These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Isoboxing gankers.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Illiana Freir
Royal Khanid Fleet Auxiliary
#1 - 2014-04-02 09:28:37 UTC
Not quite sure that this is a new thing but recently I have been seeing quite a few isoboxing gankers.
Reason for me believing that they are isoboxing is that they are named something and with a number at the end all of them doing the exact same thing at the same time.
While this is not so much about the fact that people do it since well both miners and mission runners do it as well.

But what do you think of isoboxing gankers so they can alone take down larger targets?
It seems quite clear that most of the community is against isoboxing miners so I am just curious now it will reason around this.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-04-02 10:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Illiana Freir wrote:
Not quite sure that this is a new thing but recently I have been seeing quite a few isoboxing gankers.
Reason for me believing that they are isoboxing is that they are named something and with a number at the end all of them doing the exact same thing at the same time.
While this is not so much about the fact that people do it since well both miners and mission runners do it as well.

But what do you think of isoboxing gankers so they can alone take down larger targets?
It seems quite clear that most of the community is against isoboxing miners so I am just curious now it will reason around this.


hmmm.. I have not read about people being against ISKBOXING Miners.... Just ISK BOXING as an application itself. How it used and for what matters little to me.

Other people however seems to have a major pet peeve about it.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Illiana Freir
Royal Khanid Fleet Auxiliary
#3 - 2014-04-02 11:00:17 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Illiana Freir wrote:
Not quite sure that this is a new thing but recently I have been seeing quite a few isoboxing gankers.
Reason for me believing that they are isoboxing is that they are named something and with a number at the end all of them doing the exact same thing at the same time.
While this is not so much about the fact that people do it since well both miners and mission runners do it as well.

But what do you think of isoboxing gankers so they can alone take down larger targets?
It seems quite clear that most of the community is against isoboxing miners so I am just curious now it will reason around this.


hmmm.. I have not ready about people being against ISKBOXING Miners.... Just ISK BOXING as an application itself. How it used and for what matters little to me.

Other people however seems to have a major pet peeve about it.

Well I fully agree with you here, if you cant play the game without the application then you should not play that many accounts at the same time is my stand point.

The reason for me bringing this up was due to that yesterday I say quite a few blobs of ships undock at the same time and all had the same profile more or less Nickname1, Nickname2 and so on and they did the exact same things.
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-04-02 11:06:53 UTC
Illiana Freir wrote:
Not quite sure that this is a new thing but recently I have been seeing quite a few isoboxing gankers.
Reason for me believing that they are isoboxing is that they are named something and with a number at the end all of them doing the exact same thing at the same time.
While this is not so much about the fact that people do it since well both miners and mission runners do it as well.

But what do you think of isoboxing gankers so they can alone take down larger targets?
It seems quite clear that most of the community is against isoboxing miners so I am just curious now it will reason around this.

I disapprove of ISBOXing in general, though using it for ganking is hilarious imo.

Why do I disapprove? Cuz it gives too big an advantage to players using it. It lets players control much more ships effectively than anyone could do without.

Yesyes, I know the same goes for a lot of other tools but those are not up for discussion in this thread, make your own :P
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#5 - 2014-04-02 11:21:12 UTC
I approve of ISBoxer. The amount of tears it generates through it's existence alone makes it worth it. If it stopped existing people would have to put more effort into finding things to cry about and our tear cups may run dry. It would be a bleak outcome.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Oska Rus
Free Ice Cream People
#6 - 2014-04-02 11:44:34 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I approve of ISBoxer. The amount of tears it generates through it's existence alone makes it worth it. If it stopped existing people would have to put more effort into finding things to cry about and our tear cups may run dry. It would be a bleak outcome.


+1

Like there are people in eve with one account lol.
Forum Clone 77777
Doomheim
#7 - 2014-04-02 12:41:36 UTC
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:


Yesyes, I know the same goes for a lot of other tools but those are not up for discussion in this thread, make your own :P


Wow, man this is like, trolling unintentionally at a new level.

Derail the thread in your own post, then tell everyone to make their own threads about the the stuff you derailed it into.. In the same post.. Before anyone even responds.. Just wow
WouldYouEver HaveSexWith aGoat
Doomheim
#8 - 2014-04-02 14:08:16 UTC  |  Edited by: WouldYouEver HaveSexWith aGoat
Lucas Kell wrote:
I approve of ISBoxer. The amount of tears it generates through it's existence alone makes it worth it. If it stopped existing people would have to put more effort into finding things to cry about and our tear cups may run dry. It would be a bleak outcome.

I have a simple question for you.

Are you 16 years old?
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#9 - 2014-04-02 15:18:09 UTC
Oska Rus wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I approve of ISBoxer. The amount of tears it generates through it's existence alone makes it worth it. If it stopped existing people would have to put more effort into finding things to cry about and our tear cups may run dry. It would be a bleak outcome.


+1

Like there are people in eve with one account lol.


What's wrong with having 1 account? I can do anything at 145m sp minus cyno jumping myself and I don't fly cap ships despite having all if the cap skills.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#10 - 2014-04-02 15:20:32 UTC
ISBoxing is extremely common, and most pve-activities such as mining, running vanguards or ganking freighters are best done with it.

Of course people use it ;)
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-04-02 15:44:31 UTC
I'd be happy if CCP banned isboxer and all its ilk. But until that day, I see no reason why gankers shouldn't make use of all the tools available in the game.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."
Dreadchain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2014-04-02 17:20:03 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
I'd be happy if CCP banned isboxer and all its ilk. But until that day, I see no reason why gankers shouldn't make use of all the tools available in the game.


I'd go as far as to encourage people to isobox gank so CCP has to ban such software.

www.minerbumping.com
Clio Fenatti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2014-04-02 17:20:50 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
I'd be happy if CCP banned isboxer and all its ilk. But until that day, I see no reason why gankers shouldn't make use of all the tools available in the game.


this.

also, inb4 double standards
Claudia Osyn
Non-Hostile Target
Wild Geese.
#14 - 2014-04-02 17:36:37 UTC
But banning this would cut every major nullsec alliance's forces by about 2/3, it would be chaos!Lol

A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2014-04-02 20:12:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Leto Thule
isboxing gankers are no worse than isboxing miners....

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Agatho Daimon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2014-04-03 02:48:33 UTC
I personally approve of the software. Only the people who do not have the resource and/or skill to use it are the ones bitching. If you could do it, you would :)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#17 - 2014-04-03 02:52:03 UTC
While I would personally like to see that software unilaterally banned, I heartily approve of turning a carebear's tools back on him.

So big props.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#18 - 2014-04-03 02:53:34 UTC
WouldYouEver HaveSexWith aGoat wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I approve of ISBoxer. The amount of tears it generates through it's existence alone makes it worth it. If it stopped existing people would have to put more effort into finding things to cry about and our tear cups may run dry. It would be a bleak outcome.

I have a simple question for you.

Are you 16 years old?




Read your comment, groaned.

Then read your name.


I'm laughing far too loud for my workplace.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#19 - 2014-04-03 02:55:13 UTC
Dreadchain wrote:


I'd go as far as to encourage people to isobox gank so CCP has to ban such software.



If I had the hardware necessary to run ISObox with a lot of accounts, and the accounts to run, I would be running a one-person hellcamp somewhere for exactly that reason.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#20 - 2014-04-03 04:15:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
our tear cups may run dry.


You have persuaded me to support ISboxer.
12Next page