These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The ISBoxer Saga

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#61 - 2014-10-12 02:46:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Other developers consider the use of such a program to be botting and for good reason. Because it is.


It isn't. You can say that it's botting all you like, but it still won't be botting.


You can say it's not all you like but it still is. I know players (across 4 other games under 3 separate developers) who got banned for using such programs in other games. Reason given? Botting. So my calling it such isn't just "because I say so". You on the other hand....



How many of these other developers are CCP? And I can name no other games that actually ban people for using ISboxer. In literally every case where people are banned for botting, it is because they were actually botting.

Can you name the part where my multiboxing becomes actual botting? At what point do I stop having to actually press buttons for things to happen?

Also please name these 4 games, because I bet you anything that I'm multiboxing in at least 1 of them.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#62 - 2014-10-12 03:46:16 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:

Can you name the part where my multiboxing becomes actual botting? At what point do I stop having to actually press buttons for things to happen?


The part where the other accounts get their command from 3rd party software and not from you directly because that is precisely what is happening. Otherwise you would have to manually switch between each account and give each one a command yourself.

Quote:
Also please name these 4 games, because I bet you anything that I'm multiboxing in at least 1 of them.


Blizzard

-Wow
-Diablo 3

Arena Net

-Guild Wars 2

NCSoft

-Aion

Four games, three developers.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2014-10-12 03:57:09 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:


Blizzard

-Wow
-Diablo 3

Arena Net

-Guild Wars 2

NCSoft

-Aion

Four games, three developers.


You know people who have been banned for using ISboxer in all those games?
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#64 - 2014-10-12 05:54:26 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:

Can you name the part where my multiboxing becomes actual botting? At what point do I stop having to actually press buttons for things to happen?


The part where the other accounts get their command from 3rd party software and not from you directly because that is precisely what is happening. Otherwise you would have to manually switch between each account and give each one a command yourself.

Quote:
Also please name these 4 games, because I bet you anything that I'm multiboxing in at least 1 of them.


Blizzard

-Wow
-Diablo 3

Arena Net

-Guild Wars 2

NCSoft

-Aion

Four games, three developers.


People have been multiboxing in wow for years & Blizzard is ok with that. People have been multiboxing in Diablo 3 since day 1 & Blizzard is ok with that. I multiboxed wow for years (and still do when my brother wants to play it with me) & I multiboxed D3 when selling gold was a thing.

I know a bunch of dudes that multibox in GW2 & have been doing so for ages. No bans yet. lol people played Aion.

Your friends were straight out botting & either don't want you to know it, or you know it already & are trying to twist these facts to support your blatantly false argument.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-10-12 05:56:13 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
The part where the other accounts get their command from 3rd party software and not from you directly because that is precisely what is happening.


And which part of this requires me to do absolutely nothing to achieve that result?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Presidente Gallente
Best Kept Dunked
OnlyFleets.
#66 - 2014-10-12 06:55:47 UTC
Just the imagination about the effort and time to deal with 26 accounts will make me sick. If people like to do it let them do it. And let CCP decide if they like ISBoxer or not and keep on with internet spaceship business as usual.

https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/
Mag's
Azn Empire
#67 - 2014-10-12 07:03:16 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
I don't use ISBoxer but at the same time I don't care if anyone else does use it.

Mr Epeen Cool
This.


I didn't care when it was just miners.
I didn't care when it was just nulldwellers.

I care when it causes unnecessary nerfs.
Ahh is this the new twisted argument? That ISBoxer has caused unnecessary nerfs? Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#68 - 2014-10-12 07:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rosewalker
Mallak Azaria wrote:

I know a bunch of dudes that multibox in GW2 & have been doing so for ages. No bans yet. lol people played Aion.


Sorry, but ISBoxer is not allowed in GW2. If you go to the ISBoxer website, you will find it is not listed as a supported game. That is because ArenaNet banned the use of multi-boxing software.

Also, Wildstar has also banned the use of ISBoxer software, although there is still a link up at ISBoxer, I'm pretty sure that is an oversight. The owner of Lavish Software went on a rant about the decision over on the Dual-Boxing forums.

That's a little off the subject, however. CCP has stated in the Third Party Policies that even though ISBoxer violates the Sections 6A2, 6A3, and 9C of the EULA ("the multiboxing application" refers to ISBoxer) that it is not something that CCP will "actively police at this time."

Since CCP is going to allow players to use such powerful software (if it wasn't powerful, who would pay $15/every 3 months or $50/year), then CCP has a responsibility to make sure that the software does not break the game. If that means nerfing certain mechanics in the game, that's the price we have to pay in order to allow people to use ISBoxer.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Mag's
Azn Empire
#69 - 2014-10-12 07:09:00 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
CCP has stated in the Third Party Policies that even though ISBoxer violates the Sections 6A2, 6A3, and 9C of the EULA ("the multiboxing application" refers to ISBoxer) that it is not something that CCP will "actively police at this time."
They haven't and it doesn't.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Gren Alderon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2014-10-12 07:13:01 UTC
I keep hearing about people talking of making changes to mining, to make isboxer ineffective. Yes instead of banning isboxer let's make changes to the game and ruin it for everyone who enjoys it. Let's make mining into a minigame, I am sure it will be ten times as fun if instead of relaxing while mining we are forced to play a minigame.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#71 - 2014-10-12 07:18:49 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
CCP has stated in the Third Party Policies that even though ISBoxer violates the Sections 6A2, 6A3, and 9C of the EULA ("the multiboxing application" refers to ISBoxer) that it is not something that CCP will "actively police at this time."
They haven't and it doesn't.


Maybe I should have included the entire paragraph.

CCP's Third Pary Policies wrote:

We do not endorse or condone the use of any third party applications or other software that modifies the client or otherwise confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. For instance, the use of programs that provide in-game overlays (Mumble, Teamspeak) and the multiboxing application is not something we plan to actively police at this time. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or for purposes beyond its intended use, or if the application or other software violates other parts of the EULA, we may fully enforce our rights to prohibit such use, including player bans. Please use such third party applications or other software at your own risk.


We've been going over this point for years now. It's well established. ISBoxer violates the EULA on the grounds of client modification, but CCP is not going to enforce the EULA on this point.

In other words, Mag's, stop being such a sore winner. You are getting your wish. ISBoxer is here to stay.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Mag's
Azn Empire
#72 - 2014-10-12 07:27:49 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
We've been going over this point for years now. It's well established. ISBoxer violates the EULA on the grounds of client modification, but CCP is not going to enforce the EULA on this point.

In other words, Mag's, stop being such a sore winner. You are getting your wish. ISBoxer is here to stay.

I haven't won a thing, as I don't even multibox. Let alone use ISBoxer.

But again, they didn't say that and it doesn't. Maybe my quote was too long and you took the last part of it as being the only part. But a little truth in a statement, doesn't make the statement true.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Captain Stupid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#73 - 2014-10-12 08:02:57 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
I don't use ISBoxer but at the same time I don't care if anyone else does use it.

Mr Epeen Cool


I think you sum up the thinking of most people, a polite version of "couldn't give a rats ass" basically.
Nex Killer
Perkone
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-10-12 08:14:00 UTC
I like cookies. That is all.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2014-10-12 08:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrie Atticus
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Dalto Bane wrote:

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


Well, here's the thing. Often games will will have a rule. One action per macro. An example of such is the macros I use in GW2. I have dodge macros. I use a razor nostromo for my left hand and I gave the d-pad macros that give direction to my dodge rolls that are independent to the direction I give my character. This can be achieved manually by simply changing the direction you give your character for the moment you dodge then resume previous direction. The macro is still only performing a single action (dodge roll).

What is not allowed are macros that will sequentially play out multiple skills. This is despite that fact that it takes human input to start the sequence each and every time.

Now multiboxing is different. You can say that it's still one input resulting in a single action but it's actually not. It's still one input is resulting in multiple actions being taken, just in a different way. Rather than a vertical succession of the macro example above, it's a horizontal succession. In other words, instead of a single input causing separate actions on one account, it's triggering the same action on separate accounts. This still means that one input is causing multiple actions to take place.

One input per action vs one input per multiple/separate actions is the defining difference. Not whether or not a player can be AFK or not.


You just admitted to be breaking the rules with your macro. You are performing two (2) actions with them: direction change button -> dodge button. That is not a single action, single action would be "change movement towards X" or "perform dodge".

One key press, one action. That's all what is happening with multiboxing applications. If you are going to go and ban every single way to multibox, you will have to bare the results when all keyboard and mouse (+ other controller) software is also not allowed because I can in less than a day chain 10 of them together to clone macros when I press a button on one keyboard.

You'd also have to ban production tools such as: Virtual Audio Cable, every imaginable disability-aid software and hardware (or have a petition category for them to allow usage), every single piece of wood to create this application and generally enforce a list of programs which are longer than war & peace.

Disclaimer: if I get bombed and killed by wheniaminspace or replicator while in a fleet fight, either we screwed up or he came up with with a new way of trapping us. This is the essence of PvP and nothing is being taken away from it even if one of the sides uses multiboxing software.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#76 - 2014-10-12 09:54:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Steppa Musana
I know the topic has moved on to a more nuanced discussion on what exactly is a "single" action, but I'd like to address the point made that multiboxing hurts the game by being unemergent/uninteractive.

When people used to come at me with my multibox mining fleet, they'd come at me hard. Where as a lone miner can easily be ignored, gankers and miners of all kinds simply could not ignore me. This forced me to respond to these grievous actions taken against me. I mean seriously... you come at me? YOU COME AT ME?!?! Ooooohhhh baby.... you come at the king, you best not miss! Mercs, counter-ganks, counter-bumps, and local trolling was my response each time. My logi/ECM would come out and so the mining belts were struck with spaceship PVP. My multibox mining fleet created more content in the systems I mined in than those systems had ever seen before.

This might seem like I'm showing off, and I am, but I'd like to think as one of the only (admitting) large-scale multiboxers who posts regularly on the forum that my experience would be a rare one to be shared. The point I'm trying to make is that multiboxing is emergent because of the reaction it causes. The multiboxer might hurt the game by responding by blueballing, but a corp of miners could do the same. Multiboxing itself is not to blame.


I do think Angeal is right in the sense that one action does not lead to one consequence. If I press "F1" once, it commits a single action across 12 clients. That is what I would consider 12 actions from a single button press. Semantics aside, let's look at the affect on the game itself.

Having a macro commit more than one action in a single client with a single button press is a bannable offense. Is having 2 actions in 1 client worse than 1 action in 12 clients? As it affects the involved gameplay. Is there a greater advantage to the player with one account getting 2 things done with 1 press, or a greater advantage to the player with twelve accounts getting 1 thing done with 1 press, 12 times over?

Also let's not bring CCP into this. They have a financial incentive to please multiboxers, we all know that. We can accept it's not an exploit or EULA violation, but let's not start using their opinion as some sort of justification as to the fairness of multiboxing or how it relates comparatively to bannable macro offenses.

Hey guys.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-10-12 10:57:03 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:
I do think Angeal is right in the sense that one action does not lead to one consequence. If I press "F1" once, it commits a single action across 12 clients. That is what I would consider 12 actions from a single button press. Semantics aside, let's look at the affect on the game itself.

Having a macro commit more than one action in a single client with a single button press is a bannable offense. Is having 2 actions in 1 client worse than 1 action in 12 clients? As it affects the involved gameplay. Is there a greater advantage to the player with one account getting 2 things done with 1 press, or a greater advantage to the player with twelve accounts getting 1 thing done with 1 press, 12 times over?


You're touching on something which causes people to misjudge what multiboxers (and of course, you) actually achieve. EULA/TOS defines every action taken per character, not per player. 10 character in equal fleet achieve and gain everything at the pace 10 other characters would achieve or gain in that situation. Number of players behind the characters is irrelevant in Eve, only the amount of characters.

As long as we stay at comparing characters to characters, there is no perceived balance issue. Only those who cannot wrap their heads around this are the ones who cause all the hub-bub on all the forums.

"Eve isn't fair, stop using that word" -a good friend in 2006.
Elsa Hayes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-10-12 12:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Elsa Hayes
Dave Stark wrote:
Elsa Hayes wrote:
EvE online a massive alt player online game where you are told you are playing with thousands of other player when in reality you are just playing with the same couple of hundred guys and their thousands of alts.

Not sure if it is beneficial to a game when out of 30k logged in accounts less than 10k actually represent individual humans.

When a noob these days looks for a corp he can´t judge activity by numbers of accounts in corp, he can´t even judge activity by numbers of accounts logged in. There are literally hundreds of corps out there with 3-50 members that are only played by 1 to 10 actual humans with each having numerous alts.

Only just recently I saw something very stupid in local, a fleet of SteveX1 through SteveX18 (name does not exist , just an example) getting ready for a massive solo mining op...... If thats not sad what is?

It´s like Bobby and his 10 imaginary friends fantasizing about having a great social life.


yeah must be sad being able to actually have orca boosts when you need them, not on some one else's timetable.
actually having enough people to do *something* etc...

not to mention, you're simply assuming they're all owned by 1 person. when a friend of mine started his trial account he named his characters using the same naming convention as me.


Yes I am sure 17 people in mining barges flying in perfect unison and all having the same name (with a different number) logged in at the same time are definitely 17 different people who chose to name their character just like that SteveX1-18, yeah pretty sure that's the case. (Number 18 was flying an Orca btw.)

It seems to be too hard for some people to think and post at the same time which brings out the most ridiculous of arguments.

It speaks volumes about the true state of subscription numbers and real, different, people actually playing the game when CCP goes through such lengths to promote alt creation, the use of third party programs and even starts nerfing certain game mechanics in order to keep the third party program available to players.

I´d like to see the actual numbers of different IPs connected over a couple of months compared to the proclaimed numbers of "people" allegedly logged in as the launcher suggests.

Pretty sure its at an all time low and I am also pretty sure that the number of actually different people playing the game was higher in 2007 than it is today. Not saying eve is dying but I am saying that CCP does massively inflate "player" numbers to make it look better.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#79 - 2014-10-12 13:18:50 UTC
Elsa Hayes wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Elsa Hayes wrote:
EvE online a massive alt player online game where you are told you are playing with thousands of other player when in reality you are just playing with the same couple of hundred guys and their thousands of alts.

Not sure if it is beneficial to a game when out of 30k logged in accounts less than 10k actually represent individual humans.

When a noob these days looks for a corp he can´t judge activity by numbers of accounts in corp, he can´t even judge activity by numbers of accounts logged in. There are literally hundreds of corps out there with 3-50 members that are only played by 1 to 10 actual humans with each having numerous alts.

Only just recently I saw something very stupid in local, a fleet of SteveX1 through SteveX18 (name does not exist , just an example) getting ready for a massive solo mining op...... If thats not sad what is?

It´s like Bobby and his 10 imaginary friends fantasizing about having a great social life.


yeah must be sad being able to actually have orca boosts when you need them, not on some one else's timetable.
actually having enough people to do *something* etc...

not to mention, you're simply assuming they're all owned by 1 person. when a friend of mine started his trial account he named his characters using the same naming convention as me.


Yes I am sure 17 people in mining barges flying in perfect unison and all having the same name (with a different number) logged in at the same time are definitely 17 different people who chose to name their character just like that SteveX1-18, yeah pretty sure that's the case. (Number 18 was flying an Orca btw.)

It seems to be too hard for some people to think and post at the same time which brings out the most ridiculous of arguments.

It speaks volumes about the true state of subscription numbers and real, different, people actually playing the game when CCP goes through such lengths to promote alt creation, the use of third party programs and even starts nerfing certain game mechanics in order to keep the third party program available to players.

I´d like to see the actual numbers of different IPs connected over a couple of months compared to the proclaimed numbers of "people" allegedly logged in as the launcher suggests.

Pretty sure its at an all time low and I am also pretty sure that the number of actually different people playing the game was higher in 2007 than it is today. Not saying eve is dying but I am saying that CCP does massively inflate "player" numbers to make it look better.


So a subscription is worth less money if it's paid by a person who already has one account?
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2014-10-12 13:19:26 UTC
Elsa Hayes wrote:
Yes I am sure 17 people in mining barges flying in perfect unison and all having the same name (with a different number) logged in at the same time are definitely 17 different people who chose to name their character just like that SteveX1-18, yeah pretty sure that's the case. (Number 18 was flying an Orca btw.)

It seems to be too hard for some people to think and post at the same time which brings out the most ridiculous of arguments.

It speaks volumes about the true state of subscription numbers and real, different, people actually playing the game when CCP goes through such lengths to promote alt creation, the use of third party programs and even starts nerfing certain game mechanics in order to keep the third party program available to players.

I´d like to see the actual numbers of different IPs connected over a couple of months compared to the proclaimed numbers of "people" allegedly logged in as the launcher suggests.

Pretty sure its at an all time low and I am also pretty sure that the number of actually different people playing the game was higher in 2007 than it is today. Not saying eve is dying but I am saying that CCP does massively inflate "player" numbers to make it look better.


You what, mate? Please show me where CCP directly nerfed an action or mechanic to directly help ISBoxers. I would love to see it.

I've yet to hear any rational argument from you about why ISBoxer is bannable, other than you read about botters a year ago and only barely skimmed the article. Please do your research before getting up on a soapbox. And while you're at it, use the soap.