These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

total multibox domination

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Prince Kobol
#101 - 2014-11-17 19:00:04 UTC
DaReaper wrote:
See.. here is the issue with this whole anti multibox thing...

Eve is not a theme park.

I'll tell you, very simply why multiboxing is not play to win in eve...

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO WIN.




Funny enough that is part of the reason why I know so many people do not play Eve lol

I understand what you are saying and I kind of agree however it I do believe that the whole mutlibox thing is getting out of hand.

The real question is why are more and more people feeling the need to own x amount of accounts and using tools like ISboxer instead actually playing with other people
Longtom McGregor
2ndAmendment
#102 - 2014-11-17 19:00:18 UTC
Jvpiter wrote:
Longtom McGregor wrote:

I made no mistake. You assumed, (hoping) to prove a point. I WAS scouting, and I lived.

Also, YOU are the one who moved the goalpost, sir. Not the other poster. You conveniently side-steped the fact that this guy can't be attacked or challenged. That's pay to win - pay to win - pay to win.

Friends? So basically, this guy's fifteen accounts equals fifteen of my friends? (Pay to win, anybody?)

Any way you wanna f*$c that football, it's pay to win. Skills don't matter in that fight. Whoever has the most accounts, the most MONEY invested in the game, wins. (psst, pay to win)

Did I say "pay to win" enough?



You were scouting and you lived? Well that's wonderful! Apparently there is a way around a multiboxed gatecamp, then.


This guy can't be attacked or challenged by who? Yourself? 15 of your friends? Why do you think you alone should be able to challenge 15 ships?


Do you have 15 friends? Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? How would it be any different if 15 people challenged you instead?


You said "pay to win" plenty of times. I don't see where you've demonstrated where a multiboxed gatecamp fits that definition.




Not fifteen ships. There you go moving the goalpost again. ONE GUY. Five people couldn't have challenged this one guy who payed to win.

Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? Maybe I needed to move something through that system? Your question is irrelevant. The result is this - ONE GUY who paid hundreds of dollars paid enough to deny the system to other, older, more skilled players, affecting their gameplay.

You don't understand how a multibox gatecamp fits pay-to-win? Then I think we're done with this discussion. Next, you'll tell me that you don't understand why cars have wheels.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#103 - 2014-11-17 19:01:43 UTC
Longtom McGregor wrote:

Incompetencies? So having one account is an incompetency? Or is not being able to challenge and kill a guy with three accounts an incompetency? I'm sorry. I'll run out and buy 3 more accounts so I'm not "incompetent."



You are free to challenge 3 ships if your 1 ship can destroy 3 ships.


What difference does it make how many human beings are behind those 3 ships?


Still not seeing that explanation anywhere. I've asked the question a few times now.

Call me Joe.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2014-11-17 19:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jvpiter
Longtom McGregor wrote:


Not fifteen ships. There you go moving the goalpost again. ONE GUY. Five people couldn't have challenged this one guy who payed to win.

Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? Maybe I needed to move something through that system? Your question is irrelevant. The result is this - ONE GUY who paid hundreds of dollars paid enough to deny the system to other, older, more skilled players, affecting their gameplay.

You don't understand how a multibox gatecamp fits pay-to-win? Then I think we're done with this discussion. Next, you'll tell me that you don't understand why cars have wheels.



You don't seem to understand the term "moving goalposts". This means that I set a standard, and then I redefine that standard right in the middle of our discussion.


I don't accept your "one guy" standard. I just accept the "15 ships" standard. My stance has not changed.


5 ships vs. 15 ships should statistically mean the 15 ships win. I'm not sure why you have difficulty grasping that concept.


The only objection to a single human being piloting 15 ships is an emotional one. The emotional objection has nothing to do with gameplay mechanics.

Call me Joe.
Longtom McGregor
2ndAmendment
#105 - 2014-11-17 19:05:24 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
See.. here is the issue with this whole anti multibox thing...

Eve is not a theme park.

I'll tell you, very simply why multiboxing is not play to win in eve...

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO WIN.




Funny enough that is part of the reason why I know so many people do not play Eve lol

I understand what you are saying and I kind of agree however it I do believe that the whole mutlibox thing is getting out of hand.

The real question is why are more and more people feeling the need to own x amount of accounts and using tools like ISboxer instead actually playing with other people



One guy moving 20 ships into a system and sucking the ore dry in a matter of minutes isn't "out of hand?" That not only denies resources to single account holders, but it also negatively affects the market.

One guy with 10 accounts repping himself beyond any hope of damaging his ship isn't "out of hand?"

How about the 40 some dead wrecks at that gate? Was that "out of hand?"
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#106 - 2014-11-17 19:07:01 UTC
Longtom McGregor wrote:
Jvpiter wrote:
Longtom McGregor wrote:

I made no mistake. You assumed, (hoping) to prove a point. I WAS scouting, and I lived.

Also, YOU are the one who moved the goalpost, sir. Not the other poster. You conveniently side-steped the fact that this guy can't be attacked or challenged. That's pay to win - pay to win - pay to win.

Friends? So basically, this guy's fifteen accounts equals fifteen of my friends? (Pay to win, anybody?)

Any way you wanna f*$c that football, it's pay to win. Skills don't matter in that fight. Whoever has the most accounts, the most MONEY invested in the game, wins. (psst, pay to win)

Did I say "pay to win" enough?



You were scouting and you lived? Well that's wonderful! Apparently there is a way around a multiboxed gatecamp, then.


This guy can't be attacked or challenged by who? Yourself? 15 of your friends? Why do you think you alone should be able to challenge 15 ships?


Do you have 15 friends? Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? How would it be any different if 15 people challenged you instead?


You said "pay to win" plenty of times. I don't see where you've demonstrated where a multiboxed gatecamp fits that definition.




Not fifteen ships. There you go moving the goalpost again. ONE GUY. Five people couldn't have challenged this one guy who payed to win.

Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? Maybe I needed to move something through that system? Your question is irrelevant. The result is this - ONE GUY who paid hundreds of dollars paid enough to deny the system to other, older, more skilled players, affecting their gameplay.

You don't understand how a multibox gatecamp fits pay-to-win? Then I think we're done with this discussion. Next, you'll tell me that you don't understand why cars have wheels.


This is an example of the incompetence I mention. 15 ships or 1500, you can't deny anyone entry to a system in EVE.

MWD+cloak trick, bubble immune ships like ceptors and T3s, bypassing the system completely via jump drives or wormholes. if someones can lock you out of a system in a game where such locking out is impossible, that is the definition of incompetent.


The bolded part is the 'tell' here. The OP is mad that (at leas tin his mind) someone can find a way to negate the advantages HE invested in. He thinks being 'older' should equal victory in all cases, and some scrub who can potentially outplay him by using a legal tool is something that should not be possible.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#107 - 2014-11-17 19:10:31 UTC
Longtom McGregor wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
See.. here is the issue with this whole anti multibox thing...

Eve is not a theme park.

I'll tell you, very simply why multiboxing is not play to win in eve...

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO WIN.




Funny enough that is part of the reason why I know so many people do not play Eve lol

I understand what you are saying and I kind of agree however it I do believe that the whole mutlibox thing is getting out of hand.

The real question is why are more and more people feeling the need to own x amount of accounts and using tools like ISboxer instead actually playing with other people



One guy moving 20 ships into a system and sucking the ore dry in a matter of minutes isn't "out of hand?" That not only denies resources to single account holders, but it also negatively affects the market.

One guy with 10 accounts repping himself beyond any hope of damaging his ship isn't "out of hand?"

How about the 40 some dead wrecks at that gate? Was that "out of hand?"


What's "out of hand" is not knowing what the 3 letters "ECM" means in EVE Online, or what said ECM does to isboxing freaks remote repping himself.

Nothing is stopping "single account holders" from grouping up to suck the resources dry 1st. Well, nothing but their anti-social emo personalities that it lol.

40 wrecks on a gate just means that out of the thousands of extant EVE players, about 3 dozen of them are stupid as hell. less if they were isboxing...
Longtom McGregor
2ndAmendment
#108 - 2014-11-17 19:13:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Longtom McGregor wrote:
Jvpiter wrote:
Longtom McGregor wrote:

I made no mistake. You assumed, (hoping) to prove a point. I WAS scouting, and I lived.

Also, YOU are the one who moved the goalpost, sir. Not the other poster. You conveniently side-steped the fact that this guy can't be attacked or challenged. That's pay to win - pay to win - pay to win.

Friends? So basically, this guy's fifteen accounts equals fifteen of my friends? (Pay to win, anybody?)

Any way you wanna f*$c that football, it's pay to win. Skills don't matter in that fight. Whoever has the most accounts, the most MONEY invested in the game, wins. (psst, pay to win)

Did I say "pay to win" enough?



You were scouting and you lived? Well that's wonderful! Apparently there is a way around a multiboxed gatecamp, then.


This guy can't be attacked or challenged by who? Yourself? 15 of your friends? Why do you think you alone should be able to challenge 15 ships?


Do you have 15 friends? Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? How would it be any different if 15 people challenged you instead?


You said "pay to win" plenty of times. I don't see where you've demonstrated where a multiboxed gatecamp fits that definition.




Not fifteen ships. There you go moving the goalpost again. ONE GUY. Five people couldn't have challenged this one guy who payed to win.

Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? Maybe I needed to move something through that system? Your question is irrelevant. The result is this - ONE GUY who paid hundreds of dollars paid enough to deny the system to other, older, more skilled players, affecting their gameplay.

You don't understand how a multibox gatecamp fits pay-to-win? Then I think we're done with this discussion. Next, you'll tell me that you don't understand why cars have wheels.


This is an example of the incompetence I mention. 15 ships or 1500, you can't deny anyone entry to a system in EVE.

MWD+cloak trick, bubble immune ships like ceptors and T3s, bypassing the system completely via jump drives or wormholes. if someones can lock you out of a system in a game where such locking out is impossible, that is the definition of incompetent.


The bolded part is the 'tell' here. The OP is mad that (at leas tin his mind) someone can find a way to negate the advantages HE invested in. He thinks being 'older' should equal victory in all cases, and some scrub who can potentially outplay him by using a legal tool is something that should not be possible.




Speaking of "tells," which I've underlined in YOUR post, exactly. I couldn't have said it better, myself. Pay-to-win. I also have to alter my gameplay, sometimes by avoiding certain activities all together, to combat against pay-to-win.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#109 - 2014-11-17 19:13:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jvpiter
Longtom McGregor wrote:


One guy moving 20 ships into a system and sucking the ore dry in a matter of minutes isn't "out of hand?" That not only denies resources to single account holders, but it also negatively affects the market.

One guy with 10 accounts repping himself beyond any hope of damaging his ship isn't "out of hand?"

How about the 40 some dead wrecks at that gate? Was that "out of hand?"



Yes, it's out of hand. Mining needs to be tweaked so it can't be done AFK.

E: This quote from Jenn aSide is relevant. Miners do not work together. It is absolutely their fault that they do not.

Quote:
Nothing is stopping "single account holders" from grouping up to suck the resources dry 1st. Well, nothing but their anti-social emo personalities that it lol.





Yes, it's out of hand. Yes, CCP needs to fix off grid links, as has been stated many times.


No, it's not.


See how that works? It's not a simple yes or no checkbox. If you're going to make your case, don't try to frame it as if a multiboxed gatecamp is overpowered -- it is not.


EVE is a complicated game. It does not lend itself well to simplistic arguments and generalizations.

Call me Joe.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#110 - 2014-11-17 19:16:08 UTC
Jvpiter wrote:



The only objection to a single human being piloting 15 ships is an emotional one. The emotional objection has nothing to do with gameplay mechanics.



That's pretty much it. What the OP is saying is the same as trying to be a basketball player who is adamantly opposed to jumping in the air who then complains about being dunked on by someone who knows that jumping is part of the game lol.

The problem in this thread is the same problem in most GD complaint theads, ie a poster wants to be angry with some external injustice when the problem is more internal than that.

I've watched isboxer dudes eat up anoms in ratting systems (back when I lived in fountain and was in TEST) so fast that it was crazy. My solution was to find another system , not crate forum posts about it.
Longtom McGregor
2ndAmendment
#111 - 2014-11-17 19:18:50 UTC
Those in this thread who are defending pay-to-win are doing so because they're pay-to-win players, and have a vested interest in defending their pay-to-win assets.

This is understandable, as I'm sure they've invested a lot of money into it.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#112 - 2014-11-17 19:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Longtom McGregor wrote:



Speaking of "tells," which I've underlined in YOUR post, exactly. I couldn't have said it better, myself. Pay-to-win. I also have to alter my gameplay, sometimes by avoiding certain activities all together, to combat against pay-to-win.


You underlined MWD+cloak trick (a common thing in low sec) and jump drives and wormholes. These are things the game provides that let us move around.

The problem with those things said that you underlined are what exactly?
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#113 - 2014-11-17 19:20:45 UTC
Longtom McGregor wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
See.. here is the issue with this whole anti multibox thing...

Eve is not a theme park.

I'll tell you, very simply why multiboxing is not play to win in eve...

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO WIN.




Funny enough that is part of the reason why I know so many people do not play Eve lol

I understand what you are saying and I kind of agree however it I do believe that the whole mutlibox thing is getting out of hand.

The real question is why are more and more people feeling the need to own x amount of accounts and using tools like ISboxer instead actually playing with other people



One guy moving 20 ships into a system and sucking the ore dry in a matter of minutes isn't "out of hand?" That not only denies resources to single account holders, but it also negatively affects the market.

One guy with 10 accounts repping himself beyond any hope of damaging his ship isn't "out of hand?"

How about the 40 some dead wrecks at that gate? Was that "out of hand?"



You show me a guy mining with 20 multiboxed ships and taking all the ore in my system and i'll show you 24 wrecks after I refit and smart bomb or nuke his mining fleet as well as my 3 ships.

No one is stoping you or anyone else for dealing with an idiot who has miners grouped together from being space dust.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#114 - 2014-11-17 19:21:42 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
It allows a single human being to enjoy the fruits of simultaneous labor by multiple pilots. It unduly rewards those who are willing to purchase better hardware, more subscriptions, and more plex to acquire in game assets. It fundamentally conflicts with the idea that the human being is the solitary pilot logged on, and should be solely entitled to the output of that pilot.


Some players only have the skill to fit one gun or launcher. Should we ban all multi-weapon setups because it's not fair to that guy?

Of course not.

So, why do you people want to limit the number of guns a pilot can control just because he's dedicated (obsessive?) enough to spread them over a couple of accts? It makes no sense.

Mr Epeen Cool
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#115 - 2014-11-17 19:22:58 UTC  |  Edited by: DaReaper
Longtom McGregor wrote:
Jvpiter wrote:
Longtom McGregor wrote:

I made no mistake. You assumed, (hoping) to prove a point. I WAS scouting, and I lived.

Also, YOU are the one who moved the goalpost, sir. Not the other poster. You conveniently side-steped the fact that this guy can't be attacked or challenged. That's pay to win - pay to win - pay to win.

Friends? So basically, this guy's fifteen accounts equals fifteen of my friends? (Pay to win, anybody?)

Any way you wanna f*$c that football, it's pay to win. Skills don't matter in that fight. Whoever has the most accounts, the most MONEY invested in the game, wins. (psst, pay to win)

Did I say "pay to win" enough?



You were scouting and you lived? Well that's wonderful! Apparently there is a way around a multiboxed gatecamp, then.


This guy can't be attacked or challenged by who? Yourself? 15 of your friends? Why do you think you alone should be able to challenge 15 ships?


Do you have 15 friends? Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? How would it be any different if 15 people challenged you instead?


You said "pay to win" plenty of times. I don't see where you've demonstrated where a multiboxed gatecamp fits that definition.




Not fifteen ships. There you go moving the goalpost again. ONE GUY. Five people couldn't have challenged this one guy who payed to win.

Why do you need to challenge a band of 15 ships? Maybe I needed to move something through that system? Your question is irrelevant. The result is this - ONE GUY who paid hundreds of dollars paid enough to deny the system to other, older, more skilled players, affecting their gameplay.

You don't understand how a multibox gatecamp fits pay-to-win? Then I think we're done with this discussion. Next, you'll tell me that you don't understand why cars have wheels.


No goal post was moved. Because once again, it doesnlt matter if you were facing a single guy or 15, you still were facing 15 ships. you clearly survived the 15 ships, but still want to **** and moan about it. So would you have pissed and moaned if say goonswarm had 50 invidudual pilots on the same gate trying to kill you? The result is the same, you still die. Make friends, end of thread.

Edit: and clearly as you did not die, the guy with 15 accounts won nothing. So this is still not pay to win. Suck it up, ccp is not gonna change it, don't like it, go play one of the other games out there that you can play. Or MAKE FRIENDS

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Princess Honneamise
#116 - 2014-11-17 19:45:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Honneamise
best corp ever :

http://evewho.com/corp/Nullbear%20Tear%20Extractors

EVE MOONS PROJECT

http://eve-moons.com

The EVE MOONS PROJECT is the most complete and accurate moons database for Eve Online
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#117 - 2014-11-17 19:50:35 UTC
Hey look , it's this thread again.

/swaps out a fresh bucket.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#118 - 2014-11-17 20:05:08 UTC
I don't think multiboxing is truly the issue. If it generates more revenue for CCP why the hell not. Everyone profits ...

What's breaking things is key/mouse-broadcasting, because it effectively removes any downside that multiboxing several characters has.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#119 - 2014-11-17 20:29:58 UTC
Thread locked.


Thread locked.

The Rules:
17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.

As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)