These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Isboxer, why is it allowed?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#181 - 2014-03-24 17:33:31 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Not a good analogy. An automatic transition turns a complex series of actions into a single button press (macro'd keystrokes), or it does that function entirely on its own (checking RPM, speed, and accelerator and making a decision to shift or not). Neither is comparable to ISboxer functionality.


why not a good analogy? Whats the difference? Autotransmission changing gears in dependence of RPM (wich in turn depends from gas input) - isbox is clicking depending on users input somewhere else. This is a perfect analogy.


Isbox does not make decisions based on input (bot). Isbox does not take several consecutive timed actions based on a single input (macro). Isbox does not check for game conditions to change and alter its behavior accordingly the way a car might decide when to shift. Isbox is the equivalent of putting dowel rods on your fingers and typing from across the room, or like one of those Hollywood set/stunt cars where the actor pretends to be driving but the real driver is perched on an apparatus in the back.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#182 - 2014-03-24 17:35:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
ISBoxer is a steering servo — it doesn't drive the car; without input, you'll still end up in a ditch.

See, you actually agree with me, we're saying the same!
Autotransmission doesnt drive or do anything else on its own too, still it doesnt make it less of autotransmission.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#183 - 2014-03-24 17:37:03 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
See, you actually agree with me, we're saying the same!
Nope. You see, a steering servo does not automate anything, least of all gear changes.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#184 - 2014-03-24 17:39:53 UTC
Batelle wrote:

Isbox does not make decisions based on input (bot).

automation isnt defined by presence of any form of KI or anything like that.

Batelle wrote:

Isbox does not take several consecutive timed actions based on a single input (macro).

it does.. it clicks 19 times somewhere, as I click once. This is why you use it, isnt it??

Batelle wrote:
Isbox does not check for game conditions to change and alter its behavior accordingly the way a car might decide when to shift. Isbox is the equivalent of putting dowel rods on your fingers and typing from across the room, or like one of those Hollywood set/stunt cars where the actor pretends to be driving but the real driver is perched on an apparatus in the back.

ofc you can try to hurfblurf and deny the obvious, or simply accept the fact CCP doesnt want to shoot their cash cow for obvious reason.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#185 - 2014-03-24 17:40:56 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

Autotransmission doesnt drive or do anything else on its own too, still it doesnt make it less of autotransmission.


yes it does.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#186 - 2014-03-24 17:44:24 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Autotransmission doesnt drive or do anything else on its own too
…so what you're saying is that you don't know what an automatic transmission does. Ok, well that clears up why you thought it was a good example to use.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#187 - 2014-03-24 17:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Robert Caldera wrote:
Batelle wrote:

Isbox does not take several consecutive timed actions based on a single input (macro).

it does.. it clicks 19 times somewhere, as I click once. This is why you use it, isnt it??

Which is totally not the same thing at all. What's so hard about this concept?

Furthermore, you're making the flawed assumption that anyone who would ever support the use of ISboxer MUST use it themselves, and that no one who doesn't use ISboxer could EVER be okay with it. I don't use ISBoxer.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Isbox does not check for game conditions to change and alter its behavior accordingly the way a car might decide when to shift. Isbox is the equivalent of putting dowel rods on your fingers and typing from across the room, or like one of those Hollywood set/stunt cars where the actor pretends to be driving but the real driver is perched on an apparatus in the back.

ofc you can try to hurfblurf and deny the obvious, or simply accept the fact CCP doesnt want to shoot their cash cow for obvious reason.


If anyone's hurtblurfing its the people who say "looks like botting so it must be botting" in response to any serious discussion about what does or does not constitute "botting." These people also refuse to look up and read what CCP has posted on the subject.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#188 - 2014-03-24 17:49:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Tippia wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Autotransmission doesnt drive or do anything else on its own too
…so what you're saying is that you don't know what an automatic transmission does. Ok, well that clears up why you thought it was a good example to use.


more smoke grenades, Tippia, we need more.

Batelle wrote:

Which is totally not the same thing at all. What's so hard about this concept?

why its not the same? Definitin of automation agrees with me, what is your argument?

Batelle wrote:

If anyone's hurtblurfing its the people who say "looks like botting so it must be botting" in response to any serious discussion about what does or does not constitute "botting."

while I am trying serious discussion, all replies I get to read "its not the same blablabla", "bad analogy" etc but no real argument.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#189 - 2014-03-24 17:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: LordOfDespair
With an 11 man incursion fleet using ISboxer:

After 6 hours you can pay for all plex needed for the account. Then every hour after that you make 1.2bil!

That means every hour you run... You earn a machariel you can take into lowsec and lose.


Compare that to a single account that runs with an incursion community... After 6 hours he makes enough money for one plex, then he makes a tiny 100-150mil for every other hour he runs.

That is like a well fit battlecruiser.

Machariel vs battlecruiser. The advantage is obvious.

As you see, the time it takes to generate a plex for each account is the same, however the money earned after that is 11x more.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#190 - 2014-03-24 17:53:54 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
With an 11 man incursion fleet using ISboxer:

After 6 hours you can pay for all plex needed for the account. Then every hour after that you make 1.2bil!
…same as any other 11-man incursion fleet. After all, isboxer does not accelerate any gameplay.

Quote:
Compare that to a single account that runs with an incursion community.
No, let's compare it with an 11 man incursion fleet not using multiboxing. Otherwise, all you've shown is that 11 > 1, which is pretty pointless.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#191 - 2014-03-24 17:54:58 UTC
I don't know how else to say it.

But you are a moron.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#192 - 2014-03-24 17:57:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Tippia wrote:

After all, isboxer does not accelerate any gameplay.

it does, while 1 guy needs 20 minutes to clear a sanctum, an isboxed fleet of 5 smartbombing battleships will clear a sanctum in 2 minutes. Aside the fact a real player would hardly be able to control fleets bigger than 2-3 by himself, isbox saves the time to click all them manually -> accelerated gameplay.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#193 - 2014-03-24 17:58:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Hevymetal wrote:

More accounts = More subs for CCP
More subs for CCP = More profit for CCP
More profit for CCP = More side projects to spend Eve profit on


Then the same argument could be used to legalize botting

More accounts = More subs for CCP
More subs for CCP = More profit for CCP
More profit for CCP = More side projects to spend Eve profit on


But everyone agrees botting is bad.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Aside the fact a real player would hardly be able to control fleets bigger than 2-3 by himself, isbox saves the time to click all them manually -> accelerated gameplay.


Uh, this is just flat out wrong. Like, how ******* new are you??? kind of wrong. Especially if you're talking about something easy like smartbombs.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#194 - 2014-03-24 17:59:43 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Hevymetal wrote:

More accounts = More subs for CCP
More subs for CCP = More profit for CCP
More profit for CCP = More side projects to spend Eve profit on


Then the same argument could be used to legalize botting

More accounts = More subs for CCP
More subs for CCP = More profit for CCP
More profit for CCP = More side projects to spend Eve profit on


But everyone agrees botting is bad.


Not the botters.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#195 - 2014-03-24 17:59:48 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
it does, while 1 guy needs 20 minutes to clear a sanctum, an isboxed fleet of 5 smartbombing battleships will clear a sanctum in 2 minutes.
…same as any other fleet of 5 smartbombing battleships, since isboxer can't accelerate your gameplay.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#196 - 2014-03-24 18:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
Batelle wrote:
ISboxing miners are good because they allow a lot of mining needed to be done by a few dedicated people, meaning low prices for everyone else. This is only bad for miners that use only a few accounts.

Bethan Le Troix wrote:
The main problem with ISBoxer use is large mining fleets staying in one or two systems constantly and decimating the belts.


Only if you insist on mining your own ore, identifying you as a miner who is sad about competition and low ore prices rather than a serious manufacturer.


The same argument can be made for botting.

"Botting miners are good because they mean low prices for everyone else."

Yet we all know that is not the case, nor is it the case with isboxer.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#197 - 2014-03-24 18:00:57 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:

Not the botters.


Find me a post where a botter suggested botting should be allowed. Big smile

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#198 - 2014-03-24 18:01:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
same as any other fleet of 5 smartbombing battleships, since isboxer can't accelerate your gameplay.

it does as I pointed out in my previous posting. It eliminates the huge amount of time switching between clients and doing all the clicking by yourself.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#199 - 2014-03-24 18:03:22 UTC
IIRC, the last time this subject came up and attracted CCP comment, the ruling was that ISboxer was legitimate, although I admit I can't find it. This was a couple of years ago. Does anyone with better goggle-fu than me have the link?

I won't deny that there are implications of ISboxer that make me deeply uneasy.

On the other hand, it's difficult to penalise your customers for using a program that you have publically affirmed is allowed, and which does at least obey the letter of the law by having the player directly and immediately control the actions of every account.

My preferred long term solution would be for CCP to make as much of EVE's gameplay as possible to be more challenging and unpredictable, and less about grinding and more about skill, thus doing an end run around the issue by making groups of ISboxed characters much less useful.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#200 - 2014-03-24 18:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Robert Caldera wrote:
it does as I pointed out in my previous posting.
You didn't demonstrate any acceleration of gameplay.


Let's make it simple, just for you: how does a 5-man fleet earning as much as a 5-man fleet does constitute earning more than a 5-man fleet does?

I understand that the syntax of that question might be a bit strange (it borders on buffalo buffalo buffalo), but just read through it a couple of times and I'm sure you'll get it.