These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP Why do nothing about ISBoxer
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#41 - 2013-07-26 19:16:45 UTC
Epic Rupture wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


You don't need that much. All you need is the owner/maker of the game to tell you that it's ok.

CCP said it's ok and it's their game, end of story.



Accually they have said they don't recommend anyone use it as it is not officially supported, but thats not what I'm after. Everyone using it states it is just as easy to multibox without ISBoxer because it gives "no advantage." I would like someone to prove it.

EDIT (Source):

From ISBoxers own site (CCPs official statement)

Quote:
This extends to multiboxing software. Some of the multiboxing software out there is powerful enough to count as “client modification” if used for that purpose. Our stance on third-party software is that we do not endorse such software as we have no control over what it does. As such, we can’t say that multiboxing software isn’t against our EULA. But the same goes in this case, that unless we determine that people are doing things beyond “multiboxing”, we will not be taking any action. We only care about the instances where people are messing with our process for the purposes of cheating, and running multiple clients at the same time is not in violation of our EULA in and of itself unless it involves trial accounts.


Notice how it says nothing about click multiplation (which is why ISBoxer is used), only multiboxing. In my opinion, ISBoxer makes it go "Beyond Multiboxing"


I underlined the important part. You are entitled to your opinion however your opinion is demonstrably incorrect. CCP knows about ISBoxer, the very portion of the statement you copied proves that it's ok.

I think you are having a hard time understanding that your dislike of something (in this case ISBoxer) doesn't make it cheating according to the people actually in charge. As I said, you are free to dislike that, but the only people who are important in this matter are CCP.

Truthfully I don't understand the dislike of other people using it. I'd use it if it were less tedious but when i double and triple box I just use ships with FoF missiles or sentries to support my main ship. An ex-corp mate of mine from when i was briefly in TEST multiboxed 10 nagas while ratting. I think it's pretty cool to be able to do that. I don't see what the big deal is.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#42 - 2013-07-26 19:32:40 UTC
Quote:
Sure, If one of the owners says its okay and that is a official statement from CCP, not a GM, then I might accept it. Until then we, as players, will consider it a exploit, equal with botting.


The quote above is from a Dev blog.

You do accept it and have no choice other than to rage quit.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Mary Kingsley
#43 - 2013-07-26 19:57:52 UTC
Well , i love a GM or Dev to comment

IS Boxer is a Pay To Win , let all go start shooting the monument in Jita
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#44 - 2013-07-26 20:40:46 UTC
i got an answer from my Petition a few month ago.
isboxer is tolerated by ccp.
i can't link the conversation because the GM declined my request for posting the conversation on the Forums.

no, blaming and whining on the Forums will Change nothing nor will it cause ccp into a Statement besides the dev Blogs etc.
Rolstra
Moo's Mudpit
#45 - 2013-07-26 21:22:55 UTC
If you want to stop the ISBoxer's CCP put a mechanic in place to do exactly that. It's called the bounty system place a bounty in excess of 100bill on each box, when a gank kills his ship worth 5 to 6 billion they get paid. When you include the possible drop it makes the ganks profitable even with a worse case scenario.

And as the Incursion runner is pretty easy to locate and prone to making bad decisions in regard to safety the 100 bil should be good for 3 to 8 gank's pirates will love you ISboxers will hate you and EVE will balance itself out again; Everyone's happy, well except the boxer.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#46 - 2013-07-26 22:15:26 UTC
Another ban IS Boxer thread...There are already too many on the forms as is. This sounds like multiple account envy to me LOL
Epic Rupture
Trident Holdings
#47 - 2013-07-26 22:23:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Epic Rupture
Jenn aSide wrote:
Epic Rupture wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


You don't need that much. All you need is the owner/maker of the game to tell you that it's ok.

CCP said it's ok and it's their game, end of story.



Accually they have said they don't recommend anyone use it as it is not officially supported, but thats not what I'm after. Everyone using it states it is just as easy to multibox without ISBoxer because it gives "no advantage." I would like someone to prove it.

EDIT (Source):

From ISBoxers own site (CCPs official statement)

Quote:
This extends to multiboxing software. Some of the multiboxing software out there is powerful enough to count as “client modification” if used for that purpose. Our stance on third-party software is that we do not endorse such software as we have no control over what it does. As such, we can’t say that multiboxing software isn’t against our EULA. But the same goes in this case, that unless we determine that people are doing things beyond “multiboxing”, we will not be taking any action. We only care about the instances where people are messing with our process for the purposes of cheating, and running multiple clients at the same time is not in violation of our EULA in and of itself unless it involves trial accounts.


Notice how it says nothing about click multiplation (which is why ISBoxer is used), only multiboxing. In my opinion, ISBoxer makes it go "Beyond Multiboxing"


I underlined the important part. You are entitled to your opinion however your opinion is demonstrably incorrect. CCP knows about ISBoxer, the very portion of the statement you copied proves that it's ok.

I think you are having a hard time understanding that your dislike of something (in this case ISBoxer) doesn't make it cheating according to the people actually in charge. As I said, you are free to dislike that, but the only people who are important in this matter are CCP.

Truthfully I don't understand the dislike of other people using it. I'd use it if it were less tedious but when i double and triple box I just use ships with FoF missiles or sentries to support my main ship. An ex-corp mate of mine from when i was briefly in TEST multiboxed 10 nagas while ratting. I think it's pretty cool to be able to do that. I don't see what the big deal is.


You seem to think I have a problem with multiboxing. I don't. ISBoxer allowes you to control multiple toons through only accually controling one. Therefor, the effort v. reward ballance is broken, making it too easy to control 10+ boxes. How is that not "messing with our process?" Maybe not cheating as far as hacking or botting, but it does give an unfair advantage.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#48 - 2013-07-27 01:57:50 UTC
Epic Rupture wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Epic Rupture wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


You don't need that much. All you need is the owner/maker of the game to tell you that it's ok.

CCP said it's ok and it's their game, end of story.



Accually they have said they don't recommend anyone use it as it is not officially supported, but thats not what I'm after. Everyone using it states it is just as easy to multibox without ISBoxer because it gives "no advantage." I would like someone to prove it.

EDIT (Source):

From ISBoxers own site (CCPs official statement)

Quote:
This extends to multiboxing software. Some of the multiboxing software out there is powerful enough to count as “client modification” if used for that purpose. Our stance on third-party software is that we do not endorse such software as we have no control over what it does. As such, we can’t say that multiboxing software isn’t against our EULA. But the same goes in this case, that unless we determine that people are doing things beyond “multiboxing”, we will not be taking any action. We only care about the instances where people are messing with our process for the purposes of cheating, and running multiple clients at the same time is not in violation of our EULA in and of itself unless it involves trial accounts.


Notice how it says nothing about click multiplation (which is why ISBoxer is used), only multiboxing. In my opinion, ISBoxer makes it go "Beyond Multiboxing"


I underlined the important part. You are entitled to your opinion however your opinion is demonstrably incorrect. CCP knows about ISBoxer, the very portion of the statement you copied proves that it's ok.

I think you are having a hard time understanding that your dislike of something (in this case ISBoxer) doesn't make it cheating according to the people actually in charge. As I said, you are free to dislike that, but the only people who are important in this matter are CCP.

Truthfully I don't understand the dislike of other people using it. I'd use it if it were less tedious but when i double and triple box I just use ships with FoF missiles or sentries to support my main ship. An ex-corp mate of mine from when i was briefly in TEST multiboxed 10 nagas while ratting. I think it's pretty cool to be able to do that. I don't see what the big deal is.


You seem to think I have a problem with multiboxing. I don't. ISBoxer allowes you to control multiple toons through only accually controling one. Therefor, the effort v. reward ballance is broken, making it too easy to control 10+ boxes. How is that not "messing with our process?" Maybe not cheating as far as hacking or botting, but it does give an unfair advantage.


It's not an unfair advantage. CCP tolerates isboxer, which means not only is it not cheating, you can do it too if you please.

Isboxer dones't modify the EVE process (executable) so it's legal. Again, you can think it's unfair all you like, I don't. Niether your opinon or mine means anything, the maker/owner of the game says it's ok.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#49 - 2013-07-27 03:39:14 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's not an unfair advantage. CCP tolerates isboxer, which means not only is it not cheating, you can do it too if you please.

Isboxer dones't modify the EVE process (executable) so it's legal. Again, you can think it's unfair all you like, I don't. Niether your opinon or mine means anything, the maker/owner of the game says it's ok.


CCP cannot currently -detect- isboxer cheaply - they have to analyse the actions of many accounts to do so. IMO if isboxed fleets keep turning up in ganks, then its only a matter of time before the policy changes.

It is already difficult to explain to other gamers why I have a second account, with a gate/cyno scout, a booster/prober/salvager/miner and a market alt, and why my desire to pay that extra money and run that second account is not already reflecting poor game design and pay to win.

If it appears to people wanting to trial the game that they risk PVPing 1v10, where the 10 belong to 1 other player, then they won't trial the game because it appears to be completely pay to win. ie the people drawing attention to isboxer by ganking with it, are going to get it banned you can be sure of that.
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#50 - 2013-07-27 05:14:10 UTC
Bullshit. Power of two and other bonus programms encourage more then one account.
Speculating dont work here. Just ask them directly ccp wont answer here
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#51 - 2013-07-27 05:23:24 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Where do you think that PLEX came from in the first place? Yes, someone bought hat PLEX from CCP earlier.


Yes, and that person gave CCP money, not the one who bought it on the in-game market; it's incorrect to assume that someone will go out and buy another PLEX from CCP because one was removed from the market. This is basic ****; you really need to **** off if you don't get it.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#52 - 2013-07-27 05:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
Charadrass wrote:
Bullshit. Power of two and other bonus programms encourage more then one account.
Speculating dont work here. Just ask them directly ccp wont answer here


I have a power of 2 account, that is and never has been an issue. I also don't care if people have 5 accounts. I also don't care if a fleet has both a logi and a dps run by the same person, and that fleet engages my fleet, which may or may not also have a dps and logi run by the same person.

All I'm pointing out is that in the real world the fact that I perceived the power of 2 account necessary in 2009, and still necessary today, is the kind of thing that people outside the game perceive as a reason not to play - and I've first hand sampled those reactions.

I can assure you if it becomes well known outside the game that people are using isboxer fleets to PVP with, that will further negatively influence peoples desire to trial the game, because whether you percieve it to be cheating or not, the average person who doesn't play the game, will not want to trial the game if thats what they face. Skillpoints alone are viewed as unfair by many people starting the game.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#53 - 2013-07-27 05:25:58 UTC
Rolstra wrote:
If you want to stop the ISBoxer's CCP put a mechanic in place to do exactly that. It's called the bounty system place a bounty in excess of 100bill on each box, when a gank kills his ship worth 5 to 6 billion they get paid. When you include the possible drop it makes the ganks profitable even with a worse case scenario.


You evidently don't understand the bounty system, but w/e

A far better solution would be for CCP to make PVE less brain-dead.
Rolstra
Moo's Mudpit
#54 - 2013-07-27 07:26:56 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Rolstra wrote:
If you want to stop the ISBoxer's CCP put a mechanic in place to do exactly that. It's called the bounty system place a bounty in excess of 100bill on each box, when a gank kills his ship worth 5 to 6 billion they get paid. When you include the possible drop it makes the ganks profitable even with a worse case scenario.


You evidently don't understand the bounty system, but w/e

A far better solution would be for CCP to make PVE less brain-dead.

The bounty pays out a percentage based on the value of the ship killed and the amount of the bounty. Currently 10 to 14 Nados can kill an Incursion Machariel, Meaning a little over 1 billion invested will net the loot of a 4-6 billion ISK killmail. If the bounty was 100bil then the payout from bounty and possible loot drop would make the 'Shiny ISBoxer Incursion runner' the first choice for gankers (I imagine them being preferred even more than the old Mining Barges).

Making the PVE less brain-dead did not solve the problem last year, so I am pretty sure it won't solve the problem this year either. Last year making Incursion sites tougher, was met with Wine&Cheese forum threads that lasted for months till CCP dialled back the difficulty, now we have the ISBoxer fleets doing the 'most difficult' PVE in sites that last year would have eaten their fleet and left nothing but a field of pods.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#55 - 2013-07-27 08:03:48 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Where do you think that PLEX came from in the first place? Yes, someone bought hat PLEX from CCP earlier.


Yes, and that person gave CCP money, not the one who bought it on the in-game market; it's incorrect to assume that someone will go out and buy another PLEX from CCP because one was removed from the market. This is basic ****; you really need to **** off if you don't get it.

You can buy PLEX directly from CCP.

Directly.

from.

CCP

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#56 - 2013-07-27 08:33:43 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Where do you think that PLEX came from in the first place? Yes, someone bought hat PLEX from CCP earlier.


Yes, and that person gave CCP money, not the one who bought it on the in-game market; it's incorrect to assume that someone will go out and buy another PLEX from CCP because one was removed from the market. This is basic ****; you really need to **** off if you don't get it.

You can buy PLEX directly from CCP.

Directly.

from.

CCP

Really is this too hard to understand.
Person A buys a PLEX from anywhere as a trade of RL-Currency for Game time.
Person B buys a PLEX from A on the EVE market as a trade of in-game ISK for game time.
All PLEX’s are directly of indirectly from CCP
No PLEX on the market was created without CCP getting paid.
And the money goes to CCP.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#57 - 2013-07-27 14:28:28 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Where do you think that PLEX came from in the first place? Yes, someone bought hat PLEX from CCP earlier.


Yes, and that person gave CCP money, not the one who bought it on the in-game market; it's incorrect to assume that someone will go out and buy another PLEX from CCP because one was removed from the market. This is basic ****; you really need to **** off if you don't get it.


Well, Byerley. So this is where you scuttled off to after I chased you out of GD. I see you still don't understand economics either.

If you buy and activate a PLEX, to resub your account, it is functionally indistinct from simply paying it. It's preferable to CCP in fact, since a PLEX costs $20 and an account resub costs $15. The changing of hands of who purchased the timecard is also irrelevant. As far as it matters, the person activating the PLEX is paying for their account.

Also, if you actually take the time to track it, the supply of PLEX is actually pretty constant, so yes, the supply will refresh itself. It's pretty basic stuff if you just have a clue what you're talking about.

Quote:
You evidently don't understand the bounty system, but w/e

A far better solution would be for CCP to make PVE less brain-dead.


Never going to happen. There are better things to spend dev time on than missions.

Anyway, to get back on topic. ISBoxer is legal mostly because it does not perform a series of actions based on programming, merely multiplying your clicking ability. Since the same thing can be done with multiple monitors and a lot of alt tabbing, CCP does not view it as botting.

And since it's not botting, they quite rightly do not care.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#58 - 2013-07-27 18:18:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Well, Byerley. So this is where you scuttled off to after I chased you out of GD. I see you still don't understand economics either.


It's not very polite to flatter yourself.

Quote:
The changing of hands of who purchased the timecard is also irrelevant.


Lol? Of course it's relevant; it's another transaction in the process.

Quote:
Also, if you actually take the time to track it, the supply of PLEX is actually pretty constant, so yes, the supply will refresh itself.


Exactly, it's "pretty constant". You have precisely 0 non-anecdotal evidence that it's sensitive to in-game market demand.

Quote:
Never going to happen. There are better things to spend dev time on than missions.


Which is why they've upgraded the AI and literally just finished making profession sites feedback cycle dependent.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#59 - 2013-07-27 18:48:35 UTC
Quote:
Which is why they've upgraded the AI and literally just finished making profession sites feedback cycle dependent.


They didn't upgrade the AI in the way you're meaning. They pretty much copied a better AI they had in use in the game already. Oh, and, within weeks, people had already gotten the "more advanced" AI cracked. So it shuffled things around for a month. Time totally well spent. Roll

And ok, so profession sites equal improving missions... how? Furthermore, I'd love to know what monolithic leap you made to assume that because they fixed exploration and simplified probing, that they are going to throw more money down the dusthole trying to make missioning anything more than the grind it is.

It's not happening. Missions aren't what EVE is all about.

Quote:
You have precisely 0 non-anecdotal evidence that it's sensitive to in-game market demand.


Oh, ok, so PLEX is completely a special case, and is the only item in the game (Besides maybe a Revenant) that doesn't respond to the market, right? How do you make stuff like this up? Honestly, you should write children's books with that kind of imagination.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#60 - 2013-07-27 19:55:12 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
They didn't upgrade the AI in the way you're meaning. They pretty much copied a better AI they had in use in the game already. Oh, and, within weeks, people had already gotten the "more advanced" AI cracked.


"cracking" the new AI consisted of abandoning a lot of semi-AFK strategies (mainly drone based, also dedicated tanking) so certainly a relevant improvement.

Quote:
And ok, so profession sites equal improving missions... how? Furthermore, I'd love to know what monolithic leap you made to assume that because they fixed exploration and simplified probing, that they are going to throw more money down the dusthole trying to make missioning anything more than the grind it is.


You seem confused. If you hadn't noticed, this is the default exploration sub-forum and exploration is PVE. Thus making exploration less automation prone makes PVE less automation prone. I'm also not sure where your mission fixation came from; nothing in this thread has been about missions.

Quote:
Oh, ok, so PLEX is completely a special case, and is the only item in the game (Besides maybe a Revenant) that doesn't respond to the market, right? How do you make stuff like this up? Honestly, you should write children's books with that kind of imagination.


a. There's a difference between sensitive and not responding at all
b. PLEX are extremely special because they throw real money and less dedicated Eve players into the equation
c. The market reaction to demand changes isn't necessarily supply changes (let alone 1:1). That generally only applies to thin margin manufacture.

Do me a favor and read up on this stuff? Teaching isn't my bag.