Team Security EVE Fanfest presentation 1500 GMT on Saturday March 21st

[Lax]

Yeah, should never drink and post however I do believe Lax has an ulterior motive for 1) not defending his program and 2) attempting to stifle discussion on the forums.

Oh, please. What sort of ulterior motive do you think is at play here -- please enlighten us all.

The damage is already done, look at their graph. Multiboxing in EVE has all but stopped, and now we're trying to help a tiny fraction of people in an increasingly uphill battle.

And just look at all the stifled discussion! Almost no conversation has been had due to all the stifling!

1) Lax stated this: http://puu.sh/gLAns.png Now, going by the previous statement by you, Lax, are the following facts correct: "CCP does not know how ISBoxer works", "CCP has not talked to me on or around Nov25 to present date regarding ISBoxer", "CCP does not have the technology nor hardware to differentiate between input duplication and round robin", and "If ISBoxer is to be banned for client modification, then so too should TS3 Overlay, Overwolf Overlay, Mumble Overlay, and Steam Overlay"? I do realize the last one is a bit off topic from the image, but it's still relevant in 6A2

2) Please give your thoughts on this statement: "ISBoxer, as defined under 6A3's interpretation on "accelerated gameplay" as to be on a per-character basis, does not allow a player to obtain ISK or other items an an increased rate when comparing identical fleets with identical fits, etc., nor does it allow a player to obtain more ISK in a given period of time (usually an hour, but let's say a month) than strictly possible in EVE Online."

1. CCP has no need to fully understand how ISBoxer works, and no need to contact me. CCP does not need to differentiate between input duplication and round-robin -- they will just ban for all of the above, this has already been discussed. I don't get the last part, you're placing ISBoxer in the same vein as voice chat overlays as if you or CCP consider them related or equivalent.

2. My thoughts are that I am not enough of an EVE expert to make any sort of judgment on comparing fleets and fits or ISK. That is a conversation to have with EVE players, is it not?

I get that the whole issue really hits home for you because you like multiboxing EVE and having certain capabilities, but I've already laid everything out on the table. What on earth does your hostile questioning have to do with anything?

[bugme143]

Or just possibly he's one of the few people that aren't throwing out bullshit like it's facts, AMIRITE?

I'm still waiting for any proof whatsoever that ISBoxer violates 6A3, and as Lax mentioned earlier, it doesn't do anything with the client to violate 6A2.
Additionally, if ISBoxer is being banned for 6A2, they need to pull their endorsement and support from the EVE-O program and ban it as it's doing many of the same things.

e: I mentioned voice chat overlays with Steam overlays because they both can be seen as modifying the client if CCP is attempting to ban ISBoxer for client modification.

[thedevilyouknow]

Spirit of the law
Yada yada

Lets all just quit eve amirite?

Seriously though
Been alot of stick and very few carrots....my ass is sore
Punzzzzzzz

[Ughmahedhurtz]

[edit2] OK, after doing some research, I'm curious how you equate the EVE-O multi-client preview/switcher to ISBoxer's in-client features with regards to 6A2.

[shadowandlight]

[edit2] OK, after doing some research, I'm curious how you equate the EVE-O multi-client preview/switcher to ISBoxer's in-client features with regards to 6A2.

It's because CCP is holding many double standards when they try to apply broad brushes to 3rd party tools.

Instead of coming up with sane and easily followed policies they are trying to win an award for the most convoluted system they can think of.

[bugme143]

[edit2] OK, after doing some research, I'm curious how you equate the EVE-O multi-client preview/switcher to ISBoxer's in-client features with regards to 6A2.

Because CCP was banning ISBoxer under a broad stroke of 6A2, "client modification", despite the fact that ISBoxer uses Aero and OS-level commands to operate. EVE-O also uses similar functions to operate.

[Mosg2]

I'm gonna' hop in here real quick and reiterate that based off of what CCP has communicated publicly and the emails from CCP support that've been released, Lax and some of the other posters are correct in saying that it's more of a 'spirit of the law' soft-ban. If you're too fast at what you're doing, no matter what it is, you're going to get banned.

It sucks, but whatcha gonna' do.

[Dranny817]

Removed all my posts in this thread after seeing this on the eve forums. This is their stance on Eve-O preview. Guess they just don't like isboxer.

#117- 2015-03-23 16:54:12 UTC |
Like
CCP FoxFour wrote:Hey guys,

After reading a few of the last posts and the concern about this piece of software being allowed or not, I went and had a chat with our security guys. They have confirmed this is totally acceptable, nothing has changed.

Fly safe.



Thanks for taking the time to confirm this FoxFour <3

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Removed all my posts in this thread after seeing this on the eve forums. This is their stance on Eve-O preview. Guess they just don't like isboxer.

#117- 2015-03-23 16:54:12 UTC |
Like
CCP FoxFour wrote:Hey guys,

After reading a few of the last posts and the concern about this piece of software being allowed or not, I went and had a chat with our security guys. They have confirmed this is totally acceptable, nothing has changed.

Fly safe.



Thanks for taking the time to confirm this FoxFour <3

They aren't the same thing. EVE-O is a subset of ISBoxer, feature-wise. You are implying that they are both apples. One is an apple, the other is an apple growing corporation with subsidiaries in the tech and financial sectors.

[Dranny817]

They aren't the same thing. EVE-O is a subset of ISBoxer, feature-wise. You are implying that they are both apples. One is an apple, the other is an apple growing corporation with subsidiaries in the tech and financial sectors.

Yes I know they are different I never said they were the same.