These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

IS boxer Software and it's legality under the EULA

First post First post First post
Author
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2013-05-21 19:31:01 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Ellen Thrace wrote:
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
If a click of yours immediately causes a click in 10 clients, that is not automation.


With all due respect , that is clearly an automation, simply because its not humanly possible to do that.

http://i.imgur.com/egFbwL5.jpg Game set and match.

All the multiboxing software does is this exact same thing except with software rather than dowels, tape and nails, it is not automation, it is taking an input and sending it to multiple computers.


You know what just google "y adapter" and that is what the software does. or THIS



So uhm, your take is that a non motorized robot is not automation?

1=1
1+1 >1

Just a simple bit of math.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2013-05-21 19:34:19 UTC
dark heartt wrote:
Othran wrote:
Snipped deleted off topic post. -- ISD LackOfFaith

Personally I've never used the s/w but it clearly gives an advantage over even keyboard/mouse macros.

CCP should have dealt with it years ago but they didn't and what are they supposed to do now - ban a sizable chunk of their subscribers?

Clearly alts are a major part of CCP's business plan (and have been for a LONG time) or we wouldn't be getting dual training, so expecting CCP to ban people using "alt management" software which they have used for years is naive to say the least.

In an ideal world ISBoxer would be banned. Eve isn't ideal so it isn't banned.



How? How does it give an advantage? It's no different to having a physical setup that allows you to run a mouse on two computers.



Well, for 1) It gives an advantage of doing less work for more results. 2) it IS different. 1 simple explanation is that a pure mechanical rig is not enforcable by CCP. Multiboxing software is.

Also, using multiple clients is encourages sure, but that has nothing to do with CCP endorsing purchasing 3rd party software to help with that, and in fact also touch on the fact they do not allow 3rd party software to assist in your gameplay!

But we cannot make CCP enforce their own rules, so we complain about it.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Danni stark
#63 - 2013-05-21 19:37:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
more trolling.

get back to work murk.

your trolling was just as bad the first time this came up, and then got locked with a comment about isboxer being fine.
just, quit while you have some dignity.
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2013-05-21 19:52:23 UTC
OP if you spot someone you think is doing something against the EULA then petition it instead of whining on the forums.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#65 - 2013-05-21 19:53:02 UTC
ISBotters broke EVE

.

Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2013-05-21 20:00:53 UTC
I'm not sure why so many people get so upset over multiboxers...

Is it the lack of money to run more than 1 or 2 accounts? The lack of knowledge on how to use the multibox programs?

To ban or make these things against the rules would be against any game creators best interest. Every game I play has multiboxing and the people who complain about it.

The thing is this.

Multiboxer has probably 6+ accounts I have seen some with 24 accounts

Non-Multiboxers maybe have 1 or 2 accounts


Do the math and see what side CCP will choose.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2013-05-21 20:05:13 UTC
criativa wrote:
Quote:

Imagine how a fleet of 20 miners under control of IS boxer could affect the local market mineral prices,


Do you have any idea of how hard it is to manage 20 mining accounts at the same time?

I would agree with you before the fanfest on Ice harvesting, however after odyssey it'll be very hard for multiboxers to get some spot as the anomalies have little Ice qty and the spawn is set to four hours after the current ones gets depleted. There is also the scenario where they do get a fresh anomaly and harvest it dry, but, again, they will have to wait sit for the next 4 hours or be lucky to find fresh anomalies in close systems. In either case it won't be profitable for multiboxers as long as they can't have a fixed incoming rate.

For Ore harvesting it would be a nightmare to have 20 accounts. Even on skiffs you would have to switch targets at such a rate that it would be impossible for one person to handle it all. If you consider mining in null sec (as the roids are bigger) it will now be too much a risk too because grav sites will be also moved to anomalies, so I don't think people will be dumb enough to risk losing 20 ships in a blink. And if they do, well, better for the market.

Quote:

Imagine how a fleet of PvP ships could take down your T3 ship if you didn't have to alt tab all the while or even worse, you have two gangs of tacklers IS boxing to keep your ship jammed/scrammed etc while the rest of the fleet guns you down.


Imagine how a fleet of real players would out-smart and out-maneuver any multiboxer fleet as this [multiboxer] guy can't execute simultaneous mixed strategies decisions at the same rate as a single FC with a single human on each sit of his fleet . If your rage is about not having a way to fight back multiboxers you are seeing things from the wrong perspective: it is very easy for them to kill things, and even easier to get killed. Think about it. If it was an all manned fleet would it be different? Would you survive?

Personally I understand that it seems unfair that someone can replicate keys through many game clients like that, and for any other game I would agree with you, but in EVE it is not just a matter of raw power (mostly) as it would be in WoW where you can AoE entire guilds down with a single key stroke, no, you have to coordinate and change tactics at much faster rates in order to survive. Actually, can anybody here tell me about any successful multiboxer PvPer in EVE? Are there any stories about the multiboxer one who camped a gate solely and could take any incoming fleet?



You're kidding right? 20 skiffs with hobgoblin IIs would easily clear out the rats in a highsec anom. Set 1 main ship as drone assist and go to town. Hell my rookie miner pilot has not even 3m sp and is already over 30k ehp with half fitted stuff on a t1 barge.

And yes, there is a youtube video (complete with thread here in GD) from 1 week ago of a guy using isboxer to single play an incursion.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2013-05-21 20:08:29 UTC
Shaco LaRusko wrote:
Jassmin Joy wrote:
Shaco LaRusko wrote:
Fixy FixIT wrote:
"stuff"


Ya but 20 miners is 20 accounts. You could do far better with 20 real players. The bigger question is does 1 account = 1 player.

Could that same 20 account isboxer take down a fleet of 20 equally armed players? Probably not.


You mean could a fleet of 20 ships who all follow primes, fire at the same time and dont do stupid **** like jumping gates solo or burning off, beat a group of 20 players that have the ability to do what they want? sure.


True but how do you spread ewar to multiply targets? You cant effeciently. Whats the point of 20 people pointing the same guy? and if you only have 1 or 2 pointers its easy to figure out which and kill them off quickly.



Set your specific ewar to same hotkey, and have different ships equip different ewar? Not hard to figure out. You don't need a fleet armed with target painters, maybe just 1 or 2 ships. Same with TDs, WDs, Webs, sensor damps, etc.

Any maintarget is locked down hardcore.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2013-05-21 20:09:46 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ellen Thrace wrote:
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
If a click of yours immediately causes a click in 10 clients, that is not automation.


With all due respect , that is clearly an automation, simply because its not humanly possible to do that.
With all due respect, you are wrong. It's duplication, not automation.


That doesn't make it different.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2013-05-21 20:11:58 UTC
Danni stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
more trolling.

get back to work murk.

your trolling was just as bad the first time this came up, and then got locked with a comment about isboxer being fine.
just, quit while you have some dignity.



It's a valid discussion. And you are not contributing. So I guess it isn't me who is trolling.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Danni stark
#71 - 2013-05-21 20:15:50 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
more trolling.

get back to work murk.

your trolling was just as bad the first time this came up, and then got locked with a comment about isboxer being fine.
just, quit while you have some dignity.



It's a valid discussion. And you are not contributing. So I guess it isn't me who is trolling.


when ccp have already said your position is wrong, it's not a discussion it's a redundant thread. this thread is only contributing to spam and wasted space.
Cambarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-05-21 20:24:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ellen Thrace wrote:
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
If a click of yours immediately causes a click in 10 clients, that is not automation.


With all due respect , that is clearly an automation, simply because its not humanly possible to do that.
With all due respect, you are wrong. It's duplication, not automation.


That doesn't make it different.

It kind of does...

Having used ISBoxer a fair amount in the past I'll throw my 2 cents in here:

Cent # 1)Running multiple clients is a lot harder than running one, even with ISBoxer. Back when incursions first came out I was running ISBoxed tengus to clear vanguards. I soon changed over to a lone vindi and a pair of basilisks, without boxing them, just because it was easier and the difference in performance was surprisingly small. Even now if I had to multibox, I'd do it manually for anything under 6-7 accounts, because it's just easier.

Cent # 2) If you've never used ISBoxer or some other variation of it, please don't theorycraft and tell everyone how easy/simple it is to run a pvp fleet with it. Literally the only upside to having used it in the past for me was it got me to the point where I didn't spend so much time on each aspect of an engagement (watching the health bars, getting into orbit, finding warpouts, keeping an eye on everyone on the field etc) because multiboxing forces you do divide your attention in so many ways it's insane.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2013-05-21 20:45:03 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mag's wrote:
With all due respect, you are wrong. It's duplication, not automation.

That doesn't make it different.

One requires human input to do something.
The other does not.
How is that not a difference?

More importantly, since one requires human input, it's allowed. Since the other does not, it's not. It's very very simple, and the you'd have to have very blurred vision to not be able to distinguish between the two with such a blinding difference to set the two apart.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2013-05-21 20:49:13 UTC
Danni stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
more trolling.

get back to work murk.

your trolling was just as bad the first time this came up, and then got locked with a comment about isboxer being fine.
just, quit while you have some dignity.



It's a valid discussion. And you are not contributing. So I guess it isn't me who is trolling.


when ccp have already said your position is wrong, it's not a discussion it's a redundant thread. this thread is only contributing to spam and wasted space.



To whom? To you? No space taken. To CCP? Not locked yet, so that disputes that. Plus, it's none of our business what CCP thinks until they tell us. So far the only ISD content on this thread has been to contribute.

Maybe you should reevaluate your own self worth? I dunno, not up to me decide, but thanks for joining in the discussion!

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#75 - 2013-05-21 20:51:29 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
it's none of our business what CCP thinks until they tell us.
…and what they think — and have told us on numerous occasions — is that you're wrong.
Danni stark
#76 - 2013-05-21 20:51:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
more trolling.

get back to work murk.

your trolling was just as bad the first time this came up, and then got locked with a comment about isboxer being fine.
just, quit while you have some dignity.



It's a valid discussion. And you are not contributing. So I guess it isn't me who is trolling.


when ccp have already said your position is wrong, it's not a discussion it's a redundant thread. this thread is only contributing to spam and wasted space.



To whom? To you? No space taken. To CCP? Not locked yet, so that disputes that. Plus, it's none of our business what CCP thinks until they tell us. So far the only ISD content on this thread has been to contribute.

Maybe you should reevaluate your own self worth? I dunno, not up to me decide, but thanks for joining in the discussion!


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2743356#post2743356

**** me, you were trolling that thread hard enough, how did you miss the glaring message telling you that you were wrong?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2013-05-21 20:53:27 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ellen Thrace wrote:
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
If a click of yours immediately causes a click in 10 clients, that is not automation.


With all due respect , that is clearly an automation, simply because its not humanly possible to do that.
With all due respect, you are wrong. It's duplication, not automation.


That doesn't make it different.

It kind of does...

Having used ISBoxer a fair amount in the past I'll throw my 2 cents in here:

Cent # 1)Running multiple clients is a lot harder than running one, even with ISBoxer. Back when incursions first came out I was running ISBoxed tengus to clear vanguards. I soon changed over to a lone vindi and a pair of basilisks, without boxing them, just because it was easier and the difference in performance was surprisingly small. Even now if I had to multibox, I'd do it manually for anything under 6-7 accounts, because it's just easier.

Cent # 2) If you've never used ISBoxer or some other variation of it, please don't theorycraft and tell everyone how easy/simple it is to run a pvp fleet with it. Literally the only upside to having used it in the past for me was it got me to the point where I didn't spend so much time on each aspect of an engagement (watching the health bars, getting into orbit, finding warpouts, keeping an eye on everyone on the field etc) because multiboxing forces you do divide your attention in so many ways it's insane.



Being possible and "easy" are relative terms.

What might not be easy for you might be easy for me.

And vice versa.

Being ABLE to do it is the question that was answered, not if it was easy to do so.

As someone who has multiboxed, both using multiple computers to manually do the extra work and alt tab with various clients... it isn't in fact THAT difficult as long as you have a routine that works.

Again, that part is irrelevant however.

What is relevant, is using isboxer for more than screen placement and to use it for replicating/duplicating mouse clicks is where the suspect activity comes from.

Since the argument is effort versus result. 1 person doing the work of 7 is fine.

1 person doing the work of 1 and getting the reward of 7 is not.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

zyk0
Cat Grease Enterprises
#78 - 2013-05-21 20:55:35 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:
Multiboxing is valid gameplay.


^

Look at videos of people Multiboxing in World of Warcraft. Some funny stuff.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2013-05-21 20:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
it's none of our business what CCP thinks until they tell us.
…and what they think — and have told us on numerous occasions — is that you're wrong.



Hmm?

I don't understand what you're saying. Please reread the thread and get on board.

I understand that CCP has said it is allowed, they also said it wasn't and that they are not going to enforce the rule and ban people for it.

That doesn't say anything about me being wrong.

That has nothing to do with what I'm even talking about!

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#80 - 2013-05-21 20:57:12 UTC
CCP didnt have enough employees available, so they used ISBoxer when programming the Launcher Patch.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?