These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Single IP Single Account
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kevin Tumatauenga
State War Academy
Caldari State
#41 - 2014-11-30 23:53:36 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
suddenly CCP loses 2/3 of it's income and eve dies.... love the idea can't see a problem with itUgh


to be honest, i somehow question the amount of 'real pilots' in eve space based on the fact that these guys who replied above all have 2-5 accounts, i think nobody knows the exact numbers except CCP, so 2/3? meh i dont know. if this idea really makes them bankrupt they can make subscription fee higher, real RPG fans will stay i believe.



ignoring that controlling many bodies at once is a part of eve lore. Even if all the real RPG players after CCP was able to raise the price high enough to counter act the drop in revenue. Eve will become at least as empty as SISI on a slow day the in game market would crash and most importantly the social aspect of eve would dwindle. this would cause even the RP players to get bored.


how do you figure out the 2/3 revenue drop anyway? you hacked CCP's financial reports? Or you jsut making up a numbers because you want hold your 20 alts in space and keep exploiting multiboxing?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#42 - 2014-11-30 23:57:04 UTC
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
suddenly CCP loses 2/3 of it's income and eve dies.... love the idea can't see a problem with itUgh


to be honest, i somehow question the amount of 'real pilots' in eve space based on the fact that these guys who replied above all have 2-5 accounts, i think nobody knows the exact numbers except CCP, so 2/3? meh i dont know. if this idea really makes them bankrupt they can make subscription fee higher, real RPG fans will stay i believe.

I run up to 80 online accounts simultaneously at some points. I have 147 at last count. I am already unsubbing 80.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Kevin Tumatauenga
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2014-12-01 00:00:16 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
suddenly CCP loses 2/3 of it's income and eve dies.... love the idea can't see a problem with itUgh


to be honest, i somehow question the amount of 'real pilots' in eve space based on the fact that these guys who replied above all have 2-5 accounts, i think nobody knows the exact numbers except CCP, so 2/3? meh i dont know. if this idea really makes them bankrupt they can make subscription fee higher, real RPG fans will stay i believe.

I run up to 80 online accounts simultaneously at some points. I have 147 at last count. I am already unsubbing 80.



It's ok I'll make up the lose, you can unsub the rest, ill carry on.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#44 - 2014-12-01 00:05:02 UTC
You have yet to establish why I shouldn't be allowed to run two clients simultaneously, regardless of how it's done the better question is why.
with the imminent isboxer restrictions the biggest problem with multiboxing goes away.
why go further?

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2014-12-01 01:58:22 UTC
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
First of all, its just an idea, I hope veterans can go easy with it.

I watched a video that a player was operating 8 alts at the same time, he was using 3 of his alts for intels, he alt-tabs between his main and alts to engage his targets at the right time near stargates, he even prepared his repairing alt in position and logged on to it to repair his main after the fight started.
From my point of view, multiboxing is equal to cheating in pvp, its like peeking others' papers during the exam for answers; glancing opponents' screens in CS; having open map in Dota, it is not fair for whoever gets involved.

Instead of letting players to operate infinite accounts where endless 'afks' sit around stargates, jumpbridges and stations, CCP should make one account with 12 character slots by default(I assume 12 roles are enough for one player), and using plexes to purchase additional slots. The server should also restrict one IP address to one account only. OR similar methods to eliminate to 1 account each person.

Benefits:
1. Providing fair competition in PVP for both sides.
2. Reinforcing the idea of MMORPG, making each role more important and challenging to play by adding more contents, playing styles and game features.
3. Force players to be more sociable, eg, have to ask for a proper tank or salvager for DEDs for extra safety and incomes.
4. Reduce unnecessary calculations at the server end which reduce lag and time dilation.
5. Reduce scammers/personal assualters because they will get their mains banned too.
6. (Not sure if this one is a benefit) Corps can stop worrying about spies, they can view all corps members' mains/alts through APIs, on the other hand a true spy can hide even deeper with all his characters.

stealth buff-API nerf-spais post detected

alternate accounts are used for more than just "getting an edge", its also used by players who want to be honest about "who" they are with a new group of people, but dont want the baggage of another group of friends they currently party with

for instance, i have an alt that i mainly hang out with miners with, we hang, we drink, we be bros.

those same people wouldnt let me within 2 systems of them if they saw some of the people ive hung with using this character, and the other character coudlnt join the mining corp to be bros if it was on the same account as this one, because this character would appear on the API.

besides that, there really isnt any reliable way to restrict it to one account per person without a horrendous amount of false positives
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2014-12-01 01:59:19 UTC
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
suddenly CCP loses 2/3 of it's income and eve dies.... love the idea can't see a problem with itUgh


to be honest, i somehow question the amount of 'real pilots' in eve space based on the fact that these guys who replied above all have 2-5 accounts, i think nobody knows the exact numbers except CCP, so 2/3? meh i dont know. if this idea really makes them bankrupt they can make subscription fee higher, real RPG fans will stay i believe.



ignoring that controlling many bodies at once is a part of eve lore. Even if all the real RPG players after CCP was able to raise the price high enough to counter act the drop in revenue. Eve will become at least as empty as SISI on a slow day the in game market would crash and most importantly the social aspect of eve would dwindle. this would cause even the RP players to get bored.


how do you figure out the 2/3 revenue drop anyway? you hacked CCP's financial reports? Or you jsut making up a numbers because you want hold your 20 alts in space and keep exploiting multiboxing?

at last count from CCP the average player had something like 2.5 accounts to their name
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#47 - 2014-12-01 02:00:39 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:

Benefits:
1. Providing fair competition in PVP for both sides.


Fair PvP in Eve means someone screwed up. You might also want to search the forum to see all the arguments against your proposal.


I think the point is: one play, one ship.

You know, like, keeping the economy of scale in check.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#48 - 2014-12-01 04:06:31 UTC
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:


how do you figure out the 2/3 revenue drop anyway? you hacked CCP's financial reports? Or you jsut making up a numbers because you want hold your 20 alts in space and keep exploiting multiboxing?


The last i heard the average eve player has 3 accounts.
that means 66% of chars are alts or 2/3rds.

One player cant do with two chars what two players can do with a character each. Alts in themselves are not a problem.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#49 - 2014-12-01 04:24:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gadget Helmsdottir
Wow, chief.
Let's take a look at what hornet's nest you decided to kick.
Quote:
Benefits:
1. Providing fair competition in PVP for both sides.
2. Reinforcing the idea of MMORPG, making each role more important and challenging to play by adding more contents, playing styles and game features.
3. Force players to be more sociable, eg, have to ask for a proper tank or salvager for DEDs for extra safety and incomes.
4. Reduce unnecessary calculations at the server end which reduce lag and time dilation.
5. Reduce scammers/personal assualters because they will get their mains banned too.
6. (Not sure if this one is a benefit) Corps can stop worrying about spies, they can view all corps members' mains/alts through APIs, on the other hand a true spy can hide even deeper with all his characters.



By the numbers:
1. Maybe it's been noted before, but if you want "fair" PVP, then join a tournement.

2. There's no 'I' in MMORPG, soldier! There are many pilots that you'll see through out New Eden, but there's nothing gauranteeing, or even against the spirit of the game, that says anything about those pilots having to be 'Individuals'.

3. You can't force sociability. If I take a wallflower unwillingly to a party, she'll just feel more awkward and likely upset at me, and will just shy away from everyone. Now I've just hurt my friend... and for what?

4. Most multi-accounts are rarely in the same spot, with the exception of the ISBoxer style nonsense... and that's going away very soon. Many players have alts for PI, Shipping, Industry, or other activities that don't require (or even really benefit) from those characters being in the same place. Oh... and the game as a whole, can handle many more pilots being on-line, especially if they're spread out all over New Eden.

5 and 6. Currently, both scamming and spying are both features in the game. There's no reason to take that away. Give a few tools to help a wary player sniff out the baddies, maybe, but removing the ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the foolish is a horrid idea.


Now, here's what you will lose if this policy were implemented.

  • Player interaction. Yes. Your proposal makes it harder to interact with other players. Why? because New Eden is BIG! Very Big, like Carl Sagan telling you it's big. The more pilots that I, as a player, have spread out across the cosmos, the bigger chance I'll run across someone to interact with.

  • Loss of revenue for CCP. This has been covered in the thread to the point of taking the horse's vitals. Still it needs to be mentioned again it seems. CCP is already going to take a minor hit with the ISBoxer announcement; one that they will likely power though.

  • The sand box becomes a bit less sandy, and more standing in line occurs. I play differently that you do. I play differently that maybe anyone else. We all play differently. Your restrictions will only encourage one playstyle. I love my alts, and sometimes I need to use two (or very rarely more) characters to accomplish my task. Using my own alts to do this cuts out any middlemen, and saves on costs, both in ISK and Trust. There is a time for working with others. There's a time for playing Solitare. EvE allows for both.



The bottom line, chief, is that not only isn't the proposal even technically viable, it's also bad for the playerbase as a whole.

-1

Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#50 - 2014-12-01 04:49:14 UTC
Kevin Tumatauenga

Everyone else is on you about your idea and your week or so in the game, but I am going to take a different path, at least as far as I can tell, if I missed this in the first pages so be it.

There is a very good reason why your idea is not so wise for EVE, not because of the PvP issue but because of the need for cyno alts to move capital ships around and having 2 accounts serves an almost needed role in high sec as well.

Most cap ship pilots prefer to use there own cyno alts when moving ships around when they are not in a fleet. A cap ship is a huge investment and most of them really only trust themselves when moving these ships around without fleet support. Your proposal would prevent this and make life very difficult for many of them.

In high sec many players use 2 accounts for a large variety of activities.
One scanning and one combat to find and run sites.
One combat and one salvage for missions.
A freighter pilot and a scout .
And the list goes on but I hope you understand the point I am trying to make.

I agree with you that in many ways the ability to run multiple accounts at the same time is in essence a form of cheating but it has always been this way and I really do not see CCP changing it since it would have far reaching negative consequences for virtually every aspect of the game.

I spend a lot if time with new players and a week or so is hardly enough time to get used to the client much less the complexities of the fast paced PvP environment. Give it some time and see how it works out for you, if a month or so from now you still have the same basic feeling please try to figure out how this could be implemented without the negative aspects of it.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#51 - 2014-12-01 06:05:46 UTC
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
suddenly CCP loses 2/3 of it's income and eve dies.... love the idea can't see a problem with itUgh


to be honest, i somehow question the amount of 'real pilots' in eve space based on the fact that these guys who replied above all have 2-5 accounts, i think nobody knows the exact numbers except CCP, so 2/3? meh i dont know. if this idea really makes them bankrupt they can make subscription fee higher, real RPG fans will stay i believe.

I run up to 80 online accounts simultaneously at some points. I have 147 at last count. I am already unsubbing 80.



It's ok I'll make up the lose, you can unsub the rest, ill carry on.

So you are going to put 80*20= 1600 USD into game every month? thats the income CCP makes off the accounts I'm unsubbing because of losing input multi-casting alone.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#52 - 2014-12-01 06:21:30 UTC
+1

The isboxer nerf will be pointless as long as multiboxing is allowed. Skilled players will just manually achieve what they used to do with isboxer. One player...one account at a time should be the motto.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2014-12-01 06:29:05 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
+1

The isboxer nerf will be pointless as long as multiboxing is allowed. Skilled players will just manually achieve what they used to do with isboxer. One player...one account at a time should be the motto.


But one game, no players will the actual motto.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#54 - 2014-12-01 06:32:02 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
+1

The isboxer nerf will be pointless as long as multiboxing is allowed. Skilled players will just manually achieve what they used to do with isboxer. One player...one account at a time should be the motto.


But one game, no players will the actual motto.

Not even close. ISboxer, and similar, scale almost infinitely. Multi-boxing without broadcasting input scales at a much lower rate, and this lower ability to scale it means you end up with a distinct disadvantage in many cases where split second timing or timely actions are required.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2014-12-01 06:35:43 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
+1

The isboxer nerf will be pointless as long as multiboxing is allowed. Skilled players will just manually achieve what they used to do with isboxer. One player...one account at a time should be the motto.


But one game, no players will the actual motto.

Not even close. ISboxer, and similar, scale almost infinitely. Multi-boxing without broadcasting input scales at a much lower rate, and this lower ability to scale it means you end up with a distinct disadvantage in many cases where split second timing or timely actions are required.


I completely agree with you. I was responding to someone who was agreeing with the original post about each actual player could only have one character active.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#56 - 2014-12-01 06:43:48 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
+1

The isboxer nerf will be pointless as long as multiboxing is allowed. Skilled players will just manually achieve what they used to do with isboxer. One player...one account at a time should be the motto.


But one game, no players will the actual motto.

Not even close. ISboxer, and similar, scale almost infinitely. Multi-boxing without broadcasting input scales at a much lower rate, and this lower ability to scale it means you end up with a distinct disadvantage in many cases where split second timing or timely actions are required.


I completely agree with you. I was responding to someone who was agreeing with the original post about each actual player could only have one character active.

yeah, I misclicked. its early AM here and I'm just getting home from work.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Elena Thiesant
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2014-12-01 06:53:20 UTC
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
Elena Thiesant wrote:
Kevin Tumatauenga wrote:
The server should also restrict one IP address to one account only.


So when you have multiple people all with their own separate accounts on the other side of a proxy/NAT (say a hotel or university dorm), only one of them should be allowed to play at a time?

Or would you look at the IP that the computer says it has, rather than the IP that the server sees? In that case everyone using an internal 192.168.* or 10.* network is screwed.

Ignoring all the other arguments, your suggestion is technically infeasible due to the way the internet works.


How often do you have full of EVE pilots sitting together playing eve in 1 room? AND I SAID you can use other methods to achieve 1 person 1 account.


Where did I say '1 room'? I said same router/NAT. Immediate examples that come to mind:
- Hotel
- University dorm
- Events like EVE Vegas
- Any time multiple people in a single family play

Doesn't matter how often, that it happens at all means it's not viable as a solution.
And please, let's hear the other 'one account, one person' technical solutions that don't have either an immediate, obvious workaround or a major flaw.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#58 - 2014-12-01 06:57:45 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
+1

The isboxer nerf will be pointless as long as multiboxing is allowed. Skilled players will just manually achieve what they used to do with isboxer. One player...one account at a time should be the motto.



Classic multiboxing requires some skill to do well. The technologies that made isboxer work made this much easier.

Its hard to get 10 actual players to everything on call in the server tick. FC says fire on my command....(few seconds) fire.

In that time that one command Is given you have....

the guys who jumped the gun and fired on the first instance of fire
the guys who fire when they are supposed to
and the guys going "repeat fc, did you say fire?"

Server ticks tick away its not the by numbers attack fc had in mind.

Classic multiboxing you get this breakdown in the chain from alt tabs, jumping windows (if windowed) and orienting yourself in the new window(s).


Isboxer had this USMC silent drill team precision every time.

The tech ban ccp has in place will do some good to the game.

For skilled multiboxers who didn't need the crutch...imo their skills should reap the rewards. I had issues with dual boxing in pve at times lol. I hate my lack of skills in this area and won't hate players that can get it as it were.

For the unskilled mutliboxers who needed the crutch of isboxer...well they may emo rage quit. Which will be a marked improvement to the game. Latter better than nothing because as many pointed out...ccp can't control it entirely anyway.



James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#59 - 2014-12-01 07:00:07 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
[\
For the unskilled mutliboxers who needed the crutch of isboxer...well they may emo rage quit. Which will be a marked improvement to the game. Latter better than nothing because as many pointed out...ccp can't control it entirely anyway.


I feel sorry for those who will lack the tools I used to make the isk needed to make the amount of isk I can as easily as I can with unsupported multi-boxing.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#60 - 2014-12-01 07:26:51 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=Zan Shiro]I feel sorry for those who will lack the tools I used to make the isk needed to make the amount of isk I can as easily as I can with unsupported multi-boxing.



there are those who have read and understood what ccp is doing here. If only to keep on doing what they do with changes to not be banned (not up to speed on this saga but as I recall last I heard this only hits some not all of isboxer features). I am sure they will fill some of that void.