These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up

First post
Author
Marsha Mallow
#61 - 2016-09-02 23:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Ripard Teg wrote:
For the morons in the room: I am not against suicide ganking. I've participated in it myself. My concern is the game's ecosystem, and that we'll see far more suicide gankers once the barriers to entry are removed with disposable, free Alpha clones.

New sig alert. Thanks, as always.

Makalu Zarya wrote:
I have serious doubts.

-Maka

I had serious doubts when I bumped your bridging Titan in 2011 just to hear you shriek, then felt a smidge of guilt encouraging the whole corp to do it. But seriously, after that dribbling screechfest over SP injectors, you better put some real effort into being constructive. Elaborate on your concerns carefully, and follow it up. WB btw ;)

Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm actually wondering whether you're being dense or a CCP shill, TBH. Headline: Eve is Free to Play. People telling their friends about it: free to play. Pricetag on Steam: free to play. I'm pointing out that words have meanings, and right now those words are free to play.

Look, I get that there are justifications and clarifications and such to be made - but right now those are taking a strong back seat to the words free to play. And when a player comes into a free to play game and realizes that the only way to compete even in the most basic way is to pay the only words that's going to come out of their mouth is pay to win.

I'm totally down with a free to play Eve Online, but this move is branded poorly (unlimited trial) and doesn't go far enough to be actually effective (the alpha clones are way too limited).
-Liang

Being accused of being a shill for supporting a game you care about is getting a bit old. Some of us support CCP strongly where needed (not like they have many committed advocates in this sausage fest of one-upmanship) but we're still capable of making critiques where required. I agree on some of your points about deliberately gimping extended trials from the outset, and oppose racially locked mechanics. But rather than gurn about golden ammo (please, it's old) come up with a viable solution.

It's been FTP since SP trading was announced btw, but the system was too complex for mass adoption - which is a shame, but not insurmountable. You clearly have some experience in this niche and might have something really important in there that could overcome these very legit concerns. Stop handbagging other forumites and put your thinking cap on. It's in the press now, fairly deliberately in some ways to stop months of fighting, so the obvious problem areas will have to be fixed by players.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2016-09-02 23:09:20 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

At that point you're marginalizing the existence of Omega clones considerably. Especially for those who have no need of capital ship gameplay. You're also turning the program into something it's not trying to be by letting gaming press determine your development decisions.

That last one especially seems entirely less than wise.

If you would have alphas escalated to the de-facto play state, how would you intent to support the game?


Well, I am making the assumption that alpha play will become either very common or the defacto play state if the F2P move is actually successful in bringing in new players. The ideal situation is that the game is compelling enough to keep them logging in while some non-trivial portion of them convert to "omega" accounts. After that, I'm sure the bright people at CCP can find some ways to monetize the free players.

That said, I'm not sure that I'd say frigs, destroyers, and cruisers is the entirety of non-capital play. I mean, I undock BCs, BSs, T2, and T3 ships pretty frequently.

-Liang
I'm going with the extension to battleships you mentioned, so we're talking about the entirety of the T1 combat lineup in that hypothetical. And I'm sure a fair set of accounts could do without higher tier ships if it means freeing up real money or time spent earning PLEX.

That aside this reads at this point like a reaction without a benefit. The biggest part of the issue with the direction you'd take this is keeping the value of Omegas, especially in relation to alt account Omegas (even skill goop funded Omegas consume paid resources incentivizing further real money purchases). Worse you eliminated a large driver to move to Omega accounts. Further you've exasperated the P2W issue by making alphas the norm, which makes Omegas that much for visible as a paid advantage class rather than the method of intended long term play.

So you've cut into your current income, offered no dependable replacement and made the P2W perception more prevalent to pander to the clickbait musings of game news. Still not sold on this being a good strategy.

Worse I'm worried about it backfiring and more cost becomes heaped upon fewer Omega players.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#63 - 2016-09-02 23:30:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

I'm going with the extension to battleships you mentioned, so we're talking about the entirety of the T1 combat lineup in that hypothetical. And I'm sure a fair set of accounts could do without higher tier ships if it means freeing up real money or time spent earning PLEX.

That aside this reads at this point like a reaction without a benefit. The biggest part of the issue with the direction you'd take this is keeping the value of Omegas, especially in relation to alt account Omegas (even skill goop funded Omegas consume paid resources incentivizing further real money purchases). Worse you eliminated a large driver to move to Omega accounts. Further you've exasperated the P2W issue by making alphas the norm, which makes Omegas that much for visible as a paid advantage class rather than the method of intended long term play.

So you've cut into your current income, offered no dependable replacement and made the P2W perception more prevalent to pander to the clickbait musings of game news. Still not sold on this being a good strategy.

Worse I'm worried about it backfiring and more cost becomes heaped upon fewer Omega players.


I'm not willing to argue about whether or not battleships and battlecruisers should be allowed on alpha clones when the simple fact of the matter is that the current offering will backfire as a terrible uncompelling F2P experience (at best) and pure P2W (at worst). An alpha account going into a novice plex is going to be obliterated by any paying player. There's just no way to be competitive or get a feel for the game when paying players do 2x the DPS and have 50% more EHP than you do in the same ship.

You're absolutely right. With my plan things would shift to 50/50 or more alpha players logged in - but I bet there's way more than 2x the people logged in. With yours, I imagine you're totally correct. Almost everyone will be a paying player, but Eve will continue its downward PCU spiral.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
Nornir Empire
#64 - 2016-09-02 23:31:25 UTC
Regan Rotineque wrote:
Glad to see an update blog so quickly.

As I said in when this first came out I am in support of the concept of the extended trial type account. However after reading your update blog I am more and more concerned about the issue of t1 ganking alts.

The "write up' you provide is for ganking a freighter, which of course is large has high ehp (if its fitted properly) and is the creme de la creme of the ganking business.

But I am more concerned about the fact that it takes only a couple of t1 fitted kitties or thrashers to go gank
t1 haulers
t2 haulers
retrievers and macks
covetors and hulks
newbies in ventures
almost all versions of frigate scanning/exploration ships
the list is almost endless what CAN be ganked vs what is "harder to gank"

suggesting for a second the issue is 'freighter' ganking is missing the point entirely. Releasing a swarm of t1 non paying alts on the paid subs will result in MASSIVE unsubbing.

I for one will not continue to support and pay for a game where griefing is a FTP model. If they want to gank then sub to the game...otherwise head to low/null and pvp yourself silly. Otherwise turn the safety on for all alpha accounts in high sec.

This is your NGE moment CCP - i for one hope you dont let the pvp controlled CSM and Goon/Code squad sway your views on this.

~R~


So what you're saying is that nothing is changing and you're unhappy about it? People who don't tank their ships enough will get always get ganked, and gankers have already access to low cost ganking characters. Due to the limits imposed on Alpha Clones, low cost ganking is actually being nerfed.
oiukhp Muvila
Doomheim
#65 - 2016-09-02 23:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: oiukhp Muvila
Dibble Dabble wrote:
My corp mates and I quit eve some years ago. This was due to low sp Suicide Alts making life more difficult and the big changes to industry which was the real killer.

However the proposed free accounts have given us some ideas. We probably have several trillion ISK stashed away on our mothballed accounts which can be harvested, invested etc,

We also have some ideas for almost free ***** and giggles fun at the expense of established players / alliances that made life difficult in the past, indeed that would be most of the alliances, Whilst we are few in number we can not take down a freighter we can sure take down the smaller stuff.

With our ISK and the free accounts I suspect we wont be only people to return. T1 Frigs / Cruisers can have a lot of fun in a target rich environment such as empire. We can have as many Alpha accounts as we want, we can train them for next to nothing and our mains can scoop the loot. Recycle them whilst kill rights expire as needed.

Freighters will be safe from us, too much like hard work and we are few in number but if your in empire and your in an alliance we dont like, and that would be most of them, then you best not be on Auto Pilot,

Oh and you bumpers on the gates in NPC Corps, your first, we really dont like you Twisted




This kind of shows that the issue isn't the free accounts, but how bad the game mechanics around ganking are.

The concerns regarding throwaway accounts simply shows some light on the issue that many in the ganking community have been trying to cover up for years.

In the last 6-8 yrs Hi Sec went from the normally safest (not completely safe) to the relatively most dangerous space in the game due to the increased interest in ganking from a portion of the community.

They cover it up with the saying that no space should be safe, but Hi Sec never was. CCP has bought into this and Hi Sec is still relatively the most dangerous space to live in, and many feel it is affecting new player retention regardless of the studies the ganker community likes to say counters that.
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#66 - 2016-09-02 23:34:54 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
Good to see the answers keep coming, or at least acknowledgement of concerns.

My question is can we also use this release to dispose of the neural remap "feature" / "gameplay":

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/50mipa/ccplz_kill_off_attribute_remaps_with_the_new/

Yes please. Replace learning implants with boosters that have racial and strength flavours, e.g. "Strong Gallente Cerebral Accelerator" which boosts training speed for a week or two. It fits with the alpha racial lock and we know that the code is already in place from last year's event.


I raised the idea once in F&I for attribute booster drugs and got trolled into the dirt.

CCP really needs to moderate that section better.
Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
Nornir Empire
#67 - 2016-09-02 23:50:16 UTC
Marsha Mallow
#68 - 2016-09-02 23:55:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
This kind of shows that the issue isn't the free accounts, but how bad the game mechanics around ganking are.

Good catch. It's highlighting multiple existing problems, which largely centre around multiboxing. Which feels like a leading question from CCP - are they asking us, as players to set an upper limit on characters per player? Yes, it can be bypassed by techies. But the majority aren't (as evidenced by the recent hacking wave). The question is buried in the topic, and not unfair. What's a reasonable limit of Omega accounts, or farming in general - these impact the ecosystem too.

FW/Ganking/Mining sort of tie in, but this multiboxing/ability to scale might be the underlying theme for a lot of issues.

The NPE is something fundamental that needs it's own topic imo - altho not pleased this change was announced before the NPE changes, there's time to remedy it and give people chance to participate at a fairly high level. Might be a deliberate strategy, and not a bad one.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2016-09-03 00:06:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm not willing to argue about whether or not battleships and battlecruisers should be allowed on alpha clones when the simple fact of the matter is that the current offering will backfire as a terrible uncompelling F2P experience (at best) and pure P2W (at worst). An alpha account going into a novice plex is going to be obliterated by any paying player. There's just no way to be competitive or get a feel for the game when paying players do 2x the DPS and have 50% more EHP than you do in the same ship.

You're absolutely right. With my plan things would shift to 50/50 or more alpha players logged in - but I bet there's way more than 2x the people logged in. With yours, I imagine you're totally correct. Almost everyone will be a paying player, but Eve will continue its downward PCU spiral.

-Liang
The point wasn't to argue anything as far as specifics, it just picked off of a point you stated and worked from there in place of any broad set of capabilities that would make Alphas something other than long term trials or unsubbed low tier sit ins. And 50/50 splits on a F2P is extremely generous of you I believe.

Most importantly none of what you suggest will eliminate the core of the issue of new players being obliterated. What will soon be omega accounts have been putting up with it for 13 years due to it being a function of competence and the progression system. If instant competitiveness is a desired function making everyone free Omegas would still fail to resolve it.

Elizabeth Norn wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
If we get 5mil free SP lets increase extraction level from 5 to 10mil SP


That's basically what they're doing.

https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/introducing-clone-states-and-the-future-of-access-to-eve-online/

Feels like the statement there could use some clarification as personally I wouldn't have equated equate "not allow the extraction of skills in the Alpha set." with "not count skills in the Alpha set towards the minimum for extraction."

That or I missed a more direct statement clarifying.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#70 - 2016-09-03 00:09:54 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Instant, unlimited and costless scaling? That can be easily grown into extraction funded Omegas at lower cost than current new accounts as well. So long as you can field the correct numbers there is no downside, especially as an augmentation to Omega clone characters.
This already exists. I can run as many ganking (or scout or PI or mining) accounts as my computer can handle today for no cost by selling my SP. In fact today, I still make several hundred million ISK per month even if I don't undock a single character on those accounts.

Why would there suddenly be a land-rush to create even more ganking accounts when anyone who has the interest can do so today?

Convenience. If I wanted to maintain 30 ganking Omega accounts, I would have to get extractors for each, do the extraction, sell the injectors, buy PLEX, and use the PLEX, each month, for all 30 accounts, over and over. Its alot of busy work.
On the other hand, with Alpha accounts I need to do none of that. Just undock and gank whenever I want.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#71 - 2016-09-03 00:16:24 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The point wasn't to argue anything as far as specifics, it just picked off of a point you stated and worked from there in place of any broad set of capabilities that would make Alphas something other than long term trials or unsubbed low tier sit ins. And 50/50 splits on a F2P is extremely generous of you I believe.


I'm actually pretty skeptical that allowing people fly up to to T1 cruisers competently is a big enough draw to get even a 50/50 split, so I'm surprised you'd think that there'd be way more people flying alpha. Why? What content are they going to be doing?

Quote:

Most importantly none of what you suggest will eliminate the core of the issue of new players being obliterated. What will soon be omega accounts have been putting up with it for 13 years due to it being a function of competence and the progression system. If instant competitiveness is a desired function making everyone free Omegas would still fail to resolve it.


I disagree. I've seen many new players grow into monster PVPers without spending 13 years doing it. However, they did require far more combat SP than is being allowed on alpha clones. The offering that's currently suggested has alpha players doing less than half of the DPS of an omega in the same ship. There's literally no way for them to be competitive, which means there's no way to get hooked on the game.

The alpha clone really must be improved, and if alphas suicide ganking and such are such a big problem then suicide ganking itself is the problem.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#72 - 2016-09-03 00:21:57 UTC
In short:

e2 goes dormant and I just undock 294578275265795671581254784562756356 catalysts and make involuntary sooper-capph dis-assemblies all day long?

That will be glorious! So why would anyone ever want an omega clone?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2016-09-03 00:22:25 UTC
Elizabeth Norn wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:
Glad to see an update blog so quickly.

As I said in when this first came out I am in support of the concept of the extended trial type account. However after reading your update blog I am more and more concerned about the issue of t1 ganking alts.

The "write up' you provide is for ganking a freighter, which of course is large has high ehp (if its fitted properly) and is the creme de la creme of the ganking business.

But I am more concerned about the fact that it takes only a couple of t1 fitted kitties or thrashers to go gank
t1 haulers
t2 haulers
retrievers and macks
covetors and hulks
newbies in ventures
almost all versions of frigate scanning/exploration ships
the list is almost endless what CAN be ganked vs what is "harder to gank"

suggesting for a second the issue is 'freighter' ganking is missing the point entirely. Releasing a swarm of t1 non paying alts on the paid subs will result in MASSIVE unsubbing.

I for one will not continue to support and pay for a game where griefing is a FTP model. If they want to gank then sub to the game...otherwise head to low/null and pvp yourself silly. Otherwise turn the safety on for all alpha accounts in high sec.

This is your NGE moment CCP - i for one hope you dont let the pvp controlled CSM and Goon/Code squad sway your views on this.

~R~


So what you're saying is that nothing is changing and you're unhappy about it? People who don't tank their ships enough will get always get ganked, and gankers have already access to low cost ganking characters. Due to the limits imposed on Alpha Clones, low cost ganking is actually being nerfed.



Really? You actually believe this?

Low cost ganking is being nerfed.... I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

How is free account gank alt more expensive than a plexed or subbed gank alt?

helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#74 - 2016-09-03 00:30:51 UTC  |  Edited by: helana Tsero
You need to prevent a person with a omega toon from logging on any alpha toons at the same time.

Otherwise EVE pvp will become everyone's omega toons plus their griffin alpha alts. and it will be JAM online and it will suck.


Plus many of us dont enjoy the low graphics, sub 5 fps, tidi, no sound battles that huge null sec engagements become. I was their during the first keepstar kill and it was the most boring, horrible looking (due to low graphics and sub 5 fps) gameplay I have ever experienced in eve. ( I am above the recommended spec and I was not multi boxing)

If you allow simultaneous log in of alpha alts with omega toons these huge tidi, horrible graphics sub 5 ps battles will be extremely frequent.

I want more people (real people not alts) playing eve and I think clone states concept is excellent but ccp you need put in place strong measures to stop alts online. Because right now people will be forced to do it. If my opponent is bring their omegas plus 1 griffin alpha alt (or 5) then I will be forced to do it do.

"...ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new.... thats where eve is placed... not in cave."  | zoonr-Korsairs |

Meanwhile Citadel release issues: "tried to bug report this and the bug report is bugged as well" | Rafeau |

Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
Nornir Empire
#75 - 2016-09-03 00:36:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Elizabeth Norn
Regan Rotineque wrote:
Elizabeth Norn wrote:

So what you're saying is that nothing is changing and you're unhappy about it? People who don't tank their ships enough will get always get ganked, and gankers have already access to low cost ganking characters. Due to the limits imposed on Alpha Clones, low cost ganking is actually being nerfed.



Really? You actually believe this?

Low cost ganking is being nerfed.... I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

How is free account gank alt more expensive than a plexed or subbed gank alt?



Because right now you can buddy invite (21 day trial) yourself, and PLEX the buddy to gain 30 days of subscription on both accounts.

You can create two buddies per main account you PLEX and have an 85% uptime for them. You can get a lot more focused training done in 51 days than an Alpha Clone allows.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2016-09-03 00:38:24 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm actually pretty skeptical that allowing people fly up to to T1 cruisers competently is a big enough draw to get even a 50/50 split, so I'm surprised you'd think that there'd be way more people flying alpha. Why? What content are they going to be doing?
I'm not anticipating a 50/50 split, that was again going from a statement you made and that as a part of an expanded Alpha set of limits pushing participation in favor of their use. If Alphas have the capacity to be strong stand alone accounts in terms of capability that's what they will become (assuming there is sufficient interest out there).

Why avoid this? Because alternatives are a true F2P/P2W game with literally distinct classes. I'm not sure why you want to turn the disadvantages class into anything other than a stepping stone for those that intend to stay while citing variance in ability as a reason. It's wholly contradictory.

Quote:
I disagree. I've seen many new players grow into monster PVPers without spending 13 years doing it. However, they did require far more combat SP than is being allowed on alpha clones. The offering that's currently suggested has alpha players doing less than half of the DPS of an omega in the same ship. There's literally no way for them to be competitive, which means there's no way to get hooked on the game.
Anyone who's grown into a monster PvPer A) Wouldn't be classified as new at that point and B) Made the decision to stick around while under the constraints of a low SP character unless a patron of the character bazaar or more recently an injector junky. Those gaps exist because the SP system allows for it.

Also there's the number game which has been a personal power equalizer since literally the point people figured out more than one person could shoot at the same target at the same time.

Quote:
The alpha clone really must be improved, and if alphas suicide ganking and such are such a big problem then suicide ganking itself is the problem.

-Liang
Bit of an oversimplification. Free, unlimited expansion of a number of capabilities is a concern, including in terms of force, everywhere that specific numbered caps aren't in place. That's pretty much the entire game.
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2016-09-03 00:41:58 UTC
Elizabeth Norn wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:
Elizabeth Norn wrote:

So what you're saying is that nothing is changing and you're unhappy about it? People who don't tank their ships enough will get always get ganked, and gankers have already access to low cost ganking characters. Due to the limits imposed on Alpha Clones, low cost ganking is actually being nerfed.



Really? You actually believe this?

Low cost ganking is being nerfed.... I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

How is free account gank alt more expensive than a plexed or subbed gank alt?



Because right now you can buddy invite (21 day trial) yourself, and PLEX the buddy and gain 30 days of subscription on both accounts.

You can create two buddies per main account you PLEX and have an 85% uptime for them. You can get a lot more focused training done in 51 days than an Alpha Clone allows.


And abuse of the system for the purpose of ganking is banable by ccp including the inviting account. I think anyone setting up 20 buddy invite gank alts is going to be detected by ccp at some point. This new alpha thing is unlimited free t1 gankers with zero cost or reprocussions except ccp losing subs.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#78 - 2016-09-03 02:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Why avoid this? Because alternatives are a true F2P/P2W game with literally distinct classes. I'm not sure why you want to turn the disadvantages class into anything other than a stepping stone for those that intend to stay while citing variance in ability as a reason. It's wholly contradictory.


The rest of your post is less important than this, so I'll just answer this. See, the thing about Eve is that it's a single server sandbox and every player that logs in and undocks enriches it for every other. It doesn't even really matter whether they're mining, missioning, plexing, or PVPing - they've enriched the game by taking part in it. Thus, having alpha players who aren't willing to spend money but are willing to play is a net win because it improves my game.

However, I'm not merely looking at it from my perspective. I'm also looking at it from a cold business perspective. CCP's goals have always been (and will continue to be): higher DAUs, higher retention, and ultimately higher revenue.

DAU measures how many people log into the game every day. However, what might be more interesting how many people undock on any given day - because the majority of interactions with the game happen when someone is undocked. That is, the person isn't playing Skill Queues Online.

Retention measures how long someone will continue to play (or pay for!) the game. Eve's always been pretty sticky once people cross certain boundaries, so I'm less concerned about this (except for the undocking part mentioned above). While this isn't particularly relevant to Eve yet, it's been shown in other F2P games that there's always a chance for someone to convert as long as they continue to play a game.

Now, consider the following: alpha accounts drive DAU (and thus player interactions), have their own retention scores (and probability for conversion), and influence the retention of omega accounts via social ties. Thus, we can't treat alphas as merely a stepping stone to omegas. Thus, a fully fledged F2P Eve experience should have a free tier that is fundamentally playable. It doesn't have all the options, but you at least need to be able to compete in some areas of the game.

And yes, I've worked in F2P gaming for several years now.

-Liang

Ed: I very nearly went off on a very long explanation of many F2P concepts and how the data and numbers behind them form a viable business model. Be glad I restricted myself to DAU and retention, because I almost went off on ARPU and ARPPU and how driving ARPPU gives the F2P industry a bad name!

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#79 - 2016-09-03 04:38:37 UTC
Quote:
We are exploring options to address this and also consulting our security and customer support team, as most of the negative behavior would depend on multi-plexing or automation, both of which are big no-no's.

I've multi-boxed pretty much every area of EVE with groups of characters and have never used multi-plexing or automation. Such tools do make it easier to multi-box, but I'm not sure it's the easymode players that should be giving us the greatest concern here.

There are many ways that the addition of free accounts could be unbalancing without having to log on more than one of them at once. My chief concern is the impact on trade and industry, since there would be no need to be able to log on more than one of your 100 character alpha farm at any one time in order for it to be effective (and potentially unbalancing).
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#80 - 2016-09-03 05:13:53 UTC
Nice follow up. Thx.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-