EVE General Discussion

Just because something is allowed doesn't make it morally correct. (By the same token, just because something is not allowed, it is not necessarily immoral.)

I had to double check, but I could have swore your original post included a misspelling of the word. Hence why I edited my own post.

You have my apologies for something I already took the steps to correct.

no, its not. it shows how little you understand of the way hardware events are handled by the OS.

That's where you "draw the line at the EULA". But keep in mind that, as I already pointed out, the EULA does not draw your line. The software has no knowledge of your targets and whether you're locking the right one, and if it did have this knowledge then it would violate it! IF!


You said it: "if the eula said using programs such as isboxer was against the rules" -- and it doesn't.


Again you're confusing the term with something else. Some people (clearly including yourself) refer to their alts as "bots" regardless of whether they use "Botting software" which is prohibited. But this is not botting software and we are not talking about actual bots (short for "robot" by the way), no matter what you imply or try to convince anyone here of.

A bot requires sensory information, and the ability to respond to that information. ISBoxer can neither sense nor act upon information on its own, it requires your eyeballs to do the sensing, and your hands and feet or whatever other input-capable limbs you have, doing something, for anything to happen.

Refer back to the wooden dowels: He moves his mouse to click on a spot on the screen, with the intent of clicking on the same spot in the game windows. 100% identical to what is happening with ISBoxer in your hypothetical scenario. Are you telling me that doing so wih ISBoxer is a "bot" and with the hardware is "not"? What sense does this make?

Once again, CCP employees get to sit around the bar choking on their beers reading another multi-box comedy thread.

Y'all know that CCP interprets their rules, not the players right? But please carry on. It only gets more hilarious as the usual suspects start to wade in with what they know is the right interpretation, ignoring the DEV/GM/ISD posts completely.

Mr Epeen

You've arbitrarily drawn a line there, and what's worse is that it's not the same as the line CCP has drawn, since given that it's their game, it's also their line and they can do with it as they please. Consider this sentance:
"Regardless if something is grouped or not, you are still manually hitting F1 as a player. As a person. On your keyboard. For one weapon. If you want to use 15 modules, fine. It is allowed. Hit F keys that many times."
It's functionally identical to yours, and is, at it's core the same argument, just with the arbitrary line drawn somewhere else.
If your entire argument can be summed up as "I don't like this, so it should change" then I'm more than happy to point out that nobody cares what you want.


It's CCP. It's their game. They get to make whatever rules they want, and you can either abide by them or leave. Frankly the only way to change it has nothing to do with trying to argue something logically, it'd have to be done entirely from a numbers point of view. A couple of arguments thrown around won't change anything, because if enough people were bothered by it that CCP might actually consider doing something, you'd not be seeing threads like this, where most of the people involved are fine with ISBoxing or don't care. Basically what I'm saying is that if you need to sit here babysitting your thread, your cause is already lost.


Macros are allowed, CCP has said as much repeatedly. If a macro can run long enough that you can reasonably leave the computer and go do something else for while then it's not allowed. Exactly how long that time is is entirely up to CCP and is most likely looked at on a case by case basis.


OK I'll try to lay this out as simply as possible:

Assumption 1) People who multibox with ISBoxer make heaps more isk/can field entire pvp fleets by themselves.

Assumption 2)People who multibox with ISBoxer need not put any more effort into what they do than someone who runs a single account.

Conclusion: If there is an acceptable game mechanic that that multiply the isk you pull in by an amount as staggering as 15 times, for no extra work, then you'd be a fool not to use it rather than sit around making isk on one account like a chump. It's the rough equivalent of someone who wants to run level 4s in an assault frigate. Sure, you CAN, but the returns are going to be so pathetic why would you even bother?

Problem: Most people AREN'T running fleets of 15 guys, in pve OR pvp. If the rewards are so amazing, and there's no real downside, why aren't more people doing it? The issue at hand here is the big time multiboxers, not the average joe with a scouting/cyno alt. If assumptions 1 and 2 were true, you would see everyone and their dog running 15 accounts for damn near everything, but you don't, and you know why? Because it's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.

All you posted was the equivalent of "I am speaking for CCP" by actually trying to say I am wrong because you believe I am. Welcome to interpretation, milord.

Your argument about people NOT using isboxer and using "multibox" as a reference are not synonymous. You can use either one without the other.

You can use isboxer with 1 account if you like. You can multibox without using isboxer.

You're saying on one hand that it IS ok to use, but you are saying people do NOT use it because it's "hard".

It may be hard for you.

That doesn't mean it is hard for everyone else. I have it, and have used it. I already mentioned that I stopped using it not because of the difficulty (it isn't difficult at all), but because the way I play and how I play do not require me to.

I have no need to automate clicks through replication.

Next time, keep it simple. Speak for yourself. Do not speak for others. You will be more likely to get your point across when you speak from experience, not assumption.

I do not believe I saw anyone say they liked isboxer, but couldn't figure it out and got a refund.

In regards to babysitting a thread... it isn't my thread to babysit.

How is it not on topic? It's doing exactly and precisely the same thing. How is there no need for one, if you feel there is a need to prohibit exactly the same thing from ISBoxer? What good would that do the game, to ban the software but not hardware with identcal function?


That's nice, going right back to the "everything is automation". A simple script is not the same as "a bot".


There's no rule against using 3rd party software. Only specific types of 3rd party software are prohibited. This was covered by the recent dev blog. If you still want to focus on that ISBoxer "is 3rd party software", that's your prerogative, but it's not prohibited by the EULA.

If you are so opposed to multiboxing with ISBoxer, my question is why are you not also opposed to precisely the same thing done with hardware? The dowels are a simple illustration of your silliness.


The semantics of your post was about selecting targets:

You seem to be implying that something is happening that is not. Someone reading your post might be led to believe that ISBoxer somehow knows how to lock the same target on the different windows. It doesn't know or have anything to do with locking targets. All it can do is click in the same spot. You're implying that there's some magic within ISBoxer that says "hey, here is the same target as account 1, let's target it!" and there's not.

The target is not even guaranteed to be at the same spot in all windows. Your Overview window will often have different ordering in different game windows. To mitigate that, many will use Fleet Broadcasting to broadcast the next target to the fleet, and then click on the fleet window in all windows.

If you were "led to believe" something, maybe you should ask a question or request clarification. It does click in the same spot. That's the point. IT does. You don't but once.




That is one of the ways to accomplish things, yes.

I think you have the impression I am witch hunting. Let me be clear. I am not. I am having a civil conversation. I do not get mad with Eve. It is a game. A complicated fun game, but a game just the same. Isk does not have value, it is a means to an end. Miners, marketers, industrialists, soldiers, whatever, all have their place and I have no ill will towards any of them.

I hate stupidity though. I hate people who kneejerk their reactions and assume.

Maybe it's my altruistic nature, but I felt compelled to reiterate that.

This goes both ways: Please point us all to the subsection that ISBoxer violates.