Player Features and Ideas Discussion

dont see how this wouldnt be pay to win...

Sure youve got ppl like goons who would have enough ingame isk to make single player controlled freighter-destroying fleets of destroyers, but still... the fact that if this were in place, somebody could spend RL cash, to amass a fleet or several fleets that instantly respond to their commands.... im mean... pay to win...

you might as well be like: damage = base * plex

I'm ok with just playing space barbie, actually.

thanks, though, for the accusation of juvenile in particular. (running businesses. I like the sound of that)

One thing that comes to mind right now is something a friend of mine told me, who works at Riot. The main requirement for anyone who wants to work at Riot is that they play. A lot of harsh words and accusations are thrown around here, but I can't help thinking that's a big part of the issue. That devs don't play enough. And if they did, in playstyles that match the player base, I wouldn't sound like the crazy one by challenging this ... status quo. the elephant in the room. That multiboxing is a big part of EVE, and it deserves some attention, some streamlining.

I can't think of any other games where you can play the way a lot of us do, with multiple characters at a time. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's a part of EVE's identity as a game... am I? So why isn't it addressed with things that would allow players to do it better, even at the cost of reduced efficiency (no drugs, no heat, no local reps, even).

Don't you think it's irresponsible, or neglectful, or odd that multiple accounts are sold to players with almost no integration? What corollaries do you know of, where sales and development of a game are so disconnected?

Am I imagining things, or does multiboxing have a stigma, that even CCP would rather not talk about?

after playing in a wormhole for 6 months, Soundwave thought corp bookmarks were the best idea ever. late 2011.

Yeah, the word "better" struck me as ambiguous maybe. I should have said 'more enjoyable.' You know, an AI mode that isn't as lightning fast or as good as a ship that is micromanaged, but makes fielding multiple characters more pleasant.

My little heroes, or something.

Isn't there a better example of development disparity than a console game whose lifespan is a year? Console games have to meet launch deadlines, but EVE had ten years of multiple account sales.

(no offense taken.)

As in more relatable example, Blizzard jumps to mind. Unfortunately I'm out of town on business and cannot access my steam library to give a more comprehensive list at this time. And older console games with more development passion still have yet to die. The lifespan of a year or less is unfortunately common (and by no means limited to console games), but a pattern more common in the past 7 years than the last, and there has been nothing but exponential expansion of the gaming industry's revenue.

I adamantly believe the very hasstle and challenge of actively controlling those additional accounts is the appropriate trade off for the benefits they pose. And that attention is in and of itself the balancing factor. I support attention as a balancing factor as it requires players instead of ai. As the lifeblood of this game is it's social interaction and player metriculation creating a lush dynamic environment for its playerbase, features like ai undermine the need for players to work together.

Edit: Time is a reasource. If you are accomplishing more even if each character independantly was less efficient than if actively played, the net efficiency of your player hours has increased.

I wish I could quote easily, but phone formatting...

I believe that the trade off for multi-boxing in this manner, is that you begin to spread your attention across the activities of far more points of conflict than is normally done by single boxing.

Your group of pilots is reduced to a single minded blunt instrument, not capable of detailed individualized action as easily as separate players can accomplish.

Rather than tabbing between clients, which could be argued is unfairly biased towards players able to afford more expensive rigs, you are popping through menus for groups, sub groups, or even trying to micromanage individual pilots.
The more effort you can put into it, obviously the better your results.

If the AI potential is kept to a minimum, with controlled ships behaving the way drones do typically, then it should encourage players to not field more accounts than they can effectively manage, unless they want to risk losing their pilots en masse.

Whoa whoa whoa ....!

You are taking this idea farther than I have read being proposed, by a notably significant amount.

Health bars, (like a drone has), for shields armor and hull, that I could expect.

Expecting the ships to automatically communicate to each other, and respond as needed?
That is a whole other level, which I do not believe is being put forth here.


Stretching the idea to include features which were not intended, just so you can then point out the idea goes too far by including them, I do not believe adds to this discussion.

Fleet scenario, perhaps as the closest analogy to explaining it, as I read the concept.

Using pull down menus to control individuals or designated groups, is very similar to a fleet's apparent behavior.
Common references already in existence being to warp ships in fleet, or control drones.

Before we condemn the OP as suggesting something that goes this far, I would question whether that is intended first.
Clearly there is some murkiness in the description, for us to see such radically different results from the idea.

Ok, so object to that section, and make it clear it is that section which takes it too far.

Also, keep in mind:

1. Respond to primaries is a phrase that may require explanation, for clarity.
If you select a locked target, and right click your drones to attack it, you just had your drones respond to your primary.

2. Navigation commands, already in game for both fleet and drones. Expanding this to have the group play follow the leader is not really excessive, if done correctly.
(Your drones can return and orbit, but if you warp too fast they get left behind, etc)

3. That manage remote reps... not necessarily automate.
We have repair drones already, and I think it is rather perverse that they avoid repping their parent ship.
It is reasonable to point out that a player can visually see status bars indicating damage, and menu click a logi drone or ship to respond. It doesn't make the repping automatic, the player still had to pay attention and respond first.

Why spend all those PLEX when your in-game friend can just subordinate their own too to you by exploding the "controlling" rookie frig so the control get's passed higher up in the fleet hierarchy?