EVE General Discussion

Or, third option. Whomever said that is lying to cover their cheating, and hoping to stir up controversy and reverse their ban.

Which is pretty much the TL;DR for the last hundred and fifty pages of this thread. Well, that and blatant smokescreen and shifting goalposts by the ISBotters.

No one wants to ban all multiboxing, alt tab is fine and always will be. People want to ban cheating, where you control twenty different accounts with robotic precision.

Of course they are lying, everyone except you tells lies. Paranoia is treatable.

So Multiple screens should be banned. Why because you can't afford them? Or should everyone be restricted to one monitor while playing Eve, to make it "fair"?
I used to run up to 11 accounts, tiled across 4 monitors. No need for alt tab, (never used IsBoxer or anything like it) I set up keybinds using tools provided by CCP.

You are wrong in fact, there is a small lobby group calling for the removal of all multi boxing. They want Eve to go, one .exe per IP.

The only individuals attempting to shift the goal posts are those trying to say IsBoxer is a bot. Trying to compare something that requires a large amount of human input to something completely automated?

You argument has no foundation and is inaccurate, CCP have already banned what you describe (input multicasting and broadcasting via 3rd party software).
The ongoing problem is, with no real method of detection other than human interpretation of server logs, innocent players are equally at risk of being banned as the few who may choose to break the new rules.

150 pages on and you haven't bothered to find out how IsBoxer and other software like it works. Instead, stick to posting your uninformed biased opinion. CCP themselves made a very clear distinction between a 'bot" and "IsBoxer". If in fact IsBoxer was a bot there would have been no need for CCP to change how the EULA is now interpreted.

We do gain that advantage. I have a top of the line gaming machine with multiple monitors running on a beast of an internet connection in the UK (where CCP hosts their servers). I can run more clients than I have accounts (which is a lot) in the highest quality on the single machine without slowdown and without lag. Through buying this I have an advantage over a player with a 7 year old laptop in the ass end of nowhere connecting though mobile internet. People can pay for an advantage, that's a fact that will never change.

Now CCP have decided that paying for ISBoxer isn't something they want to support, so they've removed that as an option. That's fair enough, but their detection method means it's impossible for them to tell the difference between someone with a decent manual setup and a player using banned tools such as ISBoxer, meaning that players are now at risk of being banned for playing legitimately. That's where the problem lies.

It's impossible to prove. Even if someone were to come forward with a video of manual multiboxing you'd just say that they must have recorded that separately and were cheating when they got banned. This is the problem you seem to fail to understand - there is no way to prove it one way or the other. With the exception of obvious multiplexing and people who record themselves breaching the EULA, you cannot tell the difference between an efficient manual multiboxer and a well hidden ISBoxer user. If you could reliably prove it one way or the other, there wouldn't be a problem with CCPs detection.

I revealed a player using RoundRobin, which by Steve's OWN ADMISSION IS FINE. If anyone's moving goalposts, it's you, as you keep shying away from providing any evidence or proof that ISBoxer magically makes a player more efficient than an identical fleet. But hey, if CCP doesn't want me to be a productive member of this game, I'll happily afk-rat all day long, creating zero content.

as long as you sub they dont care. what has made you think otherwise.

There's an interesting subtext to this discussion, which is the general distrust of human referees, who are, of course, going to be imperfect. But they're also going to be able to catch things that mechanical enforcement can't--and the sort of playstyle at issue here is all about maximally exploiting mechanical enforcement, in the form of in-game mechanics. Human referees are kryptonite to that approach.



Hidden in there is the case where someone uses a tool other than ISBoxer to gain some sort of advantage. CCP can't, doesn't and shouldn't care how you get that advantage. Whether it's from some fancy mouse, or from overlaying software, or from dowels and duct tape simply doesn't matter.

Interesting conversation with CSM Steve Ronuken

This is mildly disturbing.... If the people who are supposed to represent us to CCP weren't informed of the full features of the program, how are they supposed to make informed decisions about it?

Why do people think I want a job with CCP?

I'm a /linux/ sysadmin. They're a windows shop. While my skillset isn't entirely inapplicable, it's not what I do.

Now, as for round robin, Round robin isn't a KVM. A kvm is where you can use the same keyboard, video and mouse for controlling multiple computers, switching the input between them (as a seperate action. For a software based one like synergy, that can be 'move the mouse between the monitors), but not sharing any input.

As far as I've seen with round robin, it's for sending the same input to multiple processes, switching which process it goes to per keystroke. Similar, but not the same.

Actually, for Synergy, you can define certain commands that you input on computer 1 and that are "processed" on computer 2, and you can tell it to focus certain computers after a command has been issued and processed.
Round Robin is nothing more than an electronic active KVM switch.

Seriously, you're arguing automatic transmission vs manual transmission on a current-gen car and then attempting to define paddle-shifting manuals as something completely different.

he doesnt have an agenda as much as he as had a bias and narrative