Assembly Hall

Yeah just like buying plex is cheating. Cause like it totally gives you an unfair advantage!!! PAY TO WIN !! at it's most basic!!



Also apparently owning more then one account is cheating. Having PI alts on one account is cheating. Reading about the game and using that knowledge to make more isk then the complainers in this thread is also cheating..

I dunno about banning multi-boxing software, especially without stats on how prevalent it is.

I'd rather that pressure be put on CCP to come up with fun gameplay that rewards playing with other humans (rather than by yourself with multiple clients).

The loot scatter thing was one attempt that failed, so they need to keep trying.

Um, no. CCP decides what cheating is within the context of this game, not you. You may choose to accept their rulings, appeal their rulings, or stop giving them their money - but you don't get to define what constitutes cheating, "regardless of what CCP claims"

If you want to make a rational argument of how IS Boxer actively harms the game environment and puts other people at a disadvantage in a way that is different from or worse than using any other method of acheiving the same results, then by all means, please do so.

Until then, your argument is basically "I don't like it, and that makes it wrong."


This argument cannot get better because it is exactly that, an argument. There's no discussion, there's no debate, and the few people who try and point out reasonable points are lost in the frothing sea of whinging.

The mistake in your approach being, of course, the thought that the might respond to logic. As Epictetus said, "You cannot teach a man what he thinks he already knows." They're convinced IS Boxer is bad, wrong, and should be banned without really examining the logic of the situtation, or being able to provide a logical reason why it should be banned other than the fact that they feel like it shouldn't be allowed.

That's a ridiculous argument. 1 domi against 100 of them is going to get fubar'd in short order regardless of how many people are controlling the 100 domis.

Still going? Since the only people who are going to read this are the couple of people posting, forum mods, and the CSM, I'll drop in a pro-ban argument.

One argument for banning ISBoxer is that people in PvP don't like losing to software. The number of accounts owned by unhappy people could start to outnumber the number of accounts running ISBoxer. That could be a bad thing for CCP's profits. But can a person use ISBoxer in PvP and get better performance that then same amount of individual players? In some cases, yes. On CSM representative Xander Phoena's website Crossing Zebras, PL member Forlorn Wongraven argued back in January that gangs of ISBoxing stealth bombers are bad for the game:



One of the things that makes ISBoxer so effective in making bombing runs is the coordination between the bombers in an ISBoxer fleet compared to 6 individuals in Forlorn's example is the ability to broadcast the same command to 6 different ships simultaneously. A human fleet, no matter how good, can obtain that level of performance.

(Just as a side note. I thought the rule was that one keystroke or mouse click could perform one action in one client. It sounds like the people using ISBoxer aren't following the EULA. Some might even call that "cheating", but CCP currently allows that, so I guess it isn't.)

One could argue the effectiveness of ISBoxer gangs of stealth bombers is due to poor mechanics. Stealth bombers used to decloak each other if they got too close to each other before Crucible. If CCP allows cloaked ships to decloak each other again, that problem is solved. No more one-man stealth bomber camps and all the ISBoxer users get to keep their software.

I guess I should add the thoughts of our CSM representative Xander expressed in the thread of the article I linked to on Crossing Zebras.

Ashley, that was an interesting response. Let's see if I can address your points.



Since I live in lowsec, I don't have any experience with bombing runs, so I'll have to take your word on the difficulty of setting up a bombing run using ISBoxer.

So, if I understand correctly, your argument is that the difficulty of setting up a bombing run offsets (or more than offsets) the increased coordination between the bombers in an ISBoxer fleet when releasing the bombs compared to individual pilots conducting a bombing run, thus the use of ISBoxer does not give the ISBoxer user an advantage. That still doesn't address the point that ISBoxer's ability to broadcast commands to multiple clients simultaneously seems to violate the one keystroke/mouse click performs one action in one client rule, thus violating the EULA. But if CCP doesn't care, then meh.



From what I know about ISBoxer, except in some specific circumstances, the person running ISBoxer, if not part of a larger fleet, should get pwned. That's why in an earlier post I wrote "some cases". Since my last post I found another source that extolled the virtues of ISBoxer for another use case: ganking.



Some may not consider ganking "real" PvP, but that isn't going to stop the carebear who was ganked from complaining about someone "cheating" by using software to kill him. As I posted before, people don't like losing to software. If that carebear (and his 3-6 accounts) then decides to not only quit, but then go around and post on forums and the comments of articles about EVE about how people use software cheats, that could hurt potential sales. Especially when other MMO companies like ArenaNet and Carbine ban the use of that type of software.



In a stand-up fight, you're probably correct. I'm pretty sure that you are referring to the ISBoxer team in the second New Eden Open and not the Alliance Tournament, but your point is the same. But does the Alliance Tournament really reflect the reality of PvP on Tranquility? I'm pretty sure that anyone using ISBoxer to PvP on Tranquility will only engage a foe in favorable circumstances. Like in a gate camp with stealth bombers or Tornadoes (if that's still a thing).

But your reference to the use of ISBoxer in a CCP-sponsored tournament does highlight one thing. CCP doesn't see anything wrong with ISBoxer, including its ability to broadcast commands to multiple clients using one keystroke or mouse click, so it's not "cheating" because CCP makes the rules. Even if the written rules in the EULA seem to indicate otherwise.

To clarify the point, what you are suggesting is that ISBoxer is a way to circumvent the game mechanics that only allows a player to control 50 drones at one time. What an enterprising fleet commander can do is form up a fleet with 50 Domis and then have 5 fast-locking ships controlled by someone running ISBoxer. The fleet then lands on grid and drops sentries, assigning its drones to each of the fast-locking ships according to a pre-arranged plan. As a result, 250 drones are under the control of one player, who can then use one keystroke/mouseclick to send the command to 5 clients to focus fire on a target. That focused fire would be more coordinated than that done by 5 individual players or someone multi-boxing 5 ships without the benefit of ISBoxer.

Originally, CCP was going to remove the drone assist mechanic totally. CSM 8 convinced CCP to instead reduce the number of drones that a single player could control down to 50 due to the effect that a total removal of the mechanic would have on incursion runners. But if the meta turns to FCs or a member of a fleet having to run ISBoxer in order to act as a drone bunny, I can see CCP going ahead and removing the drone assist mechanic. After all, does CCP effectively want players to feel they are forced to spend real world money (an Inner Space subscription costs $15 / 3 months or $50 / year) in order to compete in PvP?

Of course, if CCP does remove the drone assist mechanic, then there is no issue and one less objection to people running ISBoxer.

And I love it when people miss the point - that whooshing sound as it zips past them makes me giggle.

When you exagerate an example too much, it ceases to be an effective example, and becomes ridiculous. A 1 v 100 fight (or even a 5 or 10 v 100 fight) is so lopsided, it wouldn't matter if one side was using ISBoxer or black magic to run their clients - numerical superiority at that level has one result, assuming the numerically superior side aren't complete and utter tools. Hell 100 noobships against a Dominix is probably a pretty forgone conclusion.

A better example would be - for instance:

Side A has 100 domis, all run by one pilot. Side B has 100 domis, all run by individual pilots. All ships have the same fitting. Since Side A can acheive perfect fire control on their applied DPS (instead of the odd wandering target), the IS Boxer fleet has an advantage in the application of DPS in this situation.

Of course, in this case,if you headshot the "FC" of the ISBoxer fleet, you've essentially killed all 100 ships, instead of just one, I argue that ISBoxer actually has some severe limitations in the fleet warfare department. Also because your ships all respond in the same way every time, it's hard to bring a flexible fleet and spread our things like points and Ewar (a la Eff-You Fleet).

ISBoxer is the complete opposite of a hardware solution. with ISBoxer you can do multiple different tasks. there are several tutorials how to use and setup the blackscreen dashbords. this is not EVE or any other game anymore with an "optimized" screen, it's an UI optimized to control several accounts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA88ndjh8x4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAbDPHnxLU4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIcGoSAQPeM

ISBoxer is exactly what it is, a third party tool and you have to pay for it.

and to track it down, it shouldn't be that hard. just scan random active systems about character doing permanent the same thing for an several 10 minutes.