CSM Campaigns

A new name is always welcome, and this is the first time I think anyone has run with multiboxing in their platform.

Should be fun to watch the fireworks at the very least.

You do know that, with Rhea, no station is required for recruiting people?

When you say multi-boxing, are you meaning:
Running multiple accounts at the same time (I have three accounts. I use them at the same time. I'm far from unusual on the CSM)
or
Running multiple accounts at the same time, using third party software.

A character can create a new application to join a corporation from anywhere. (Previously could applications could only be submitted whilst docked in a station)

You are correct, I wrote this up and have been working on it for quite a while now. Thank you for the correction.



I have multiboxed eve since almost the beginning with more than one account. Then three, now I have started utilizing third party software and am up to 7.

As a multi-boxer this simply means more than one account. Over half of eve's players are multi-boxers but don't necessarily consider themselves as such. Let me put this out there right now. I support the upcoming broadcasting changes, but most of the multi-boxing community feels misrepresented and their playstyle has come into question and attack with little to no response from CCP.

I feel all multi-boxers should be represented correctly and communication between some of this games most devout supporters and it's developers needs to happen. This change actually affects me very little, but it affects some dedicated players a great deal.

Third party software can be considered any mouse with a program or hotkey built in. Those mice with multiple buttons that you can map to eve...that's third party software. Either way, third party software has a huge impact on this game and there is not a single player that does not use it to affect their game play.

The issue is how the third party software is being used and how it affects players. Some believe stuff like siggy and unsupported cache scrapping like Eve Central (agaisnt the EULA) is ok and some don't, just like some don't agree with third party multiboxing software. There simply needs to be representation. I hope to be that.

Not everyone will agree I just hope enough do to let me help the community communicate better.

http://www.bobinmyhole.com/angrod-for-csm/ has been updated with some more information. Mainly my view and idea for WH is the new player Experience and POS related corporation roles.

I'm very interested in your platform, especially anything that will make W-Space accessible to new players. You've mentioned a few things about roles. I completely agree that the system is in need of improvements, but are you committed to keeping corp theft viable as a profession? I know its a bit off your platform, but what is your opinion on the discussion of removing intra-corp agression in high sec?

Thank you for your vote of confidence!

In reply to your blog post:

@ Scanning Rigs - While this is something I'd currently consider a little thing in the scheme of things, as most players in the wormhole community at this time aren't likely to be the sort flying T1 frigates, I see that your vision for NPE toward wormholes would mean this adjustment for Scanning Rigs for those newer players.

First, thoughts on NPE:

I'm not against NPE to wormholes across the board, but I don't see wormholes in general as a new player experience, nor do I want it to become something that is easy enough for any new player to experience. Wormholes and the mechanical understanding required to live in them is somewhere after the learning curve (Corp/POS management, fittings, implants, drugs, various and relatively more difficult PVE/PVP, fleet and ship management, etc) and although wormholes have become easier over the years, with help from training, documenting, and third-party tools, I don't want to theme park the experience. So to that end, I'm of the opinion that NPE for wormholes should be reviewed and developed very carefully as to not end the frontier completely.

As far as the rig changes, this is fine.

@ Wormhole NPE - At one point last year I talked about how it would be nice for CCP to create tutorial missions in the exploration side that would allow players to probe down a generated wormhole that would lead to a specific mission area somewhere and allow them to complete a mission against Sleepers. It would likely conflict with lore, unless worked around, and would have to be limited to maybe the player who generated the mission, or those in fleet/gang with him/her to prevent nastiness. That or make the mission area "highsec" rules, which I don't care for unless the plan would be to have different level missions that allow players to work up to the dangerous level of wormholes, where the higher wormhole "missions" would be -1.0, no local, and anyone could scan down. Not sure on this, as I've said, I don't feel wormholes are NPE. But, I'm irrelevant :P

@ POS Mechanics - I've been setting up/tearing down/infiltrating POS's in wormholes for a long time, and at this point, I say to let CCP develop a permanent fix to address all current concerns and not waste any development time on band-aids. That's all.

@ Multiboxing - You quote:


I don't agree with this statement, as many wouldn't. It isn't an accurate statement. A multiboxer is someone who actively plays multiple accounts at the same time. I have many accounts, and I am only multiboxing if I play more than one at a time. That is the definition of multiboxing.

multi-account =/= multi-box

That said, mutliboxing is a playing style, and since all playing styles should be considered, so as long as they adhere to the EULA/TOS, I appreciate your concern with representation to a familiar playstyle. To each their own :)

Edit: Spelling

Well after the holidays and being sick as a space hooker on labor day I am back and ready to go! I will be updating the blog shortly with some more points and campaign arguments.

i guess i am technically part of the multiboxer community as you so eloquently describe and i definitely do NOT feel misrepresented at all. in fact i feel happy with the Jan 1st changes and if anything am more content with CCPs current approach and general attitude to the changed TOS and EULA than previously.

Not wanting to rain on your parade or anything...

though have to say good on you for finding a USP to separate yourself from the crowd of CSM hopefuls.

Well if your interests in bringing 3rd party multiboxing issues to CCP is to further reduce the area of grey that lies between what's for and against the TOS and EULA for the purposes of closing any loopholes that may potentially exist then i could support that. But if you're gunning for finding loopholes to exploit, then that's more than objectionable in my eyes.

However such a venture would not be outside the spirit of previous ventures by many eve players, some might say it can be said to somewhat define an eve online player from other MMO's or multiplayer games.