Assembly Hall

Interesting. Tell me more please.

I would like to let the general public here know that the OP keeps coming into Missions chat and begging for mission fits, advice, how to run missions, best, etc. All stuff that can be found with 30 seconds of googling.

In short, he is one who wants EVE served on a silver platter for him.

You forgot to calculate into your "astounding difference in terms of wealth" that the 1 guy pays 1plex per month and the 40 man ISBoxer fleet pays 40plex per month.

You're basically offering us your calculations as if the ISBoxer fleets is fueled by one single plex that the one solo player would have to pay anyhow.

I've re-done your calculations and this is what comes out:

421,200x275,000= 115,830,000,000 ISK or 147.55 plex (figured at 785 million isk per plex) - 3.68875 plex per account
10,800 x 275,000 = 2,970,000,000 or 3.783 plex - 3.783 plex

147.55 x 3 = 442.65 - (40x3) = 322.65 - 8,06625 per account
3.783x3 = 11.349 - 3 = 8.349 - 8.349 per account

According to your own calculations, the 40 man ISBoxer fleet actually makes LESS than the average solo player - in truth, it makes more due to that 40man fleet having boosts that you solo don't have, so they actually mine about 40% more than you do per cycle on each account - but I'm just pointing out your flawed logic. Please, if you're going to represent the deranged people who have no clue, at least do it right and make it look like the 40man isboxer fleet has astounding difference in terms of wealth as an advantage.

Except you're wrong.

CCP only cares on a per TOON basis, not a "per Person-Behind-Keyboard" basis. That's why they dont care about the 40 miners. His total income is much higher, yes, but his per-toon income is still the same.

And ISBoxer is only as reliable as the person behind the keyboard. It takes a lot of skill to use perfectly, and there are numerous ways for something to go wrong. There are a ton of micro-settings that can break your game if you mess with them the wrong way, and another bunch that will cause poor performance. In short, it cannot be operated by dimwits to it's full potential.

There's a statement by Senior GM Karidor in the German language forums, which states:
Translation: If a click is sent to multiple clients, this also counts as "automation", or to use the phrasing of the EULA:
it effectively counts as "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."

The arguments are going in circles because there is no legitimate reason to ban it, other than "boohoo my feelings got hurt".

Isboxer is only the visible part of what I call the "metacode" iceberg... other tools are even more efficient, and customizable, like autohotkeys, and there are other tools that do achieve quite a bit to gain some forms of advantages in game... Isboxer is just the most obvious....

There is no way to totally prevent the use of metacode, much like there is no way to prevent players from metagaming. Both are similar in that they provide advantages in-game to the players that dabble with it.

This problem is more of a perception issue, simply put, isboxing can easily be perceived as a pay-to-win, even if its use has drawbacks.
This perception has the potential to turn away players that would otherwise remain engaged with the game, and limit the reach of a game that otherwise has much to offer...

For that reason alone, I believe CCP should actively make isboxing or macro-ing the game difficult by ui and design features that makes multi boxing more difficult than doing the same thing with the same amount of characters controlled by different players, as well as openly take a stance against multi boxing rather than staying mute about it.

They will not prevent it totally, as they can't, but at least they can project the idea that multi boxing is not ok in their game, which in turn may keep other players engaged longer, as they feel their contribution to the game/alliance/corp is not dwarfed by multiboxers..

isboxing is a hindrance to regular players, a fleet of imultiboxed miners can go through a site way faster than regular players, would, and those are left empty handed., it is lke the proverbial cloud of crickets passing over a system...
Last but not least, isboxing is also a control tool for powerful alliances to limit their exposure to leaks, betrayals,or active mobilization of their minions, reinforcing their power and control over the whole game, with a limited number of power players.

I truly don't believe CCP has anything to gain to continue remaining neutral/mute on this subject. With the breath of fresh air that the coming changes are going to make, this may be for them the right time to re-evaluate their position on this.

Oh, and the likelihood a frustrated multi boxer would really leave the game (they would of course threaten to) is pretty low, they have a bunch of assets to play with and to loose in the process. I'd be curious to know the statistics, but I would bet they mostly pay their multiple accounts via ISK only, so they do not contribute much to the game today

Your post is so full of ignorance and tin foil, I'm thinking that you may actually be posting it with tongue in cheek.

Why would CCP "project the idea that multiboxing is not OK" and why would they make it more difficult?
If it's a perception issue, it's due in part to posts like yours and your ill informed perception.

The "macro" type you talk of in this regard, is already a part of the game. Should CCP remove that too?

Multibox miners cannot go any faster than the game allows, which means regular players also have that ability in a fleet. There is also plenty of ice fields out there, so your "left empty handed" statement is ridiculous.

Also, please pray tell how you think they pay for their accounts with ISK and how that doesn't contribute. I would sure like to know.

I do.

And for myself, I'll take this as an example of how much I should believe statements made by the GM Team in general, GM Karidor especially (I was't that previously aware of Mallak's examples).