These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

97 Account Multiboxing. Better Believe It.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#301 - 2014-01-18 19:41:28 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
one ship not sucking isn't justification for another ship to have a flaw.



Dave, you need to smile more. Big smile


are you on drugs?
Dave Stark
#302 - 2014-01-18 19:42:19 UTC
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
one ship not sucking isn't justification for another ship to have such glaring a flaw.

OK. I'll complain about the Nereus's mining yield. After all, the hulk's strength in yield isn't justification for the Nereys's glaring flaw, right?


no because the nereus isn't a mining ship.

if you're resorting to nonsense because you haven't got a legitimate point, stop posting. it's less embarrassing for both of us.
Ekkentros Mercari
EVE Landscape Services
#303 - 2014-01-18 19:47:02 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
no because the nereus isn't a mining ship.

Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship.

TL;DR: Don't reply.
Dave Stark
#304 - 2014-01-18 19:51:36 UTC
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no because the nereus isn't a mining ship.

Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship.


no ship is a tanking ship.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#305 - 2014-01-18 19:58:01 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
Louise Beethoven wrote:
These no life losers ruin the game for everyone


remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing?

oh wait, it isn't.


1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing.

Allow me to count the ways....

1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference.
2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth.
3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"?
4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all).
5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online".

Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W.
Dave Stark
#306 - 2014-01-18 19:59:33 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
Louise Beethoven wrote:
These no life losers ruin the game for everyone


remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing?

oh wait, it isn't.


1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing.

Allow me to count the ways....

1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference.
2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth.
3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"?
4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all).
5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online".

Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W.


yeah so as we'd already established there are no differences and it doesn't matter who is controlling the accounts. welcome to about 3 pages ago?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2014-01-18 20:00:06 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
Louise Beethoven wrote:
These no life losers ruin the game for everyone


remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing?

oh wait, it isn't.


1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing.

Allow me to count the ways....

1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference.
2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth.
3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"?
4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all).
5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online".

Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W.


Highsec happened, you all whined for it don't you appreciate it now :smug:?

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#308 - 2014-01-18 20:01:29 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Alaekessa wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
Louise Beethoven wrote:
These no life losers ruin the game for everyone


remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing?

oh wait, it isn't.


1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing.

Allow me to count the ways....

1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference.
2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth.
3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"?
4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all).
5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online".

Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W.


Highsec happened, you all whined for it don't you appreciate it now :smug:?

Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that.
Ekkentros Mercari
EVE Landscape Services
#309 - 2014-01-18 20:02:38 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no because the nereus isn't a mining ship.

Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship.


no ship is a tanking ship.

Aye. The hulk's weakness is it's weak tank.

So I'm guessing you think that the hulk should lose a couple of mids in light of the fact it wouldn't be able to fit medium size shield mods without sacrificing some harvesters?

TL;DR: Don't reply.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2014-01-18 20:04:21 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that.


I'll do that once you start campaigning for highsec risk increases or reward decreases, until then you're just another highsec pubbie that is now feeling the pain of making highsec safer and buffing it :smug:.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Dave Stark
#311 - 2014-01-18 20:07:09 UTC
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no because the nereus isn't a mining ship.

Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship.


no ship is a tanking ship.

Aye. The hulk's weakness is it's weak tank.

So I'm guessing you think that the hulk should lose a couple of mids in light of the fact it wouldn't be able to fit medium size shield mods without sacrificing some harvesters?


there's a difference between the hulk having a "weak tank" which it is obviously meant to have, and the simple fact that it doesn't have the cpu/pg to fit a tank once mining modules have been fitted.

no, losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it.
Ekkentros Mercari
EVE Landscape Services
#312 - 2014-01-18 20:23:52 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it.

Actually, a mid-slot removal may well be necessary. Combined with a PG increase of ~8-10, you could fit a med shield extender, along with the rest of the tank. Even without a 4th mid slot however, you could still fit 4kEHP more than now. The compensation would come from your suggested native tank nerf.

TL;DR: Don't reply.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#313 - 2014-01-18 20:24:19 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Alaekessa wrote:
Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that.


I'll do that once you start campaigning for highsec risk increases or reward decreases, until then you're just another highsec pubbie that is now feeling the pain of making highsec safer and buffing it :smug:.

I'll let you tell me what to campaign for once you start admitting that there is a difference between 97 guys in a fleet and 1 guy controlling a 97 account fleet, until then you're just another one of the only ~300 goons that each multibox ~40 accounts to boost your numbers.

Yes, I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that there really isn't ~12k goons but that there are only really about 300 neckbeards each multiboxing ~40 accounts. Might explain why you defend multiboxing as you do.

#tinfoilorisit?
Dave Stark
#314 - 2014-01-18 20:27:13 UTC
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it.

Actually, a mid-slot removal may well be necessary. Combined with a PG increase of ~8-10, you could fit a med shield extender, along with the rest of the tank. Even without a 4th mid slot however, you could still fit 4kEHP more than now. The compensation would come from your suggested native tank nerf.


*shrug* i leave the balance and numbers up to CCP. however having a ship that simply can't fill all of it's slots is pretty dumb.

as i pointed out, once i've put mag stabs on my vindi, that can still fit a more than sufficient tank. There's no reason why a hulk shouldn't be able to do the same, even if i have to downgrade to meta modules. fitting implants etc are an acceptable price to pay to upgrade that to t2.

i don't expect to have max tank and yield, but on the other hand fitting for max yield shouldn't stop me filling my mid slots with useful modules. (again, even if they have to be meta 4 to fit.)
Ekkentros Mercari
EVE Landscape Services
#315 - 2014-01-18 20:35:58 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it.

Actually, a mid-slot removal may well be necessary. Combined with a PG increase of ~8-10, you could fit a med shield extender, along with the rest of the tank. Even without a 4th mid slot however, you could still fit 4kEHP more than now. The compensation would come from your suggested native tank nerf.


*shrug* i leave the balance and numbers up to CCP. however having a ship that simply can't fill all of it's slots is pretty dumb.

as i pointed out, once i've put mag stabs on my vindi, that can still fit a more than sufficient tank. There's no reason why a hulk shouldn't be able to do the same, even if i have to downgrade to meta modules. fitting implants etc are an acceptable price to pay to upgrade that to t2.

i don't expect to have max tank and yield, but on the other hand fitting for max yield shouldn't stop me filling my mid slots with useful modules. (again, even if they have to be meta 4 to fit.)

That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many?

TL;DR: Don't reply.
Dave Stark
#316 - 2014-01-18 20:38:59 UTC
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many?


if they nerf the innate ehp, yes. if not, then no.
Ekkentros Mercari
EVE Landscape Services
#317 - 2014-01-18 20:43:09 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many?


if they nerf the innate ehp, yes. if not, then no.

What would you use the 4 mids for, if you have a better PG and/or CPU?

TL;DR: Don't reply.
Dave Stark
#318 - 2014-01-18 20:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many?


if they nerf the innate ehp, yes. if not, then no.

What would you use the 4 mids for, if you have a better PG and/or CPU?

tank?
not quite sure tracking enhancerscomputers are all that useful on a hulk.

edit: i don't know the difference between TE and TCs because i'm amazing like that.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#319 - 2014-01-18 21:15:55 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Alaekessa wrote:
Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that.


I'll do that once you start campaigning for highsec risk increases or reward decreases, until then you're just another highsec pubbie that is now feeling the pain of making highsec safer and buffing it :smug:.

I'll let you tell me what to campaign for once you start admitting that there is a difference between 97 guys in a fleet and 1 guy controlling a 97 account fleet, until then you're just another one of the only ~300 goons that each multibox ~40 accounts to boost your numbers.

Yes, I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that there really isn't ~12k goons but that there are only really about 300 neckbeards each multiboxing ~40 accounts. Might explain why you defend multiboxing as you do.

#tinfoilorisit?


I'm not saying a thing about multiboxing, I'm laughing at you and the highsec crew that whines about how they can't do anything about it. If you and the highsec crew hadn't screamed for safety buffs and ganking nerfs it'd be easier to deal with this. So please continue whining about the bed you and the rest of the highsec pubbies made :smug:.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Desmond Strickler
#320 - 2014-01-18 22:59:08 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
one ship not sucking isn't justification for another ship to have such glaring a flaw.

OK. I'll complain about the Nereus's mining yield. After all, the hulk's strength in yield isn't justification for the Nereys's glaring flaw, right?


no because the nereus isn't a mining ship.

if you're resorting to nonsense because you haven't got a legitimate point, stop posting. it's less embarrassing for both of us.


nereus my not be a mining ship, but it is one hell of a pvp ship.

[b]Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy

"My other dread is a Swaglafar"[/b]