Warfare & Tactics

No one wants to do anything about multiple accounts. Only you seem to think its a problem.

CCP could remove anything they want to. Its only good reasons to do so that have yet to be established.

That is why everyone else is arguing around the mechanic tweaks instead of ignorantly raging about alts like you.

"even if ccp tries, it will slightly affect the PROBLEM"

I think you just don't know what you're writing sir.

I've explained this as simply as it can be explained. Either you need a crayon drawing on a napkin or you are intentionally pretending to be ignorant.

2nd account alts in their many forms are a p2w problem that cannot be solved. Links on the other hand, are a much more direct and sneaky combat buff to the user than just having an alt somewhere and are the most common exploitation of any existing p2w mechanics. Since it's the most common and easiest to solve, it's the one that needs to go.

It's really, REALLY simple. And you are trying to overcomplicate it or pretend you don't understand it, because you don't want to lose your precious links.

Again, explain what you have to lose by not having to pay for an extra account and run an alt all the time? Looks to me to be very disingenuous and I suspect there is more going on here than just your desire to do what is best for the game.

Yes, mechanically in the game, it is not different to have two guys with one of them sitting off grid as links than it is to have one guy with two accounts.

The problem you seem to have difficulty understanding is THAT'S NOT HOW THEY ARE USED. They are being ACTUALLY USED as a p2w mechanic and ONLY, almost exclusively, in that role.

The reason for this is that:
1. you are not likely to find people who just want to sit off grid in a cloaky t3 command-fit cruiser afk all night
2. you are not likely to suddenly produce extra bodies to fill those command ship seats, you're going to have to subtract them from your active fleet count

So no, you are not convincing anyone with this distraction. As a veteran pilot who is well acquainted with the mechanics of links, I'm certain you are well aware of the fact that links characters are universally understood to be someone's alt. AND AGAIN, as I've already said before, why the hell would anyone pay for a second account to put their links on if they could ALREADY find someone willing to sit afk off grid all night? You're not that ignorant, but you are trying your hardest to pretend you are.

I've noticed links ships seem to get more on-grid use in wormhole fights.

Is this because:
a) They are not as terrible on grid as what some people would lead us to believe
b) They are not so terrible on grid in micro/small gang but tend to suck more (get primaried) as the scale of the fight increases
c) They are just as safe if not more safe on grid due to lack of stations/gates and every second ship having combat probes
d) Some other reason(s) that I'm not seeing
???

You're trying your hardest to justify and not giving any reasons.

Answer the question: you are paying actual usd (or the plex purchaser is) for an in game combat bonus to yourself, y/n?

I've already explained to you a hundred times why it's NOT generalized to all kinds of alts, and is specifically a links alt problem. You're choosing to be ignorant of the obvious facts and I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with a child.

Removing links completely is the only solution that reduces the amount of p2w in eve online. If you want to put links at more risk because you feel they are too safe, that is a valid complaint about links. It's just a DIFFERENT issue than the one I am presenting.

No, I'm applying a facts based argument around the fact that links are almost NEVER used by an individual on one account for the reasons I've already explained, and that if you aren't dual boxing you don't have links.

That does in fact turn it into a p2w situation regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. Just because the mechanic itself doesn't lend especially to paying for combat bonuses doesn't mean they aren't being used in that way given the current implementation.

Seriously, you are wasting everyone's time with this pointless distraction.

Pay to win = one player having a tangible advantage that they paid real world money for.

There are degrees of pay to win. The most egregious being things that directly affect the outcome of an engagement.

Now, we all recognize that the EVE meta game revolves around using alts to mitigate risk/consequences, gain/deny intel, or simply surprise the enemy. But there has to be a distinction made between use of alts to play the meta, and use of alts to bring specific, mechanical advantage to the battlefield via multiboxing. This is where a JF or spy alt differs from a multiboxed booster or logi. And of course what sets boosters apart even from other forms of multiboxed assistance, is that the risk/reward on boosters is broken. Crosi has acknowledged this as have many others, but there are still plenty who think that a mechanic where the only viable counter is for everyone to buy one, is a valid mechanic working as intended, which is patently stupid. Except of course from the perspective of CCP's accountants.

A certain level of pay to win via alts is already well ingrained in the game. I don't propose to reverse that, I simply argue that we should not continue the trend. Making multiple accounts a requirement to compete will drive away new and casual players and there is something fundamentally wrong about an MMO where a large percentage of logged in accounts represent a much smaller percentage of actual human players. Anecdotal evidence suggests that alts account for a significant portion of the server population. Unfortunately only CCP has the actual numbers.

P.S. Before we play semantics games I define pay to win as real world dollars purchasing a significant PvP advantage, akin to being able to buy a higher damage weapon with dollars in a shooting game. You can still be outplayed or outnumbered; it's not an automatic win button but rather a tangible advantage only accessible through real world currency. It is a bad trend.

And this is where we disagree. I don't consider multiple accounts controlled by a single player equivalent to multiple players, especially when he is using those accounts (logi, boosts, scouts at his command 24/7) in a fashion which would be unrealistic for abother human player.

I also stated that I draw a distinction between alts that affect the meta game like JF's, which generally don't need to be multiboxed to have an impact and thus don't require multiple accounts, and things like boosters or falcons which use multiboxing to have a direct and immediate impact on the outcome of an engagement.

You say more ships in space is a good thing.

I say more PLAYERS in space is what we should strive for. I do not desire a game where I'm in competition with 5000 bittervets and 20000 alts. At that point the game becomes an RTS with individuals moving multiple complementary units around the grid.

I find this debate entertaining though. I'm aware we both agree boosts need to have their risk increased, and both recognize those changes may not come for quite some time.