In a past dev post, CCP Fozzie opened the discussion on the Stealth Bomber rebalance. A few things were mentioned; for example changes on the decloaking mechanics and a few stats changes. If you want to read the original dev post, you can read it here fully.

Today, CCP Fozzie updated the EVE-O discussion with a summary of the current state of the proposed changes:

Hey everyone. Here are our latest updates to the plan.

Firstly and most significantly, the change to decloaking mechanics has been put on hold indefinitely. We are going to take some more time to work on the best way to have ships interact with cloakies and it’s very possible that our eventual changes will be significantly different than what we talked about earlier. For now, cloaked ships will not decloak each other.

We’re also going to be removing some of the earlier increase in signature radius and shifting it to a penalty on the bomb launcher itself. The T1 bomb launcher will add +10m signature radius and the T2 will add 12m.

We’re increasing the capacity of the T2 bomb launcher to 300m3.

The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed.

Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store.

The new interdiction probe will be delayed slightly as we’ve run into some graphical issues with it that we’ll need more time to properly fix.

We’ve sourced a lot of these changes from this thread, thanks to everyone who has been providing feedback.


  1. Dumbledore

    Dumbledore’s in-training isboxing fleet thanks you, kind sir.

    October 29, 2014 at 07:49 Reply
    1. Dddfh

      Dumbledore’s army?

      October 29, 2014 at 08:01 Reply
      1. GrouchyOldGamer

        genius 🙂

        October 29, 2014 at 11:12 Reply
    2. hoodaticus

      The tears are pretty much forcing me to buy ISBoxer, as well.

      October 29, 2014 at 23:38 Reply
  2. CarlGustav

    Damit I can see from CCP angle how good it is to allow someone to ISBOX 32 accounts its good Cash, someone have to pay for the subs.

    But from a ingame experience i don’t like it!

    It takes 0 skills to do that, just a good setup time …

    I don’t mind beeing blown to smitherines by 32 players in 32 bombers but beeing torped to death by a ISBoxer with 32 accounts is well imho wrong.

    (No i have never lost a ship like that)

    October 29, 2014 at 08:36 Reply
    1. Jack Morrison

      My opinion is ISBoxer should be banned. While it is not botting, it raises many balancing questions that would not be a topic otherwise.

      October 29, 2014 at 09:09 Reply
      1. Dumbledore

        As someone who has lost several freighters to isboxers (just-for-the-laughs, too, no expensive cargo), I know how you feel. My reaction? I installed isboxer myself.

        October 29, 2014 at 09:28 Reply
        1. Random CFC Grunt

          If you can’t beat, them…

          October 29, 2014 at 11:57 Reply
      2. guess

        Mining ISboxer is fine and to some degree mission running as well, PVP however is where ISBOXER is not fine.

        October 29, 2014 at 11:14 Reply
        1. Slevin-Kelevra

          Um what? why is one ok but not the other? Basically you saying “don’t take away the broken way I make Isk, just take away the broken way they kill me when I am making isk”.

          October 29, 2014 at 11:27 Reply
        2. Jack Morrison

          ISBoxer is bad no matter where it is used (pvp, incursions, mining…) because of the ‘added value’ to each running client. You are simply able to do things you would not be able with manually running 10+ clients.

          October 29, 2014 at 14:55 Reply
    2. Dumbledore

      Zero skills? Sir, I think that you’ve never tried isboxing. In addition, I found the 32-boxer smashing that poor rorqual exhilarating.

      October 29, 2014 at 09:26 Reply
      1. Uhu

        Once you got it setup correctly it shouldn´t be more demanding than flying a single bomber, or is it? (Honest question, i don´t know shit about isboxer). I guess you use different control groups for multiple waves.

        And bombing runs are hardly what i would consider skill intensive.

        October 29, 2014 at 09:42 Reply
        1. Dumbledore

          It is much much much more demanding. That’s the reason why you don’t see fleet fights dominated by isboxing bomber squads. There are only a few respectable isboxing bombing run experts in the game: I’m not sure if, e.g., mordus angels 32-boxer does bombing runs (I don’t think so), but I do know that pasta alliance has one guy who’s really good at it.

          October 29, 2014 at 10:02 Reply
          1. Sup'

            the reason you dont see fleet fight dominated by isboxing bombing run experts is because everyone now flies something that cant be killed by a bomb run, nothing to do with with how hard (or easy) isboxing is.
            its simply because everyone got tired of getting bombd so they switched doctrines to something that is nearly immune to bombing(tengus) (i said nearly, there are ways depending on what fit)

            October 29, 2014 at 10:24
          2. muh

            you can kill everything with bombs, you just have to realy want to kill it. where’s a will there’s a way. else just use more bombs

            October 29, 2014 at 11:27
          3. Random CFC Grunt

            He doesn’t, he does bomb sometimes but obviously not with all of those bombers at once. He focuses on torps.

            October 29, 2014 at 11:54
          4. raknor

            wow what a sick burn for poor ammzi

            October 29, 2014 at 12:10
        2. Max

          It really isn’ any harder once it is setup correctly. I find it funny that so many people think the biggest thing hold back people from ISBoxing is skill, it isn’t………it’s hardware. You can run about 15 clients with a highend on a extreme edition i7 processor, because it’s MOBO supports 64gb’s RAM, if you didn’t know if you don’t have the extreme edition CPU/MOBO, max is 32 gb’s, and that combo can case anywhere from $300-1300more then your avg. Joe highend i7 4790k CPU/MOBO combo. Now guys that are running 20-50 clients are on Xeons CPU’s, and that CPU/MOBO combo is about twice as much as a extreme edition CPU/MOBO combo. The reason you don’t see more ISBoxers is there is by and large no reason to own such PC’s, unless you are really into content creation.

          October 29, 2014 at 14:45 Reply
          1. lulz

            Yeah that cost is for the MOBO alone, although RAM is considered relativity cheap, it is only considered relativity cheap because most people only use four sticks of 2gb’s. When you are using four sticks of 16 gb’s, it’s not so cheap anymore lol…… this is on top of the overpriced CPU/MOBO.

            October 29, 2014 at 15:08
          2. Max

            Xeon motherboard support upto 512GB of RAM, that wouldn’t cost very much.

            October 29, 2014 at 15:39
          3. Dracallus

            It’s really not. A client with display setting on minimum running at 1080p only uses about 180meg of RAM. I have a 2.5GHz quad-core and running 10 clients only uses about 60% of that. This is on a computer that cost me $2000 back in 2008 (in Australia where prices are significantly higher than in the US).

            So I can comfortably run 10 clients on a system that was mid/highend when I bought it 6 years ago (I can run more but haven’t actually made the accounts to do so). If I were to buy a system for a similar price point today I’d easily be able to run 20 – 30+ clients on it. This doesn’t even take into account that I would still have use of my old system that can run at least 10 clients.

            If you really want to tout hardware as the limiting factor for ISBoxing you’d be much more accurate to point out screen space, as you run out of that much faster than you run out of anything else. This is because the more accounts you have the more you have to limit the information you see from each account (because your monitors have finite space on them).

            Also, saying that ISBoxer allows you to do things you can’t do without it is also not strictly true, as show by this guy (, who, because he was unsure about whether multiboxing software was allowed and didn’t want to get banned, built himself a setup to forgo them.

            Fact of the matter is that the reason you don’t see many more ISBoxers is because running that many accounts is, in fact, quite a bit more difficult than running a single account, compounded even more if you have the accounts broken into multiple groups that each have to act separately from each other.

            October 29, 2014 at 19:23
          4. lulz

            lol…..Go ask the dude running 40+ nightmares in incursions what his PC specs are. He will back up Max’s claims

            October 30, 2014 at 03:17
          5. Dracallus

            Congratulations, you missed my point completely. I’m not saying that some multiboxers don’t have amazing PCs, I’m saying that it’s not strictly necessary to multibox a large number of accounts.

            October 30, 2014 at 11:20
    3. null bear

      As if a guy with 32 accounts would pay them with money… they just PLEX it so the impact for CCP is just in concurrent users. Rationalize it as you will, IS Boxer is botting and should be banned

      October 29, 2014 at 11:20 Reply
      1. pam

        You are mistaken botting is when a program is running the enitre thing without a human doing anything..

        October 29, 2014 at 12:31 Reply
        1. null bear

          If I click once and 32 bombers fired at the same time, then that’s 31 more than it should. How is this not cheating? Call it whatever you want, it’s the same thing as botting

          October 29, 2014 at 13:54 Reply
          1. You are a Retard

            You use Dotlan maps and I don’t….because dotlan gives you more info its cheating….

            October 29, 2014 at 15:12
          2. heh

            I don’t think that compares. I got nothing against ISboxing though… and I understand the PLEX demand it has and why CCP would want to keep it. I got no bones about it, but yeah, it is pretty damn close to botting and a Dotlan maps analogy is no good in comparison. Just being real with you there. My personal opinion is that if someone wants to run 32 accounts at once, more power to them, and if they want IS boxer, sure why the hell not. If anything they will just make things seem less and less botter like to not get banned and just makes things iffy. Just give it to the ISboxers.

            October 30, 2014 at 00:17
      2. WhoB

        Your understanding of economics is astounding.

        The ONLY way to create a plex is to buy it with RL money and you may only use it ONCE to extend game time. So every active account in the game has in some way, either by isk or RL money, contributed to the sale of a plex and thus CCP’s profit.

        October 29, 2014 at 14:59 Reply
      3. Kharnakh

        Plex cost more in £ than subs do… CCP make something like 60% more if you plex your account than if you sub it.

        October 29, 2014 at 15:43 Reply
    4. schubbeldiduh

      if it were easy, everybody would be doing it.

      October 29, 2014 at 11:27 Reply
      1. Random CFC Grunt

        It is easy. Everybody can be doing it. It doesn’t appeal to most of the players and that’s why they don’t.

        October 29, 2014 at 11:52 Reply
      2. Max

        It is easy, the biggest thing holding most people back from doing it is the hardware, and it’s cost. You can’t simply can’t run 32 plus accounts at once with your avg. Joe i7, with 8gb’s of RAM. You pretty much need a PC built for professional content creation on adobe premiere, and unless you are actually use adobe premiere everyday then a PC built for that is a huge waste of money.

        October 29, 2014 at 14:25 Reply
  3. xf

    why do npc regions in the north get all the new stuff?

    October 29, 2014 at 09:16 Reply
    1. somedude

      its syndicate wich had the most useless LP Store ever in eve … so just fair they get something that can actually generate money.

      October 29, 2014 at 09:33 Reply
      1. guess

        Syndicate and the words isk making didn’t belong in the same sentace, though this is a step in fixing that.

        October 29, 2014 at 11:12 Reply
  4. Dev user admin

    I am positively surprised CCP is taking into account so much of the player feedback. Not only that they have been very good at separating the good advice and heeds of caution from the paranoid, troll, bittervet sperg.

    The bomber cloak change would have been a step back in usability without real significant gameplay gains. Yes, players did fine back in the day, and humans also did fine hunting with spears back in the day. Evolve forwards, not backwards.

    Multiboxing is killing player interaction, Alt proliferation is killing player interaction. Focus on that.

    October 29, 2014 at 10:48 Reply
    1. slipto

      Ok if that said no more than 1 accoutnt per person/

      October 29, 2014 at 12:30 Reply
      1. Kullen

        Aslong as you manually controll every account you should be able to fly as many as you wish/can, ISboxing isnt manuall controlling

        October 29, 2014 at 12:40 Reply
        1. Turd Burd


          October 29, 2014 at 14:35 Reply
        2. hoodaticus

          CCP’s position is that multiboxing software without macros IS manual control. And they’re right.
          They can’t stop a multicasting hardware switch from doing the same thing ISBoxer does, nor could they detect it.

          October 29, 2014 at 23:32 Reply
          1. Kullen

            I know but i dont have to agree completly, and it kind of bad for the game in general, 10 times more so in pvp. And yes mining too

            October 30, 2014 at 21:21
  5. Well I am disappointed they are not changing the cloaking mechanics.

    October 29, 2014 at 11:59 Reply
    1. Random CFC Grunt

      The cloaking mechanics are fine, ISBoxer isn’t ;).

      October 29, 2014 at 12:02 Reply
      1. Yeah I refuse to jump on the ISboxer hate train.

        October 29, 2014 at 12:05 Reply
        1. Saint Michael's Soul

          That’s only because its being prevented from leaving the station by 34 identically named characters

          October 29, 2014 at 12:19 Reply
        2. Daniel Plain

          it is pretty clear that ISBoxer makes the game worse overall. the only reason it is still allowed is that you cannot reliably detect the use of such a program and thus, enforce a ban.

          October 29, 2014 at 12:19 Reply
          1. Everyone keeps saying it is making the game worse but I have yet to see a really convincing argument that it is.

            October 29, 2014 at 12:21
          2. Daniel Plain

            well, consider the following: when a new player visits the new citizens forums to ask about a career in mining, the general response is “don’t mine”. the reasons given are “it’s boring” (which is subjective and may not apply to everyone) and “it does not pay” (which is objectively true).
            even a perfectly skilled hulk pilot can barely expect more than 20m/hr in income because ore prices get mauled by multiboxers. this means that for a large portion of new players, mining might as well not exist at all, which makes the game worse overall.

            October 29, 2014 at 12:38
          3. David

            Boosted hulk with haulers and boosts (which you should have if you’re using a hulk instead of a skiff or mackinaw] can make 35 to 45 mill an hour in null or low ore anomalies. Not the best, but much better than you imply.
            Regardless, historically the cause for low mineral values is that it comes from a number of sources, including module reprocessing (taiwanese corp in my alliance used to reprocess about 10 bill a month in minerals) and due to mining’s AFK friendly nature, reductions in ore value don’t really discourage the collection of effortless isk. I can multi box 6 miners just fine without isboxer. Squad warp for movement, bookmarks for positioning, and a few seconds a trip to lock rocks and press f1.
            Isboxer isn’t the reason mining is Meh isk, easiness is.

            October 29, 2014 at 14:51
          4. Daniel Plain

            ‘multiboxing six miners’, and ‘reprocessing 10b a month’ are not nearly as impressive as you think, especially to a guy multiboxing 45 procurers. one guy, mind you, not an organized group.

            the difference between reprocessing loot, mining in lowsec, ‘manual’ multiboxing and ISBoxer is that the former are in-game methods that are available and affordable to most players. ISBoxer is an out of game tool that gives a few individuals the leverage to push ore prices much more than any ‘normal’ player can ever hope to do and in the process hurts the latter (much larger) group’s enjoyment of the game.

            October 29, 2014 at 16:36
          5. David

            The point was that mining is *not* the source of all minerals, (last dev update I saw put mining as the source of only 60% of minerals), and not all people multiboxing miners would stop with the removal of ISBoxer (only the 20+ client power isboxer users), so expecting the removal of isboxer to improve mining income is rather naive. Perhaps you’d see a few percentage points difference, but nothing large. Actually I’d expect the power projection and sov changes to have a greater effect on mineral prices (increased cost of transport and more instability will likely result in less use of hisec minerals for capital and particularly supercapital production, likely resulting in lower demand and therefore lower mineral prices) than even the outright removal of isboxer, even if CCP somehow did manage to figure out a foolproof way to detect it.

            October 30, 2014 at 00:06
          6. Daniel Plain

            was the dev update before or after the latest salvaging nerf? regardless, while i agree that a ban on ISBoxer is not practically feasible (which renders the whole conversation strictly philosophical), i am not convinced that the footprint of multiboxers on the ore markets is only ‘a few’ percentage points. and even if it were, these are a few percentage points in the wrong direction, as far as a fun and healthy economy goes.
            basically ISBoxer is the WalMart of EVE; it’s profitable for a small minority but bad for everyone else.

            October 30, 2014 at 13:01
          7. This is a compelling argument. Well done.

            October 29, 2014 at 17:36
          8. AFK

            Neither do a lot of other bannable offences, but none of them are allowed through like isboxer.

            October 29, 2014 at 13:00
          9. Shaitan Kebab

            i call bullshit. its trivial to identify it. One could inject a few dll’s here and there, or patch a few memory locations. Personally, i think they allow it, cos there are so few using it. Make the isboxer the new meta, and watch it being forbidden…

            October 29, 2014 at 14:29
          10. hoodaticus

            CCP would throw the world’s most expensive snow party (and I don’t mean the frozen water kind) if multiboxing became the new meta.

            October 29, 2014 at 23:27
          11. brathahn

            if you start banning ISBoxer the login counter will drop easyly by 5k accounts per day. thats aloooooot of money.

            October 29, 2014 at 23:33
        3. Random CFC Grunt

          It’s not about hating the tool. The fact is that Eve’s EULA forbids usage of macros/software/whatever that give a player “unfair advantage” but for whatever reason (and a pretty obvious one – $$$) CCP decided that these rules don’t apply to an obvious offender like IS. This is my biggest problem with it.

          Why is it harmful to the game? It’s not, it’s harmful to every person that doesn’t use it. Using this you can mine more, kill more, haul more, rat more, produce more etc. with only a slight increase in effort.

          Oh and if anyone comes up with the argument that the tool isn’t perfect, that it has bugs, crashes, is hard to set up – do a synchronized torp attack using 20 bombers WITHOUT IS. Still think it doesn’t give an unfair advantage?…
          One more thing, the fact that it’s allowed in other MMOs doesn’t mean it has to be allowed in Eve, as we all know – Eve is unlike almost every other MMO.

          October 29, 2014 at 14:16 Reply
          1. Aderoth Anstian

            The ISBoxer hate is strong in this thread. HTFU and/or get ISBoxer yourself. The 32-man bomber squads are the exception and not the rule.

            October 29, 2014 at 16:30
          2. Random CFC Grunt

            Bad troll is bad. CCP are going to ban IS sooner or later, your butthurt at that point is going to be more epic than the Oddyssey and well worth the wait. As far as 30-character bomb squads go – my 3 accounts are quite sufficient for me so thanks but no.

            October 29, 2014 at 16:39
          3. Aderoth Anstian

            meh. if/when CCP bans ISBoxer I will be no more butthurt than you. I too only run 3 clients max at a time. I use ISBoxer for window management and that’s it. People hate on ISBoxer because of the 32-man bomb squads (very small minority) while the majority of users have it for the same reason I do.

            October 30, 2014 at 15:31
          4. Turd Burd

            Stalk the ISO Boxer! One Purifier with a well placed bomb and suddenly your ISO Boxer is controlling a fleet of capsules.

            October 29, 2014 at 17:00
          5. hoodaticus

            ISBoxer gives no advantage on a per-account basis. Even synchronized alpha can be achieved with fc countdown.

            October 29, 2014 at 23:20
          6. random CFC scrub

            isboxer is NOT a bot ,it mirrors keyboard /mouse inputs across multiple clients so its effectively controlled by the player no its not breaking the EULA in any way so HTFU

            October 30, 2014 at 11:35
          7. Random CFC Grunt

            1. I’m not saying it’s a bot.
            2. It gives you an unfair advantage (as I stated earlier, do a synchronized decloak->lock->attack on 20+ accounts without it, not seeing an advantage in doing all this in 10 seconds instead of 2 minutes would mean you’re an idiot)
            3. The player is controlling ONE client, every other is being controlled by IS by mirroring of your mouse movement, key presses.

            HTFU yourself mr IS defender, the fact is IS is as legit as a fucking bot and no amounts of lies and spin will change that.

            October 30, 2014 at 14:19
          8. lunchreader

            Nothing to do with bots, it still requires someone behind the computer to think, use the keyboard, the mouse and adapt to situation by his own brain. Strop crying like a CFC victim that was slained on a jump bridge (do you ? ), just be smarter and you will be safe.

            October 31, 2014 at 12:22
      2. Best change is gone

        Cloaking mechanics should change. No reason for 100 bombers to decloak around you sb bomb at intervals…is boxer or not.

        October 29, 2014 at 13:22 Reply
        1. lunchreader

          oh yes there is one… warp fleet option would not work anymore, and cloakers would have worry about every movement they make… We need CCP to develop a kind of overview of cloakers in fleet before you even think of touching at current cloaking abilities.

          October 31, 2014 at 12:16 Reply
  6. Null

    I knew CCP would not be brave enough to make the only change that mattered regarding cloaking. What we are tired of is highly skilled players being bombed by highly incompitent players. I gues we can all just fly sbs and ignore all the other ship types as CCP insists. Or we could just stop playing EvE.

    October 29, 2014 at 13:26 Reply
    1. Ming Tso

      Can I have your stuff?

      October 29, 2014 at 13:43 Reply
    2. Guest

      Its near impossible to win an engagement with bombers alone. Bombers in their current iteration are used as a support vessel or for hit and run tactics.

      “What we are tired of is highly skilled players being bombed by highly incompitent players.”

      In regards to that statement, isn’t it kind of the point for bombers to be easy for newer players to train into and be able to make a larger impact on nullsec engagements than if they flew a tackle frig. I think the current stealth bomber is relatively healthy and having a problem with ISBoxers is a minor annoyance compared to nerfing bombers hard with the proposed cloaking change. That would have made bombers much more difficult for new players to fly and survive since they can’t afford to replace a T2 frig hull very often.

      October 29, 2014 at 14:12 Reply
      1. brathahn

        decloaking is no hard nerf, it is just playing with other people in fleet and listening to the FCs command and warp around at range, create bounce spots on land and organize them and all the shit people did in the past when bombers decloaked each other.

        it is not hard to learn, it is only impossible for any kind of multiboxing via software or hardware. and yes, it is still possible to do multiboxer fleets by hand (slow as fuck to set up and warp around).

        October 29, 2014 at 23:28 Reply
        1. lunchreader

          what you describe here is only applicable to very long fights or static targets. In a fast moving environment, this would not be playable for SB, leaving them only used for solo and for blops hot drop. CCP saved them from this limited use.

          October 31, 2014 at 12:13 Reply
    3. l2pilot

      …Highly skilled players orbiting anchor and pushing f1.. Ever heard of manual piloting and breaking formation

      October 29, 2014 at 14:20 Reply
  7. gg

    WoW generations tears were heard, and good fights will keep being disrupted by easymode bombers.

    October 29, 2014 at 14:13 Reply
  8. Peckerweed Pete

    If ISboxing is allowed, then cloaking gangs of SteathBombers should be allowed to ply their trade in High Sec.

    I wonder how long the ISboxers will sit for ISboxed SBs decimating their mining fleets in HS.


    October 29, 2014 at 14:49 Reply
  9. Creeping Kaos

    This is great news! Now my space tub filled with tears will not uncloak my fleetmates space tub filled with tears.
    Long live NPSI
    Long live Spectre Fleet

    October 29, 2014 at 14:50 Reply
    1. Turd Burd

      Better watch out for Ninja Fleet. We are a comin’ for ya!

      October 29, 2014 at 16:56 Reply
  10. Null/wh pilot.

    They need to just come out and make ISboxer against the rules to use in game rather than create stupid in game mechanics to try and prevent it which hurt people who don’t use the program more than those who do.

    October 29, 2014 at 15:07 Reply
    1. Kyeudo

      ISboxer’s effects can be reproduced using existing hardware. If they want to try banning it, they open up a can of worms trying to define what types of multi-boxing are allowed and which aren’t. The rich kids would win and everyone else would lose.

      October 29, 2014 at 15:22 Reply
      1. null/wh pilot

        I’ve seen the asinine set up which people use to try and simulate isboxer. however even those have physical limits on what is achievable. yes i have seen people multibox 5 accounts with no software assisting them. and i have seen the 9 mice taped together with wooden rods to do the same thing. I don’t have a problem with that. if you have the free time and patience for that stupid shit, go ahead…..I have a problem when one person is capable of controlling 20 something mining barges in synchronization or (even worse) 32 stealth bombers at the same time. That’s not even in the realm of possibility outside of software assistance which is the reason that isboxer or any other similar software should be against the EULA. it is a very distinct advantage to those who have it over anyone else who does not.

        October 29, 2014 at 18:29 Reply
        1. Dracallus

          So basically you’re saying that multiboxing that many accounts should be limited to those with money and access to specialized knowledge, such as electrical engineering? Since you could build a physical setup that would allow you to control however many accounts you might want.

          October 29, 2014 at 19:31 Reply
          1. DoesNotCompare

            And 2 people might actually do it. Go away idiot.

            October 29, 2014 at 21:49
          2. hoodaticus

            Those two people would then sell them to the rest of us, retard.

            October 29, 2014 at 23:17
          3. Dracallus

            Then you’ll be back on here complaining just as loudly about those two people and how their hardware gives them a perceived unfair advantage.

            October 29, 2014 at 23:56
        2. Slow

          Did anyone else picture a small furry ball that squeaks and look something like a WW2 sea mine when he mentions taping mice together 🙂

          October 29, 2014 at 22:08 Reply
    2. HonaChaginai

      ISboxer is difficult to ban. Some people are really good at multiboxing, maybe its really a guy selecting each asteroid in his 50 man fleet, it opens up so many things that CCP would rather not bother with.

      October 30, 2014 at 14:29 Reply
  11. Noisrevbus

    So they decided to re-consider the only change in this patch that actually helped smaller groups compete with fewer numbers in an up-engaging and somewhat balanced manner?

    An answer to the predictable why would have been nice too.


    October 29, 2014 at 17:36 Reply
    1. Noisrevbus

      In fact, I’ll just mirror this:
      DNS Black
      Elise Randolph

      Personally, I literally don’t give a shit about ISboxer – this isn’t about scripting and never has been – it’s exactly about what Elise prefaces it with: a question of execution to power. I am firmly in the camp of keeping Bombers powerful because that aid a small group using these types of ships primarily made for small groups and intricate use. High risk, high reward.

      That’s why the old covert tactics were good – they rested upon a relative balance between risk and reward. The more ships you involved (for a higher reward) the more difficult it became to execute (risk). EVE needs more inclusive balance like that, not less. Nevermind that most spontaneous content is driven by fuckups (risk of failure). Fuckups are good.

      The other camp is seemingly made up of the “F1 monkeys of Bombing” who can’t seem to argue why their Bombers need a crutch. The likes of MoA (the thousand man underdog alliance, lol), Venga (who turned to shit after all the PL alts left, joined Nulli and has not done anything worthwhile since; a shame too since Noah is a good guy) and Noir (no comment).

      It’s a shame that this discussion is stuck on ISboxer or the merits of creating difficulty when the real question is why Bombers needed a crutch to begin with. No one seems to answer that question or argue along those lines. Seriously, why do Bombers need a crutch that allow a single FC to warp these high-tech, specialist, covert, trickshot machines around without a care in the world? It goes against both balance and concept. That is indefensively stupid.

      That sums it up, there are some of us arguing why the change was needed and why the specific proposed change was good – there are others who can’t seem to fathom the situation and keep wondering why the change was ever on the table. There are only two ways to interprete that, either they wish to keep their minute-window in the spotlight or they do not realize that a change will be comming and any other solution is much more likely to hurt the little guy doing smart and interesting things with covert tactics. They will be adressed sooner or later and it’s only really a question if they want someone smaller and creative to be more hurt than they will be in the end. Far too blinded by their own ingame context.

      To state the obvious: It’s small groups, like Rooks and Kings, who engineer out-of-box approaches to the game, create compelling illustrations and narratives, and tells stories in this game about telling stories. Always risky. You are never going to see some thousand man blob-bombing crew create interesting movies and their contribution to the game is not above any other “blob”. If you actually like small groups, spontaneous content and fresh tactics you are for high-risk approaches like pre-crutch Coverts – if you are against it you only dress yourself as such while being no better than whichever of the big bad blocs you oppose.

      That’s it.

      October 29, 2014 at 22:35 Reply
      1. let's not indeed

        Literally a nobody, with zero kills to his name writing a wall of text. Nothing to see here.

        October 30, 2014 at 03:12 Reply
        1. Noisrevbus

          I’m sorry, did I mention your alliance by name? 😉

          October 30, 2014 at 11:08 Reply
  12. ISB Online

    So what I’ve gathered is it goes something like this “i can pilot 100 accounts… All using macros and scripts to do what would normally take fleet/community but you know i’m still legit because with out my mining fleets the whole economy will come crashing to a halt…”

    ISboxer­­™ “Why pilot a ship when you can pilot a fleet.”

    Then the boxers are like seems legit

    CCP is like totally “Legit*”

    Everyone else is like
    something, something, “EULA”.
    something, something, “Fairness”
    something, something, “WTF”

    October 29, 2014 at 20:20 Reply
    1. heh

      Technically speaking an ISboxer would have less of a problem with the decloaking as a group of different people would. If anything the decloaking would make a move for more people using IS boxer as it could be controlled better and you wouldn’t have to worry about noobs f’ing it up for you. Now I think bombers in general are buffed too much and they should put in the decloaking, but I wouldn’t be so naive to think that would effect IS boxers. I would personally think it effects groups like bombers bar more than anyone. People who recruit new people in NPSI channels and rely on them to have just a moderate amount of competence to get the job done.

      October 30, 2014 at 00:08 Reply
      1. Tim

        Uhhh, not really. The problem is that they can all be spread out cloaked, then warp to a target, but then they have no way of warping away without clustering, meaning they can be scanned down until they manage to get away from each other. Normal players can scatter with ease, but it’s hard to accomplish with an isboxer fleet.

        October 30, 2014 at 08:12 Reply
  13. Vet

    Instead of flying the other one hundred pvp ships I have spent my eve career training for I am going to fly bombers like everyone else. Good job ccp.

    October 30, 2014 at 06:59 Reply
  14. crybabies

    without bombers and the like small alliances cant fight the blob and we are back to square 1 with people gravitating to larger coalitions for protection..god i cant believe people are still moaning about bombers , u got like 12 secs to move now lol …ever heard of defensive bubbles? ,staying aligned ? ..this game is full of F1 monkeys whos only skill-set is to anchor the FC and whore on Killmails and u complain that bombers are eazy mode ,90% of you scrubs in nullsec should go to FW or lowsec to learn how to pvp if u cant avoid a 12 sec bomb

    October 30, 2014 at 11:30 Reply
    1. fuckyoudisqus

      You should forget FW and start imagining how a 300 players fight looks like,
      When you have 100ish ishtar, a-hac that are shooting at your fleet do you think you can also check their movements while you have to be paranoid about those 30 bombers in system waiting to wipe both fleet?

      October 30, 2014 at 23:54 Reply
      1. lunchreader

        and why should you feel safe in 0.0 anyway ?

        October 31, 2014 at 12:23 Reply
    2. CarlGustav

      what the main issue is here for me is not the Excelent bomber commanders

      its the ISBOXER bomb groups where one player warps his wing in one after another doing perfect attack runs over and over and over …

      even if he is only boxing one wing / player its to strong …
      think of it like someone dropping 8 bombs in one go its the same fundamental issue i had with the Assigned drone mechanics …. it was to good.

      October 31, 2014 at 11:45 Reply
  15. Extraordinaire envoir très rapide – human hair wigs a min soigné – article très bon état – Génial !

    June 19, 2018 at 05:20 Reply
  16. I simply want to tell you that I am all new to blogs and seriously liked you’re web site. Very likely I’m likely to bookmark your site . You certainly have awesome posts. Thank you for sharing your webpage.

    April 2, 2019 at 19:35 Reply
  17. Hello Dear, are you really visiting this web page daily, if so
    after that you will definitely get pleasant knowledge.

    April 6, 2019 at 22:29 Reply
  18. How do you protect articles put on a website against copyright infringement?

    April 8, 2019 at 23:07 Reply
  19. I conceive you have noted some very interesting details , thanks for the post.

    April 9, 2019 at 10:41 Reply
  20. How do I allow contributors to see only their uploads in WordPress?

    April 9, 2019 at 23:15 Reply
  21. I wish to acquire even more followers by submitting my photos to blog sites. Like when individuals click via, they will connect to my blog.

    April 13, 2019 at 22:41 Reply

Leave a Reply