EVE General Discussion

QFT Signed

I like how those cheating (ruining the game) get slapped in the face finally, and they try to equivocate their use of it.

The point being you go from the enemy you know to the dozens you don't.

Don't get me wrong I would not do this but it is not that hard. Put a programed PIE between your mouse and keyboard and who ever sells them makes a killing and there is no way to detect it.

My faith in humanity has improved after reading the first 1/4 of this thread. So much entitlement from the botters. Plus the glorious tears, Let them flow. Good call CCP.

So is Squad / wing or fleet warps a bannable offense?
(• Navigation and movement within the EVE universe)

As this moves multiple accounts at once.

I think this is a move to discourage third party support for EVE, so that CCP can own and balance in-game automation.

I'm going to stake whatever reputation I have on claiming this is not a move to murder multiboxing. It's a first step in owning and balancing it.

Related Features and Ideas suggestion I felt compelled to make after chewing on this announcement for a day.

Why should suicide ganking be mining-like? Ohmygodderpforever...

I'm not a CCP dev, but 20 plus ISboxer mining fleets would have been plenty of reason for this long ago were the decision mine. Killing other multiboxed activities facilitated by the same would just be the icing on the cake.

That said it's not a change in eve without someone getting a persecution complex over it.

The farthest I can stretch it is in theory it reduced mineral prices so we all have cheaper ships to blow up....in theory.

Something tells me that CCP isn't targeting miners, because mining is already suicidally-boring, and quite frankly, CCP needs all the miner bots it can get to supply the market with ore. Granted, we can let the invisible hand take over and pay the 50 ISK per unit of Trit that it's actually worth in a normal gameplay environment, so this isn't as troubling from this perspective.

However, in the case of suicide-ganking, it's much more worrisome, because that means that CCP is targeting it as an activity in a way that's different from decreasing the server-wide mineral output. Unlike any other activity in the game, freighter-ganking is one that relies on multiple participants in one form or another, and the time constraints inherent to it mean that one person can't do it as efficiently by slowly, manually tabbing through windows and activating the gankers one at a time.

Now, it's fine if CCP wishes to say that freighter-ganking should be a group thing, that's fine. But then they shouldn't hold it to a double standard, and change current game mechanics so that the activity is as alt-friendly as all others. It's a fact that CONCORD on grid results in a decreased CONCORD response time, which is a problem for someone trying to manually gank with multiple accounts, as each subsequent shooter after the first will suffer an efficiency loss. This type of penalty doesn't exist for someone manually mining with multiple accounts, whether or not they're using multiboxing software (the only difference they'd experience is an increase in effort).

CCP is literally saying that freighter-ganking is the only activity in the game that will now penalize small groups of players using alts in comparison to multiple players using one account each. And I personally don't think that such a double standard should exist.

PS: I don't multibox or gank freighters.

The toxicity in this thread from the general player base displayed toward multiboxers is really disconcerting. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself an EVE player.