyone notice?

Quote:
For Ore harvesting it would be a nightmare to have 20 accounts. Even on skiffs you would have to switch targets at such a rate that it would be impossible for one person to handle it all. If you consider mining in null sec (as the roids are bigger) it will now be too much a risk too because grav sites will be also moved to anomalies, so I don't think people will be dumb enough to risk losing 20 ships in a blink. And if they do, well, better for the market.


keep an eye on local.

pfft.....that's hilarious. you K-spacers are cute with your local and all.

Keep a Cov Ops with probes on alert for new signatures, and you're golden. Ships will be lost, it's as much a part of Wspa--er, EVE as anything else.

But seriously?

Zhek Kromtor.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#55 - 2013-05-21 16:08:47 UTC
Himnos Altar wrote:

I wonder what would happen if I went to Jita and spammed scams with 20 accounts at the same time......would anyone notice?


Chribba would P

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

Doc Severide
Doomheim
#56 - 2013-05-21 16:56:01 UTC
Either way I just don't care....
ian papabear
Perkone
Caldari State
#57 - 2013-05-21 17:05:19 UTC
you are a big crybaby, crying about something that doesnt even affect you. let the gm's deal with this issue,

.

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#58 - 2013-05-21 18:27:12 UTC
Dub Step wrote:
It's bullshit for them to claim this is somehow OK, but multiple accounts mean more money for CCP so don't expect them to care about it.

Roime wrote:
Ban ISBotters



Give it up. CCP makes the rules. CCP says you're wrong. It's time to stop spitting into the wind - it's futile, it's messy, and it won't do anything good for you.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#59 - 2013-05-21 18:28:31 UTC
How is this thread still not locked?





Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2013-05-21 19:19:13 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
FFs.

How can you people not see this? It's not illegal, and it shouldn't be. The guy in that tutorial pays for 7 accounts. He boasts about how much he makes ratting with Isoboxer, but if you want to tell what he really earns divide it by seven. That's right... he is earning exactly the same as you. If he wants 7 times the income at 7 times the cost, then who cares? He's paying CCP for it after all, and you could do the same with your 1 account by buying plex.

Multiboxers don't affect you in any way. Just get on with your sad stupid existences and ignore them like everyone else.

Ellen Thrace wrote:
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
If a click of yours immediately causes a click in 10 clients, that is not automation.


With all due respect , that is clearly an automation, simply because its not humanly possible to do that.


Actually... clicking isn't possible at all in Eve without external automating software. Those softwares are called drivers, and you can't operate a modern computer without them. Technically you can't operate Eve at all without the influence of external non-client "automating" (under your definition) software. I certainly don't see you typing out commands for your Eve in binary. The EULA is there to protect CCP, so that they can say what they will and wont allow. CCP has said they will allow multiboxers and that's that.



Then he should be doing 7x the work.

He isn't.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.