EVE General Discussion

Look it's this thread again.

This.

I would like to thank the author for this topic, as someone who now has 3 accounts I have been wanting to find some good boxing software but was having no luck finding it on line as most programs showing up in search were botting programs.

Again thanks.

Also apparently Mac now has a built in multiboxing function. so if CCP banned multiboxing software they would have to ban anyone using a Mac client just in case.

Hu?
Virtual environments to choose from?

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 metacpde, 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, 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 also 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

What's your problem with multiboxing?
Also, since http://www.vetra.com/84AUtext.html sends the keystrokes to every separate client, does that mean it's allowed?

To add to this.

Whether it is a one player blob or a one player locus fleet, the truth of the matter is that players are

1. Paying for multiple subs for a game that allows multiple instances of that game to be running at the same time on one machine.

2. Using 3rd party software (possibly paying to do so) that allows them to simply control just one account while the software mimics the input to control the rest.

Alternatively the player would have to alt-tab to each and directly control each account. This makes it difficult to manage depending on the number of accounts and the activity being performed.

Other developers consider the use of such a program to be botting and for good reason. Because it is. The program is taking the input you make on one account and is transferring it to other accounts. They will also go as far as making it impossible to run a second instance of the game on the same machine.

As for the two points above, I'd rather call a spade a spade and call multiboxing Pay to Win.

As for the quote above, it's simple. CCP allows it because they couldn't afford to have the subs numbers equal the player numbers. So they'll continue to pick and choose which Eula/ToS rules to follow and which not to follow along with when and when not to follow them.

There is a word for such behavior but I won't go there.

Appreciate the perspective and will address other previous comments tomorrow.

Not as a correction, but wanted to add clarification to the term botting. ISBoxer, as a stand alone program is 100% not automation, no more than a macro'd gaming keyboard. Yes, it does broadcast keystrokes and cursor position, however human in put is required. I will touch on AHK which was mentioned in an earlier post tomorrow.

Here's a little history lesson, the first bots in online gaming, specifically Eve were written for use with AHK. It was an extremely elaborate mining sequence for its time. Anyway, until tomorrow. o7

People are clearly having problems countering a VERY FRAGILE PROGRAM. There are at least 50 counters to ISBoxer in-game, whether it be PVP or PVE.
Some examples i've encountered as a boxer:

PVP:

• Jams
• Damps
• Competent enemy Logi
• Competent enemy Anchor
• Batphones

Mining:

• Bumps
• Bumps
• Did I mention bumps?

Seriously people. Thinking is *NOT* as hard as some make it out to be.

e:

For the millionth time, different games, different software, different rules, and most likely different actions by the boxer. You can set ISBoxer to run bots, but that doesn't mean everyone using ISBoxer is a botter.