Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So explain please how CCP make money out of isoboxer, other than the simplistic more accounts must equal more money?

With the exception of pure combat oriented play, IE bombing runs, the ability to run multiple synced accounts gives the opportunity to rat, mine, incursion play, mission and many other ISK generating activities at a rate that produces ISK at a higher rate than it takes to play for the plex too run them.

Otherwise there is little or no reason, the lack of engagement is certainly not the reason, and they are giving up fun to lose money.

There are few who are that intellectually challenged, so clearly it is about the isk.

Now these players are clearly not paying RL $ for these plex, so they give CCP no income directly whatsoever.

Plex are being purchased, but we can see by the relentless increase in the plex price, that these activities are not being funded by additional plexes being absorbed by the market.

The only people paying for ISOboxers and botting, are the players through increased plex prices.
The Plex they are consuming is being sourced from the market pool.
Supply is NOT equaling demand.

So with that in mind, I fall back on my original question.

So explain please how CCP make money out of isoboxer,

If you want to ever balance this equation, which is completely opposite in principle to the OP's request if it is decided that this is something that needs dealing with, there needs to be some feature that requires active and attentive user feedback.
for example a single frigate, that twists and turns in an unpredictable manner, and needs to be chased and caught, before any income making opportunity can be undertaken, with one such frigate spawned for each ship that warps in, and respawned regularly

Of course, there may be reasons for ISOboxer other than generating cash for CCP that make it valid. They will make that decision as it Suits their needs.
but the absurd idea that CCP are only doing it for the money, insults their intelligence and people who state that should feel ashamed of their naivety.

so in short, This is either a troll, or an attempt to put in place a mechanic, to replace ISOboxer as the OP is possibly afraid of losing it in the near future. ( or possibly a stealth nerf ISOboxer thread) or even a Machiavellian plot to support high plex prices, Hard to tell which.

no, learn to pilot your ships

Seems to me that the lesson of drone assign went right over your head.

There iis a precedent for why this should not be in the game.

Because it was too passive. Massive fleets mostly afk while one ship did all the work. This is from what real people told me not simply my imagination.

And when this fleet you seek is a fleet of ishtars? I'm not sure I see your point as huge fleets of carriers are still possible? Infact as far as that goes the only change in the last year to any of it has been a nerf to jump ranges necessitating localized forces on each front.

The claims of server lag wasn't just an issue of drones.

I can understand you want to make fleets more efficient I just think that removing the player from the equation (except as a means of getting his/her ship to the right system) in part or in whole is to high a price to pay in what is supposed to be a MMO.

Not supported.

That "massively" part is already convoluted in EVE. 30,000 logins and 200,000 subscriptions is not as many people. If an MMO is supposed to be one character per person, EVE fails.

There are several ways to look at it: EVE is not fun with just one character. Soloboxing in EVE is ineffective. Coordination between players is too clunky. Game mechanics are imbalanced in favor of remote modules. PVP is imbalanced in favor of offense.

If I'm wrong, please clarify your personal definition of an MMO.

EVE is an MMO, but not bound to some definition of the word "MMO". You may think or feel that an MMO should be certain things, in various aspects like multiboxing, but you know multiboxing is not going away any time soon, right.


I'm suggesting a way to make it easier to play with assets that I maintain. Eliminating players would be more like a mining or missioning AI that will complete tasks for me. That is far more extreme than this suggestion, that characters execute actions that I command them.

What I'm suggesting is far more powerful than ISBoxer could ever be. It is ship coordination above the client level.

I'm not saying put ISBoxer in the client. I'm talking about things like leadership commands (warp, regroup).

It's exactly the same right now though, amount of drones per ship in a fleet didn't change and they are still calculated separately.
The only change that took place I'm aware of is that you cannot synchronize entire fleet worth of drones anymore.

That's except Guristas ships ofc which actually have taken a hit to drone bandwidth.

Maybe tentatively I would agree with proposal, but those command should only be available to accounts linked by email address. So you can only control characters you own in that manner, otherwise yea, FC's would take control of whole fleets, you need isk find incursion fc to take control of your ship and make you money or in 0.0 fights FC's taking control of whole fleets is also OP.

All in all, if it gets implemented so you can control JUST your own characters I wouldn't object nor I would be over joyed about it, but otherwise would be terrible idea