These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Isboxer, why is it allowed?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#201 - 2014-03-24 18:03:41 UTC
Some of our corp members are trying isboxer and i assure you its not that simple. Its pretty funny when they come back with tails of killing their own ships, or trying to spider tank tengu's.

If its such a win, with plexing accounts to boot. Just use it yourself already.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#202 - 2014-03-24 18:04:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:


After all, isboxer does not accelerate any gameplay.



Define what you mean when you say it does not accelerate game play.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#203 - 2014-03-24 18:04:27 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:

The same argument can be made for botting.

"Botting miners are good because they mean low prices for everyone else."

Yet we all know that is not the case, nor is it the case with isboxer.


True... but if you ban the botters they stop mining. If you got rid of isbox with a magic wand, you would still see giant multiboxed mining fleets.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Tippia wrote:
same as any other fleet of 5 smartbombing battleships, since isboxer can't accelerate your gameplay.

it does as I pointed out in my previous posting. It eliminates the huge amount of time switching between clients and doing all the clicking by yourself.


except for the "huge amount of clicking." You picked a really really bad example of something that requires isboxer to do effectively.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#204 - 2014-03-24 18:04:48 UTC
Batelle wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:

Not the botters.


Find me a post where a botter suggested botting should be allowed. Big smile


Trust me, if ISboxer was banned (like it should be), nobody would be trying to defend it either.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#205 - 2014-03-24 18:05:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
Batelle wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:

The same argument can be made for botting.

"Botting miners are good because they mean low prices for everyone else."

Yet we all know that is not the case, nor is it the case with isboxer.


True... but if you ban the botters they stop mining. If you got rid of isbox with a magic wand, you would still see giant multiboxed mining fleets.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Tippia wrote:
same as any other fleet of 5 smartbombing battleships, since isboxer can't accelerate your gameplay.

it does as I pointed out in my previous posting. It eliminates the huge amount of time switching between clients and doing all the clicking by yourself.


except for the "huge amount of clicking." You picked a really really bad example of something that requires isboxer to do effectively.


I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.
Dominic karin
Versatility Production Corporation' LLC
#206 - 2014-03-24 18:06:13 UTC
YAY! This thread again. Neat.

*popcorn as the arguments rage on*
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#207 - 2014-03-24 18:07:07 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Some of our corp members are trying isboxer and i assure you its not that simple. Its pretty funny when they come back with tails of killing their own ships, or trying to spider tank tengu's.

If its such a win, with plexing accounts to boot. Just use it yourself already.



A difficult to use bot is still a bot.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#208 - 2014-03-24 18:09:05 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
Batelle wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:

Not the botters.


Find me a post where a botter suggested botting should be allowed. Big smile


Trust me, if ISboxer was banned (like it should be), nobody would be trying to defend it either.


Sure it would, because you would have lots of players still multiboxing. Because there's almost nothing that requires ISbox, as ISBox doesn't really allow you to do anything you couldn't already do.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#209 - 2014-03-24 18:09:17 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Define what you mean when you say it does not accelerate game play.

I mean what it says in the EULA: the “acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.”

It is pretty much impossible for multiboxig, or any other method that relies on 1:1 input, to do that barring outright exploitation of bugs (in which case the multiboxing method used is irrelevant anyway).
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#210 - 2014-03-24 18:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: LordOfDespair
Batelle wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:
Batelle wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:

Not the botters.


Find me a post where a botter suggested botting should be allowed. Big smile


Trust me, if ISboxer was banned (like it should be), nobody would be trying to defend it either.


Sure it would, because you would have lots of players still multiboxing. Because there's almost nothing that requires ISbox, as ISBox doesn't really allow you to do anything you couldn't already do.


Go ahead and multibox a 20 man incursion fleet (successfully) without ISbox.

Yeah, thought so.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#211 - 2014-03-24 18:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Nidal Fervor wrote:


I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.


So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere.

LordOfDespair wrote:

Go ahead and multibox a 20 man incursion fleet (successfully) without ISbox.

Yeah, thought so.


So he does vanguards instead, big f-ing deal.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#212 - 2014-03-24 18:11:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Tippia wrote:
You didn't demonstrate any acceleration of gameplay.

I thought I explained it very clearly.

Tippia wrote:
Let's make it simple, just for you: how does a 5-man fleet earning as much as a 5-man fleet does constitute earning more than a 5-man fleet does?

yes, lets make it simple.
1 dude playing 10 accounts would not earn as much ISK as 1 dude isboxing 10 accounts - you still say there is no acceleration?

Batelle wrote:

except for the "huge amount of clicking." You picked a really really bad example of something that requires isboxer to do effectively.

which example and why is it wrong?
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#213 - 2014-03-24 18:12:38 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:


I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.


So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere.


There is nothing backing up what you just said, it doesn't even make sense.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#214 - 2014-03-24 18:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
LordOfDespair wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:


I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.


So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere.


There is nothing backing up what you just said, it doesn't even make sense.


Let me clarify.

People complain about isboxer because they don't like seeing isboxed miners, isboxed gankers, or isboxed incursions. IMO Eliminating isbox will not eliminate or even severely hamper the use of multiboxing in those areas of gameplay. Some people will be discouraged perhaps, but others will continue doing what they are doing, simply with more difficulty/annoyance.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Batelle wrote:

except for the "huge amount of clicking." You picked a really really bad example of something that requires isboxer to do effectively.

which example and why is it wrong?


Because its a really good example of something that can be done without ISboxer.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#215 - 2014-03-24 18:25:20 UTC
Batelle wrote:

Let me clarify.

People complain about isboxer because they don't like seeing isboxed miners, isboxed gankers, or isboxed incursions. IMO Eliminating isbox will not eliminate or even severely hamper the use of multiboxing in those areas of gameplay. Some people will be discouraged perhaps, but others will continue doing what they are doing, simply with more difficulty/annoyance.



Only mining can be still done without ISboxer, and even then it will be much much slower and harder.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#216 - 2014-03-24 18:27:49 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:

Only mining can be still done without ISboxer, and even then it will be much much slower and harder.


I've got bad news for you....

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#217 - 2014-03-24 18:28:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Define what you mean when you say it does not accelerate game play.

I mean what it says in the EULA: the “acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.”

It is pretty much impossible for multiboxig, or any other method that relies on 1:1 input, to do that barring outright exploitation of bugs (in which case the multiboxing method used is irrelevant anyway).


Isboxer accelerates game play by allowing a player to farm with far more accounts than he could normally handle. Try mining with 20 barges for several hours a day and see if you could handle doing that every day. Without isboxer, not a chance.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#218 - 2014-03-24 18:31:31 UTC
Batelle wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:


I would argue that many of the giant multi boxed mining fleets would disappear. 20 or 40 mining characters without software to send the clicks to all of the accounts at once? Yeah they may try, they would soon tire of it. 40 accounts? Forget it.


So your solution is to discourage gameplay you don't like by making it more annoying to do (even though said discouraged gameplay is arguably "optimal?) ? Maybe the fleets get smaller, maybe a bit less prevalent. But they're not going anywhere.


There is nothing backing up what you just said, it doesn't even make sense.


Let me clarify.

People complain about isboxer because they don't like seeing isboxed miners, isboxed gankers, or isboxed incursions. IMO Eliminating isbox will not eliminate or even severely hamper the use of multiboxing in those areas of gameplay. Some people will be discouraged perhaps, but others will continue doing what they are doing, simply with more difficulty/annoyance.

.


Those who try to continue without isboxer will indeed have a great deal more difficulty and annoyance and once gankers and bumpers start to interfere with them, it's over. They won't be able to cope.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#219 - 2014-03-24 18:35:58 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:

Those who try to continue without isboxer will indeed have a great deal more difficulty and annoyance and once gankers and bumpers start to interfere with them, it's over. They won't be able to cope.


Gankers and bumpers have nothing to do with anything, really. Plus you never needed isboxer for fleet warp.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#220 - 2014-03-24 18:38:03 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Monkeys arguing over the correct way to peel a banana; The input of one player on one account then is certainly different than the input of one player instantly on 20 accounts (That, regardless of definition, requires some form of automation), Is that game breaking? I don't think so. Might be a little immersion breaking, but not game breaking.

Is it demoralizing to someone that does not (Or can/will not) use the same? Probably.

It still boils down to; Is allowing one guy to run 20 accounts good for EVE? It's probably not.

Is allowing one guy to pay for 20 accounts good for CCP? Without a doubt, yes.

So should CCP hamstring themselves by stopping one guy from cashing in 20 PLEX a month? Not if everyone else, not using ISB, wants to keep playing the game. You have to put up with some dirt if you want to play in the mud, sorry.

While I disagree with your conclusion: +1 for the best post I've read in this thread so far.

Remove standings and insurance.