These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM, pressure CCP to ban IsBoxer.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iain Cariaba
#181 - 2014-08-16 20:10:45 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Um... I am an IT guy, and you are 100% incorrect.

AND

CCP already does this if you use a trial account. Try it. It will only let you log onto that ONE account on the same machine.

People share a sub-net "Mask", Your IP is unique to your singular connection (Whether it is a random or static one every time you connect). If you hook 2 computers up in the exact same room on a router, both will have different IPs (I should know I have 3 in my apartment as I build them for a living). Your IP is how the internet determines where to send and receive information from.

Each connection is unique. It is however possible to get a second computer to mimick the IP of another, But this must be done manually and causes a shitload of network issues.

So you can have 20 computers in one home, and each will have a different IP.

Also the EvE Server client can determine which machine is hooked up where and how many clients are running on it, it's how they restrict account that are trial. Try it, Open a trial account then try and log in on a normal account, it will not let you as long as that trial account is logged in, but hop on another computer right next to it and you can log on all of them, as long as no trial account is open on that computer.

If they shared an IP this would not be possible. (Not to mention you can look at the IP yourself of your own computer).


My Specific tech degree is in Internet Security and Network Forensics. So I know for a fact you can easily do what I suggested with 0 issues, and as I stated above

This falls along the lines of your claim to be a 7yr bittervet on the thread you started along this same line. I'm not even an IT guy, but I can give half a dozen ways to bypass any way you can think of to run more clients than you deem to allow me to. Hell, when I was deployed to Afghanistan years ago, I was able to connect to EvE even through all the methods used to keep me from playing games.

I'm also old enough of a gamer to remember connecting to various MU*s from university computer labs, having to explain that the five characters coming from the same IP were my friends and myself, not just me.
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#182 - 2014-08-16 21:21:21 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:

Um... I am an IT guy, and you are 100% incorrect.

AND

CCP already does this if you use a trial account. Try it. It will only let you log onto that ONE account on the same machine.

People share a sub-net "Mask", Your IP is unique to your singular connection (Whether it is a random or static one every time you connect). If you hook 2 computers up in the exact same room on a router, both will have different IPs (I should know I have 3 in my apartment as I build them for a living). Your IP is how the internet determines where to send and receive information from.

Each connection is unique. It is however possible to get a second computer to mimick the IP of another, But this must be done manually and causes a shitload of network issues.

So you can have 20 computers in one home, and each will have a different IP.

Also the EvE Server client can determine which machine is hooked up where and how many clients are running on it, it's how they restrict account that are trial. Try it, Open a trial account then try and log in on a normal account, it will not let you as long as that trial account is logged in, but hop on another computer right next to it and you can log on all of them, as long as no trial account is open on that computer.

If they shared an IP this would not be possible. (Not to mention you can look at the IP yourself of your own computer).


My Specific tech degree is in Internet Security and Network Forensics. So I know for a fact you can easily do what I suggested with 0 issues, and as I stated above


So, did you get that degree after sending 50$ to a nigerian "university"?

Lo and behold: the wonder of proxy servers

Virtual machines are also an interesting topic, when you ponder the question of how in the world those evil hackers managed to crack the top security measures that prevent logging in a regular and a trial account.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#183 - 2014-08-17 00:34:08 UTC
I just wanted to weigh in on this too!
Lilly Naari wrote:
Um... I am an IT guy, and you are 100% incorrect.

AND

CCP already does this if you use a trial account. Try it. It will only let you log onto that ONE account on the same machine.
As far as I know, this is done on the PC, not on server side. When you launch a client, it looks at the other running clients and disallows multiple clients if a trial client is running (or a trial client if non-trials are running). If you ran 2 machines on the same IP, you can run both (on different machines).

Lilly Naari wrote:
People share a sub-net "Mask", Your IP is unique to your singular connection (Whether it is a random or static one every time you connect). If you hook 2 computers up in the exact same room on a router, both will have different IPs (I should know I have 3 in my apartment as I build them for a living). Your IP is how the internet determines where to send and receive information from.
Yes and no. When you connect 2 machines to a single connection, they will have separate internal IPs (the 192.168.x.x or 169.254.x.x addresses, among others). Whether or not they have multiple external IPs is based on the network they are connected to. With a home network, you will generally only have 1 IP, and businesses often have a single IP for the general traffic with separate IPs for servers and the like. Larger universities and such may own a large block of ip addresses, allowing them to distribute more external IP addresses to individual machines, but most smaller universities will be limited on how many they have, to the point that they have to share. The public use networks they have will often be limited to a few.

Consider that under IPv4 addressing there are only 4.2 billion unique IP addresses, and you'll see why it's unreasonable to think that every internet enabled device in the world would have it's own unique address.

Lilly Naari wrote:
Each connection is unique. It is however possible to get a second computer to mimick the IP of another, But this must be done manually and causes a shitload of network issues.

So you can have 20 computers in one home, and each will have a different IP.
Again, internal addresses, perhaps, but external, generally no. And connecting them to a single external IP is as simple as plugging them into a router/modem configured with a single outward facing address. When a packet is sent by the router, it uses PAT (not exclusively but let's simplify here) to alter the local ports so it knows which internal machine to forward responses to.

Lilly Naari wrote:
My Specific tech degree is in Internet Security and Network Forensics. So I know for a fact you can easily do what I suggested with 0 issues, and as I stated above
You might want to check if you took the right class. It sounds like you might have accidentally taken a bakery class instead.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Pakokkie
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#184 - 2014-08-18 09:02:25 UTC
dear CCP.

Could you please implement ISBOXING in Eve online?
CCP is not going to act against the use of ISBOXING.

So, if CCP is not acting against ISBOXING they should just implement it.

Please let me control 10 characters with one click. It will help prevent RSI.
So if CCP does not implement the use of ISBOXING they might be held accountable for causing RSI.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#185 - 2014-08-18 13:03:05 UTC
Pakokkie wrote:
dear CCP.

Could you please implement ISBOXING in Eve online?
CCP is not going to act against the use of ISBOXING.

So, if CCP is not acting against ISBOXING they should just implement it.

Please let me control 10 characters with one click. It will help prevent RSI.
So if CCP does not implement the use of ISBOXING they might be held accountable for causing RSI.
There's lots of things that CCP doesn't implement that other things do. Jabber pings and consolidated inter-regional market data for example. There's no responsibility on their part to provide you with that functionality themselves. So your choices are:
- Multibox manually
- Multibox with a mutliboxing program
- Don't multibox


By the way, it's not called ISBOXING, it's called multiboxing. ISBoxer is a single product which aids multiboxing, and you can get it here.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#186 - 2014-08-18 13:30:38 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:

Um... I am an IT guy, and you are 100% incorrect.


If you are an IT security guy, I sincerely hope you do not work for the company that employs me, especially as we're a bank.

Also, Network Address Translation called to say you're an idiot. I told him that was a little harsh, but he seemed insistent on comparing your knowledge of IP masking and replacement with the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northward facing male bovine.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Tweek Etimua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2014-08-19 02:53:25 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
How would you expect them to enforce it? Short of not allowing more than one client to open from any given IP address at a time (which is another nightmare due to shared IP's), how are expecting them to stop people from multi-boxing? Remember, ISBoxer WAS against the EULA, until some inventive chappie demonstrated a totally hardware way of doing the same thing.

ISBoxer became "legal" simply because there's no way for CCP to tell when people are using it versus when they're not.

Inh otherwords, OP, please demonstrate how to tell when someone is using ISBoxer versus a couple of these.

I dont have the numbers. But it would be interesting to know how many people pay for alt acounts rather than use isk. If CCP would lose money by stopping ISboxing then I dont see it stopping.
Drachen Protectorate
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#188 - 2014-08-19 11:03:07 UTC
Prostetnik Vogon Jeltz wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Why?


Q) Why ban multiboxing software?

A) Because, as far as I am concerned it is violation of the EULA which as players we are supposed to abide by.
--> A) Because, however you see it, it is having an effect on the in game economy which affects everyone.

Q) Why has CCP not banned it?

-> A) Because they are making money from it, albeit indirectly.


<- The point of EVE Online is for it to make revenue. If it didn't, it would be a waste of running their servers on.

<-- Yea, the prices are lower than they are supposed to be. I'm certain we all agree you should be BUYING 1 unit of Tritanium for at least 50ISK, not 5isk per unit. That's what you get with people multiboxing industry chars. The price of materials and consequentially everything built from them, drops.

When you next blow up your t1 frigate and laugh at measly 5mil isk price you lost, imagine how it would be if the price was 5x higher.
Pakokkie
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#189 - 2014-08-21 08:45:11 UTC
Well, now I don't understand ccp anymore.

People that died to a character using isbox have their ships reimbursed.

So what is ccp's position on this?
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#190 - 2014-08-21 16:10:24 UTC
Pakokkie wrote:

People that died to a character using isbox have their ships reimbursed.


[citation needed]

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#191 - 2014-08-21 16:56:04 UTC
Pakokkie wrote:

People that died to a character using isbox have their ships reimbursed.


That does not at all sound like something that would be abused to hell and back if it was even remotely true (unless we're talking about some kind of rookie protection).
Drachen Protectorate
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#192 - 2014-08-27 09:38:57 UTC
Pakokkie wrote:
Well, now I don't understand ccp anymore.

People that died to a character using isbox have their ships reimbursed.

So what is ccp's position on this?


CCP will never issue that, so you might as well forget it. Just stop ganking miners.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#193 - 2014-08-28 18:13:14 UTC
The real issue here is not people useing 5-10 accounts, it's guys like Memory-Alpha who have 300+ and actively use 50-80+ at a time to both PvP and Strip every belt in a system in less then 2 hours. And an icebelt in less then 10 minuets.

My alt warped into an icebelt earlier today to mine some ice, and He was sitting there with an orca 2 freighters and 40+ Skiffs all bunched up in a ball.

I don;t think ISboxer should be banned persay, but this is getting ridiculous. When one person can control 50-100 toons "Simultaniously", there is a severe issue.

Besides, we all know these massive fleets are Isk Farmers selling isk and RMTing anyway.

40+ Man ISboxer fleet mains I have seen:

* Memory-Alpha - Operates out of Yoma
* Lucutus-Borg - Yoma, Elonaya, a few others

Come CSMs, put your collective intelligence together and do something, enough is enough.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#194 - 2014-08-28 18:55:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I just wanted to weigh in on this too!
Lilly Naari wrote:
Um... I am an IT guy, and you are 100% incorrect.

AND

CCP already does this if you use a trial account. Try it. It will only let you log onto that ONE account on the same machine.


Quote:
As far as I know, this is done on the PC, not on server side. When you launch a client, it looks at the other running clients and disallows multiple clients if a trial client is running (or a trial client if non-trials are running). If you ran 2 machines on the same IP, you can run both (on different machines).


Exactly, so there is no reason the server or client can't check to see "how many" accounts your computer is running and if its say more then 10, refuse to allow another one to run.
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2014-08-28 20:38:38 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I just wanted to weigh in on this too!
Lilly Naari wrote:
Um... I am an IT guy, and you are 100% incorrect.

AND

CCP already does this if you use a trial account. Try it. It will only let you log onto that ONE account on the same machine.


Quote:
As far as I know, this is done on the PC, not on server side. When you launch a client, it looks at the other running clients and disallows multiple clients if a trial client is running (or a trial client if non-trials are running). If you ran 2 machines on the same IP, you can run both (on different machines).


Exactly, so there is no reason the server or client can't check to see "how many" accounts your computer is running and if its say more then 10, refuse to allow another one to run.



cept it so easily defeat-able, that it really laughable. So, why waste the Dev time on it?

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#196 - 2014-08-29 07:08:22 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I just wanted to weigh in on this too!
Lilly Naari wrote:
Um... I am an IT guy, and you are 100% incorrect.

AND

CCP already does this if you use a trial account. Try it. It will only let you log onto that ONE account on the same machine.


Quote:
As far as I know, this is done on the PC, not on server side. When you launch a client, it looks at the other running clients and disallows multiple clients if a trial client is running (or a trial client if non-trials are running). If you ran 2 machines on the same IP, you can run both (on different machines).


Exactly, so there is no reason the server or client can't check to see "how many" accounts your computer is running and if its say more then 10, refuse to allow another one to run.
Which wouldn't work, since virtualisation makes that pointless. Multiboxing tools could easily bypass a client side check. They might already do so to be honest.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Drachen Protectorate
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#197 - 2014-08-29 08:39:34 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
The real issue here is not people useing 5-10 accounts, it's guys like Memory-Alpha who have 300+ and actively use 50-80+ at a time to both PvP and Strip every belt in a system in less then 2 hours. And an icebelt in less then 10 minuets.

My alt warped into an icebelt earlier today to mine some ice, and He was sitting there with an orca 2 freighters and 40+ Skiffs all bunched up in a ball.

I don;t think ISboxer should be banned persay, but this is getting ridiculous. When one person can control 50-100 toons "Simultaniously", there is a severe issue.

Besides, we all know these massive fleets are Isk Farmers selling isk and RMTing anyway.

40+ Man ISboxer fleet mains I have seen:

* Memory-Alpha - Operates out of Yoma
* Lucutus-Borg - Yoma, Elonaya, a few others

Come CSMs, put your collective intelligence together and do something, enough is enough.


So? Stop space lawyering and do something about it. He consents to PvP every time he undocks. Just imagine if those two would be doing that in a rented 0.0 space. Nobody would notice and there wouldn't be any complaints from your side. So what's the problem?
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#198 - 2014-08-29 09:40:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lilly Naari
Drachen Protectorate wrote:
Lilly Naari wrote:
The real issue here is not people useing 5-10 accounts, it's guys like Memory-Alpha who have 300+ and actively use 50-80+ at a time to both PvP and Strip every belt in a system in less then 2 hours. And an icebelt in less then 10 minuets.

My alt warped into an icebelt earlier today to mine some ice, and He was sitting there with an orca 2 freighters and 40+ Skiffs all bunched up in a ball.

I don;t think ISboxer should be banned persay, but this is getting ridiculous. When one person can control 50-100 toons "Simultaniously", there is a severe issue.

Besides, we all know these massive fleets are Isk Farmers selling isk and RMTing anyway.

40+ Man ISboxer fleet mains I have seen:

* Memory-Alpha - Operates out of Yoma
* Lucutus-Borg - Yoma, Elonaya, a few others

Come CSMs, put your collective intelligence together and do something, enough is enough.


So? Stop space lawyering and do something about it. He consents to PvP every time he undocks. Just imagine if those two would be doing that in a rented 0.0 space. Nobody would notice and there wouldn't be any complaints from your side. So what's the problem?



We tried ganking his fleet already, he warped in 15 Logies and 20 Vindis then laughed in local just to prove a point.

I don't have a 40 man fleet to engage him with. And you can't kill a skiff wihtout at least 3 full DPS fit talos's (Let alone 40+). I also don;t have 100 billion ISK to blow up all the ships I would need to gank his entire fleet just once. (And successfully kill it). Its a 40+ Skiff/Proc Fleet. He also has Logis and Vindies on standbuy when someoen attacks him that he warps in,.


Your essentially telling me I should undock in a shuttle and attempt to kill a battleship. With Concord on the battleships side. (Since he in an NPC corp.

Like I said earlier this problem will require several corporations if not several allainces, to simply Deal with "ONE SINGLE PLAYER". Because he can multibox 50-100 toons at a time.

CCP mine as well introduce admin shields as available on the market, and let the carebears have Orcas that will strip belts in 3 cycles and are unkillable without an entire alliance backing you.

Because thats basically what he is.

But it's cool, as soon as they get greedy and set there eyes on Nullsec (which they will because more and more of them are apearing and eventually highsec will get too crowded), and when the nullbears start loseing space and sov to 100-200 ISBOX fleets daily and hourly, the Nullbears will demand change and lo and behold, ISboxer will get banned. (Or some restriction put in that disallows the controll of more then a reasonable amount ofaccounts at a time.).
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#199 - 2014-08-29 09:54:11 UTC
I know most of you on the CSM council hate highsec and wish it were not a part of the game, that's cool, but it's pretty sad your not willing to help stop a problem until it spreads like a plague into your area of preferred space.
Iain Cariaba
#200 - 2014-08-29 21:32:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Lilly Naari wrote:
Whaa, someone plays this game in a method that, while not against the rules, is a way I don't like. Whaaaa!

Oh get over yourself.

1. You are not that important. The guy that pays for a hundred accounts has a hundred times the influence you do, because he pays for it. He'd have the same influence whether he used ISboxer, a hardware system, or old fashioned alt-tab to multibox. That is a fact of life for EvE, and always will be unless CCP totally bans multiboxing in any way. Don't like it, GTFO. I'm willing to bet the number of accounts run by ISBoxers outnumbers the number of accounts run by people who hate ISBoxers.

2. If you're so certain a multiboxer is engaged in RMT, report them. CCP has ways to determine if someone's doing RMT, and they take it very seriously. If you've already reported a multiboxer, and they're still there after a while, you can probably bet they're not doing RMT. Coming onto forums and pointing fingers just puts you into the whiney, entitlement set.

3. There are thousands of systems available in EvE that you can fly to. Limiting yourself to the systems where the evil ISBoxers work is just inane.

4. Simply because the CSM isn't bowing and scraping to your every petty demand doesn't mean they hate highsec. ISBoxers are in every aspect of EvE. Trying to guilt trip the CSM is some truly prententious posturing on your part. Why does it seem everyone hates highsec? This is because highsec is represented by people like you. You have no killboard, no evidence you actually play the game, yet you insist your way is the only way to play. You refuse to adapt to the game, you demand the game adapt to you.

/rant

Note, I am neither for nor against ISBoxer. I tried it. Didn't like it. What I am against is anyone, outside of CCP, telling anyone else that they can't play the way they want to.