ISBoxer: Unexpected Attention And Unanswered Questions

Interesting blog from Nosy Gamer.


http://nosygamer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/isboxer-unexpected-attention-and.html?m=1

Thoughts?

[Valerian]

I'm only halfway through that, but to me it sounds a lot like the general hysteria of OMG HAX that other similar-yet-not-limited software I have heard of in the past.

I'm personally not too concerned about the implications, but I admit there may be a few official crackdowns on multiple (read: 20+) account multiboxing in the future, and I actually agree that that number of accounts shoueld probably have a ... shall we say "less" effective multiboxing solution available.

This is actually something that could be somewhat hardcoded into isboxer, but whether or not that's something that "needs" to happen is up for discussion. I personally say maybe a 20 account max would be great, but others may see other numbers to be more in line with what CCP is thinking.

[lax]

The "Nosy gamer" has had a raging hard-on against ISBoxer for a long time. He purposefully misleads his readers and makes connections that don't exist.

For example, in the thread on the EVE forum, he says that CCP "basically states ISBoxer violates the EULA" in the dev blog/multiboxing policy, which isn't "basically what it states". "Basically what it states" is that "even if ISBoxer violates the EULA, it is not something we are currently looking at."

He's playing up the people who dislike ISBoxer, and playing down those who don't. He tries to connect ISBoxer to bots, even though bots have nothing to do with ISBoxer and their discussion isn't even allowed -- meanwhile he is "basically" (overtly) providing bots with free promotion/advertising on his site.

He says "Blizzard took steps last year to curtail its use in the PvP setting of World of Warcraft battlegrounds", but they clearly stated that disabling /follow was to disable bots that relied on it. Multiboxers were collateral damage, but are still allowed in battlegrounds (it's just hard without /follow). They also re-enabled /follow in the PVP Arenas after multiboxers complained. He's also left out the part about a Blizzard developer that recently discussed multiboxing with ISBoxer on a live stream http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/13140803986

Clearly he has an agenda, and this isn't any different from his other ISBoxer-related posts. Why should I respond whenever this idiot makes a post about ISBoxer?

[Valerian]

Well you should obviously respond to any comment he makes Lax, as that would make his raging hardon for you mean something.

Seriously. What good is a raging hardon if the subject of your sexual excitement is indifferent?

Thanks for the responses.

My concern was that the hysteria had started to gain some traction with people that had sway on CCP and bringing what is normally a none issue into their focus.

Ironically I still find ISBoxer to be a more preferable way of just running a single client or even a few clients in a very simple alternative to Alt-Tab due to how it handles screen shaping and switching.
Yes doing complex set-ups with overlays and pass throughs is cool, but sometimes a simple "native" set up is nice too.

Maybe I'm alone, but I'd think that quite a few users don't anything very complicated and rarely get to the stage of running huge numbers of clients for something overpowered.

[lax]

My concern was that the hysteria had started to gain some traction with people that had sway on CCP and bringing what is normally a none issue into their focus.

The non-issue is constantly in their focus due to non-stop threads on the EVE forums, which they often end up locking (Other recent example: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4763449#post4763449)
date-sorted google search: site:eveonline.com+isboxer

And yeah, very few people run more than a small handful of accounts. The ones with many accounts are usually pretty well known. Prepared is/was known for running 25-40 accounts in WoW. The Wis is/was known for running 80-100+ accounts in EVE. Etc.

I noticed another recent commentary against ISBoxer...
http://evenews24.com/2014/07/07/danny-c ... ve-online/

again, seemingly written by someone who has been nuked by a bombing fleet!

I think it's hilarious.
Even if there were something 'unfair' about using ISBoxer to play Eve - and I don't, for a minute, beleive there is... you have X accounts, you play X accounts - Eve is inherently all about unfair fights FFS!
Where are the blogs against hi-sec ganking, where *multiple* accounts attack and kill a single account in (ostensibly) safe space?
Or gate-camps, where multiple accounts ambush the poor sod just trying to move around low/null?
WTF is the difference?!?!

Personally, I don't PVP in Eve, I've only ever carved myself a PVE niche with 11 accounts at its peak but a mere 2 these days.

I just hope whoever is running these bombing fleets continues to nail these whingers

heh those threads are coming up on a regular basis. CCP had made a ruling regarding the use of ISBoxer and its safe to use. Its like Eve is dying threads, the random publord will never cease bitching about things he doesnt understand.

I do both, PvP and PvE. For PvP, I dont use ISBoxer, I fly only one ship or dual box logis, dont need software for that.
For PvE however, I need to multibox. Why? Because PvE in Eve is so terribly boring, the only way I can keep myself entertained is by putting more work load on my shoulders to prevent myself from falling asleep.
The day they ban the use of ISBoxer is the day I will quit Eve