These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: pay to win in eve?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#21 - 2014-06-23 03:25:22 UTC
Zero Sum Gain wrote:


You mean they call themselves goons but they aren't trying to sound prestigious and widely respected?


Shocking revelation, I know.

Whole Squid: Get Inked.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2014-06-23 03:26:09 UTC
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
many of us have witnessed the increasing number of isboxer bomber squads in EvE. At first it was mining fleets, now its bombing runs, the underlying problem for me is an activity that should involve an entire fleet of people is being done (often more effectively) with a single person.



Is it cheating?

Its 3rd party software that enables you to essentially macro multiple characters in eve to duplicate and/or follow a lead pilot. Sounds like cheating to me. However I can understand why CCP wouldn't mind this, after all its one person paying 10x the amount that others are, financially that person is worth 10 other players.



then, is it Pay to Win?

Competitive games only do well when your on a level playing field. As soon as a person can legitimately buy their way into a positions in which he/she has an edge over opponents, its game over. Being able to purchase ISK with money, is counter balanced by being able to buy game time with ISK. For every plex a player sells, another player can play for free.

This is not the case for ISBoxing, if a player spends 10x more than his counter-parts he gains an advantage that is not offset. This then is paying to win.



Will CCP do anything about it?

I really hope so, short term it may mean more money generated by these individuals for CCP. However its essentially dominating the bomber/blops gameplay and removing that content essentially for 9 other players.

ISBoxer bombing runs have become so much of a problem in nullsec that the entire null-sec doctrine scene has changed. Essentially killing the use of anything larger than cruiser hulls in fear of bombs. T3 doctrines, ishtars and the like are all anti-bomber oriented. The problem here is, the higher efficiency ratio of bombing runs done with perfect timing via this 3rd party program has skewed the impact and effectiveness of an area of the game.

Unfortunately I believe this will lead to a bomb nerf, either towards bombers themselves or in the form of counter-measures. The problem with this is, it will be to combat ISBoxer standards, anyone unable to perform at the impossible perfectly timed commands of a computer program will be hit much harder and it will kill of a section of the game for many normal players.

What do you think EvE-0?

Bland Inquisitor

Its not "accelerated rate" (IE cheating), because each character/account is still only gaining resources/ISK/progress at the same rate as someone running 1 character, or someone running 1 character with a friend supporting with 1 character. the per-character reward is the SAME. An accelerated rate that would define cheating is the ability to pull off precision, such as being able to automatically shut off a strip miner as soon as the belt hits 0, not a second more or less, for maximum mining yield, and immediately start mining the next one. Since you cant do that no matter how many accounts your running in ISBoxer, each account is still subject to the same inaccuracies and fallibility that a single or group of individuals are prone too.

And in PVP, an ISBoxer is actually at a disadvantage, as they cannot interact on a per-account basis to a shifting situation, so as their ships begin to take damage, or the enemy moves and forces the ISBox fleet to reset their engagement, the effectiveness of the whole fleet will be throw off because only a few would be capable of operating at efficiency at a time because each account cannot be adjusted on an individual basis to react.

So no, ISBoxing is NOT a "Pay 2 Win" mechanic, it is in fact a "pay to get overconfident" mechanic.
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-06-23 03:37:48 UTC
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
many of us have witnessed the increasing number of isboxer bomber squads in EvE. At first it was mining fleets, now its bombing runs, the underlying problem for me is an activity that should involve an entire fleet of people is being done (often more effectively) with a single person.



Is it cheating?

Its 3rd party software that enables you to essentially macro multiple characters in eve to duplicate and/or follow a lead pilot. Sounds like cheating to me. However I can understand why CCP wouldn't mind this, after all its one person paying 10x the amount that others are, financially that person is worth 10 other players.



then, is it Pay to Win?

Competitive games only do well when your on a level playing field. As soon as a person can legitimately buy their way into a positions in which he/she has an edge over opponents, its game over. Being able to purchase ISK with money, is counter balanced by being able to buy game time with ISK. For every plex a player sells, another player can play for free.

This is not the case for ISBoxing, if a player spends 10x more than his counter-parts he gains an advantage that is not offset. This then is paying to win.



Will CCP do anything about it?

I really hope so, short term it may mean more money generated by these individuals for CCP. However its essentially dominating the bomber/blops gameplay and removing that content essentially for 9 other players.

ISBoxer bombing runs have become so much of a problem in nullsec that the entire null-sec doctrine scene has changed. Essentially killing the use of anything larger than cruiser hulls in fear of bombs. T3 doctrines, ishtars and the like are all anti-bomber oriented. The problem here is, the higher efficiency ratio of bombing runs done with perfect timing via this 3rd party program has skewed the impact and effectiveness of an area of the game.

Unfortunately I believe this will lead to a bomb nerf, either towards bombers themselves or in the form of counter-measures. The problem with this is, it will be to combat ISBoxer standards, anyone unable to perform at the impossible perfectly timed commands of a computer program will be hit much harder and it will kill of a section of the game for many normal players.

What do you think EvE-0?

Bland Inquisitor


What I think?

You are yet another whiner about ISB.

It's allowed, deal with it.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Magnus Cortex
Ginger Industrial Solutions
#24 - 2014-06-23 03:41:56 UTC
Have you heard of instacanes?
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#25 - 2014-06-23 03:51:10 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:


And in PVP, an ISBoxer is actually at a disadvantage, as they cannot interact on a per-account basis to a shifting situation, so as their ships begin to take damage, or the enemy moves and forces the ISBox fleet to reset their engagement, the effectiveness of the whole fleet will be throw off because only a few would be capable of operating at efficiency at a time because each account cannot be adjusted on an individual basis to react.

So no, ISBoxing is NOT a "Pay 2 Win" mechanic, it is in fact a "pay to get overconfident" mechanic.


In practice every disadvantage of being 1 person is countered by a flipside advantage

- no comms delays required to implement a decision
- no waiting for formup
- no low turnout days.
- no social effort required to form multiplayer combat entities
- no personality clashes
- no internal awoxing or corp thefts.
- perfect fire on primary.
- no more difficult to operate than being an FC generally.

Whether or not it can be defeated by the same composition handled by multiple pilots is irrelevant imo (since in those circumstances you'd expect to lose half the time anyway), as an overall package its far more competent than an actual multiplayer grouping, since whenever its logged on, its at its full potential, and for the full session.

What I am not going to do, is accuse pilots of cheating for using it, because it is currently legal. I disagree with it remaining that way, and I think CCP is ultimately fooling themselves if they think that it won't seriously itch the playerbase if its left like this forever, I'd even say the current state of plex prices is itching the playerbase already - ie I don't use them for dual training because too much of the turnover is going to clone-clones.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-06-23 03:52:11 UTC
Arkady Romanov wrote:
Bland Inquisitor wrote:

Is it cheating?


No.

Quote:
then, is it Pay to Win?


No.

Quote:

Will CCP do anything about it?


No again. Also, don't sign your posts, we know who you are since your name is on the side of the screen.


This pretty accurately summarizes things. As an occasional ISBoxer miner, ISBoxer does not allow me to do anything in my isk making operations that I am not already able to do, and for many others, this is the case. What it does do is streamline things, making them less arduous and annoying to perform. I still have to manually move ore from my cargo holds into freight cans every 2 minutes on my hulks. I still have to switch ships manually. I still have to click to deploy drones, to select asteroids to mine, etc. There's just less total clicks involved, plus the window setup functionality is great.

There is nothing within ISBoxer that allows you to 'cheat' on EvE. It allows you to more readily perform the functions of a group of people, than if you were try to manage them all at the same time without software (which I have done in the past many times), but again, does not cheat, is not allowing you to Pay to Win, and is seen by CCP as not being a bad thing, so it won't be 'dealt with'.

This is a dead horse that has been beaten to death many times over.

You also may want to look up what defines 'pay to win'.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#27 - 2014-06-23 03:54:12 UTC
J'Poll wrote:


You are yet another whiner about ISB.

It's allowed, deal with it.


Some of us would very definately like that changed, and it is not whining to point that out.
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-06-23 04:11:02 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
J'Poll wrote:


You are yet another whiner about ISB.

It's allowed, deal with it.


Some of us would very definately like that changed, and it is not whining to point that out.


Are you then also going to whine to CCP to visit all their subs to see if they didn't do this:

http://forums.riftgame.com/attachments/pvp-warfronts/12520-stop-multiboxing-least-pvp-eve_multiboxing_1.jpg

p.s. that's exactly what ISB does, only on a software level.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
ashley Eoner
#29 - 2014-06-23 04:11:43 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
-no comms delays required to implement a decision

Indeed and unlike with people there's no one there to tell you that you're making a stupid decision or to give you an idea you hadn't thought of.

- no waiting for formup

Except for the hours of painstaking work required to get the clients synched up perfectly and getting your primary screen setup.

- no low turnout days.

One little D/c and your day is screwed.

- no social effort required to form multiplayer combat entities

Social and eve how funny

- no internal awoxing or corp thefts.

yeah unless you accidently target one of your fleet members which is quite possible in the heat of the moment. This comment actually has no relevance as you can use this to complain about one man corps or corps that only allow a handful of friends.

- perfect fire on primary.

Yeah except for when the overview and stuff screws up. Which with eve can be often or rarely.

- no more difficult to operate than being an FC generally.

Except you cannot scout effectively or have time to really evaluate the situation. You're too busy trying to keep your ships alive to have time to think of the big picture.


J'Poll wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
J'Poll wrote:


You are yet another whiner about ISB.

It's allowed, deal with it.


Some of us would very definately like that changed, and it is not whining to point that out.


Are you then also going to whine to CCP to visit all their subs to see if they didn't do this:

http://forums.riftgame.com/attachments/pvp-warfronts/12520-stop-multiboxing-least-pvp-eve_multiboxing_1.jpg

p.s. that's exactly what ISB does, only on a software level.

Wow that's extremely primitive. Why didn't he just make a box to clone the original mouses commands? Just run a bunch of cords out of the box to individual machines.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2014-06-23 04:59:45 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:


And in PVP, an ISBoxer is actually at a disadvantage, as they cannot interact on a per-account basis to a shifting situation, so as their ships begin to take damage, or the enemy moves and forces the ISBox fleet to reset their engagement, the effectiveness of the whole fleet will be throw off because only a few would be capable of operating at efficiency at a time because each account cannot be adjusted on an individual basis to react.

So no, ISBoxing is NOT a "Pay 2 Win" mechanic, it is in fact a "pay to get overconfident" mechanic.


In practice every disadvantage of being 1 person is countered by a flipside advantage

- no comms delays required to implement a decision
- no waiting for formup
- no low turnout days.
- no social effort required to form multiplayer combat entities
- no personality clashes
- no internal awoxing or corp thefts.
- perfect fire on primary.
- no more difficult to operate than being an FC generally.

Whether or not it can be defeated by the same composition handled by multiple pilots is irrelevant imo (since in those circumstances you'd expect to lose half the time anyway), as an overall package its far more competent than an actual multiplayer grouping, since whenever its logged on, its at its full potential, and for the full session.

What I am not going to do, is accuse pilots of cheating for using it, because it is currently legal. I disagree with it remaining that way, and I think CCP is ultimately fooling themselves if they think that it won't seriously itch the playerbase if its left like this forever, I'd even say the current state of plex prices is itching the playerbase already - ie I don't use them for dual training because too much of the turnover is going to clone-clones.

Its not at its full potential, because each client cannot compensate for the movement or tactics of the enemy fleet.

yeah, in a 500 man blobwar battleship shootout, the guy who can automate target-f1 better wins, but in a 5-25 man gang roam, not being able to individually position yourself or properly use force multipliers effectively and independently, can and WILL, for lack of a better phrase, **** you up something fierce.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2014-06-23 05:00:41 UTC
As others have pointed out: no, no, and no, in that order.
Please use the search function to re-read all the reasons why in any of the umpteen other threads on this dead-horse topic.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2014-06-23 05:02:39 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
-no comms delays required to implement a decision

Indeed and unlike with people there's no one there to tell you that you're making a stupid decision or to give you an idea you hadn't thought of.

- no waiting for formup

Except for the hours of painstaking work required to get the clients synched up perfectly and getting your primary screen setup.

- no low turnout days.

One little D/c and your day is screwed.

- no social effort required to form multiplayer combat entities

Social and eve how funny

- no internal awoxing or corp thefts.

yeah unless you accidently target one of your fleet members which is quite possible in the heat of the moment. This comment actually has no relevance as you can use this to complain about one man corps or corps that only allow a handful of friends.

- perfect fire on primary.

Yeah except for when the overview and stuff screws up. Which with eve can be often or rarely.

- no more difficult to operate than being an FC generally.

Except you cannot scout effectively or have time to really evaluate the situation. You're too busy trying to keep your ships alive to have time to think of the big picture.


J'Poll wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
J'Poll wrote:


You are yet another whiner about ISB.

It's allowed, deal with it.


Some of us would very definately like that changed, and it is not whining to point that out.


Are you then also going to whine to CCP to visit all their subs to see if they didn't do this:

http://forums.riftgame.com/attachments/pvp-warfronts/12520-stop-multiboxing-least-pvp-eve_multiboxing_1.jpg

p.s. that's exactly what ISB does, only on a software level.

Wow that's extremely primitive. Why didn't he just make a box to clone the original mouses commands? Just run a bunch of cords out of the box to individual machines.

To prove no matter how many restrictions or specificity against multiboxing is allowed, you can still multibox the same as now with some duct tape and excessive peripherals devices.
Foxstar Damaskeenus
why did i join this corp
Not Purple Shoot It.
#33 - 2014-06-23 05:18:59 UTC
Of course its cheating to some people, just like booster alts or any form of multi boxing (I had to make one myself finally) Sad

In a true sandbox mmo you would have to rely on other people to do things and form relationships and use creativity. With software controlling your accounts you can simply add other accounts.

It is definitely pay to win. Multi boxing mining really doesn't bother me but in combat especially I give people that do it no respect, and it actually makes me emotionally unhappy to use off grid links.

But CCP isn't going to do jack **** just like they allow the excessive trolling by immature scum bags on these forums. They don't care, we have been bitching for years.

If it was really a sandbox you wouldn't be able to multibox or have another account. I have an industrial character, but in real life I cant magically completely change my life or destiny on the spot.

In my opinion your character, your choices and your reputation should shape your destiny, not some 30 year old virgin's parent's bank account.

"[this thread] is a cesspit of trolling and flaming" ISD Buldath
Josef Djugashvilis
#34 - 2014-06-23 05:54:14 UTC
ISboxing, how the Billy No Mates socialize in Eve Online :)

This is not a signature.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2014-06-23 06:00:16 UTC
But but but if you build your own ISBoxing fleet of whatever, that means the subscriber base is going up up up!!! So it causes a bunch of other people running "solo" to throw in the towel - adding _one_ account means a plus in overall subs!
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2014-06-23 06:02:03 UTC
You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

U could consider loot acquisition i guess.

Isk boxer works around havin frends with you ofc, even though a fleet warp with bombers allows easy well aimed runs closely to boxer.

Ccp is aware of the subject, cant comment on opinions or actions, will bring it up again ofc
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-06-23 06:21:29 UTC
corebloodbrothers wrote:
You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

U could consider loot acquisition i guess.

Isk boxer works around havin frends with you ofc, even though a fleet warp with bombers allows easy well aimed runs closely to boxer.

Ccp is aware of the subject, cant comment on opinions or actions, will bring it up again ofc


wat

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2014-06-23 06:25:59 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
corebloodbrothers wrote:
You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

U could consider loot acquisition i guess.

Isk boxer works around havin frends with you ofc, even though a fleet warp with bombers allows easy well aimed runs closely to boxer.

Ccp is aware of the subject, cant comment on opinions or actions, will bring it up again ofc


wat

All I got was apparently CBB thinks ISBoxer is cheating but then goes on to say they arent allowed to say that, and that they will go beg to CCP to ban it.

This is all completely based on a rough translation of course.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2014-06-23 06:27:42 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
corebloodbrothers wrote:
You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

U could consider loot acquisition i guess.

Isk boxer works around havin frends with you ofc, even though a fleet warp with bombers allows easy well aimed runs closely to boxer.

Ccp is aware of the subject, cant comment on opinions or actions, will bring it up again ofc


wat



The interesting question: "Is a fleet of isoboxed suicide ganking cats different in any meaningful way from a fleet of isoboxed mining barges. "
Dave Stark
#40 - 2014-06-23 06:35:25 UTC
the horse is dead, stop beating it.

also, while you're at it. stop whining.