These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Time to do something about locust swarms?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Faeana
iD00M
#1 - 2014-08-16 09:07:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Faeana
Locust swarms, are the players who multibox ice anomalies in hi-sec with 10-20 accounts or more. Usually they contain a large number of Procurers or Skiffs, a Freighter, and an Orca. These players can make billions daily for just a few hours of play in hi-sec and they do it virtually risk free. That's because Procurers and Skiffs are too strong against gankers, they don't have to worry about losing ships. Even if they did occasionally lose one, it's nothing to the amount of isk they are earning. It also can't be much fun for the other players when many anomalies has one or two of these greedy players around.

Does anyone have a solution to this? I only have two suggestions, one would be to let the gankers sort it out. The ice fields are full of procurers and skiffs, I don't know what percentage they are but I would guess there is 85% procurers/skiffs, 10% rets/macks and 5% hulks/covetors across the ice fields in hi-sec on average. If that's the case, the solution would be to nerf the Skiff and Procurer a bit. It's far too strong, if determined gankers could target this type of player that could be the answer.

The other idea would be to stop isboxer, but I think that alone may not solve this problem. I like the first idea better.
Prince Kobol
#2 - 2014-08-16 09:09:17 UTC
If you don't like it then do something about it.
Cerisia
Red Phoenix Rising
#3 - 2014-08-16 09:10:09 UTC
The way I see it is that they pay for all those accounts and therefore have the right (imo) to do what they like with them.
If they are eating up all your ice then why not war dec them?

That is after all, the way the game is supposed to work.....
This space for rent..
Foxstar Damaskeenus
why did i join this corp
Not Purple Shoot It.
#4 - 2014-08-16 09:11:47 UTC
Multiboxing is cheating and "pay to win"

Only really bothers me when people do it in combat.

"[this thread] is a cesspit of trolling and flaming" ISD Buldath
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#5 - 2014-08-16 09:13:28 UTC
The problem is ISBoxer. But ofc that is just my personal opinion.

Remove standings and insurance.
Yarda Black
The Black Redemption
#6 - 2014-08-16 09:16:11 UTC
There's no such thing as a ship too strong to gank.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2014-08-16 09:18:13 UTC
Yarda Black wrote:
There's no such thing as a ship too strong to gank.


nothing is too stronk.Cool


anyways, you're bothered with it, do something about it. There are tools ingame that can help you.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#8 - 2014-08-16 09:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
If ccp decides to do something about iskboxing it will probably be to alter game mechanics to make the commonly isboxed activities harder to multibox, as opposed to just "banning" isboxer.

So bombers, for example, might see the return of proximity decloaking for other cloaked ships. Ice miners could see loot spew. You get the idea, the point isn't in what particular mechanic is used to discourage isboxer. Rather, the point is to create gameplay that requires the full attention of the pilot on one character to effectively do the activity.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#9 - 2014-08-16 09:48:32 UTC
Punish those who do, reward those who whine.

Think about children!

Geez...

Invalid signature format
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#10 - 2014-08-16 10:21:47 UTC
Maybe make ice mining anomalies less predictable and less reliable? Like moving them to random spawns in the constellation instead of a system. Or adding ice to some normal belts. Something like this would require the ISBoxer fleets to move around instead of being based in the same system, removing the convenience that comes with it.

Personally I favour a complete removal of static belts and all mining moved to anomalies (in their own category different from combat anomalies) and add back in gravimetric sites as the additional spice for explorers. Some spawned anomalies can then contain ice. Number of guaranteed anomalies per system can be similar to the number of belts. Could even add a depletion mechanic in, spawning only smaller and fewer sites if a system is mined heavily. This would also remove the fixed spawn of ores at downtime.

Has CCP ever mentioned any plans on reiteration on mining and mining sites?

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#11 - 2014-08-16 10:32:33 UTC
Faeana wrote:
Locust swarms, are the players who multibox ice anomalies in hi-sec with 10-20 accounts or more. Usually they are contain a large number of Procurers or Skiffs, a Freighter, and an Orca. These players can make billions daily for just a few hours of play in hi-sec and they do it virtually risk free. That's because Procurers and Skiffs are too strong against gankers, they don't have to worry about losing ships. Even if they did occasionally lose one, it's nothing to the amount of isk they are earning. It also can't be much fun for the other players when many anomalies has one or two of these greedy players around.

Does anyone have a solution to this? I only have two suggestions, one would be to let the gankers sort it out. The ice fields are full of procurers and skiffs, I don't know what percentage they are but I would guess there is 85% procurers/skiffs, 10% rets/macks and 5% hulks/covetors across the ice fields in hi-sec on average. If that's the case, the solution would be to nerf the Skiff and Procurer a bit. It's far too strong, if determined gankers could target this type of player that could be the answer.

The other idea would be to stop isboxer, but I think that alone may not solve this problem. I like the first idea better.



The best solution to these guys is to get some friends with good bump ships and bump them away from their targets. The isoboxer relies on one keyboard command working for all ships. He will claim it is not frustrating for him but bumping will mess him up big time. Stabber fit with battleship sized MWD is a good bumper.
Prince Kobol
#12 - 2014-08-16 10:36:27 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
If ccp decides to do something about iskboxing it will probably be to alter game mechanics to make the commonly isboxed activities harder to multibox, as opposed to just "banning" isboxer.

So bombers, for example, might see the return of proximity decloaking for other cloaked ships. Ice miners could see loot spew. You get the idea, the point isn't in what particular mechanic is used to discourage isboxer. Rather, the point is to create gameplay that requires the full attention of the pilot on one character to effectively do the activity.


Lol, are you really that naive?

You do realise that CCP make ton of cash of these guys who multibox.

Yeah, lets go out of our way to spend a ton of resources specifically to annoy those players who run multiple accounts.

Great Idea

Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#13 - 2014-08-16 10:40:41 UTC
Faeana wrote:
Does anyone have a solution to this?
Yes. The answer to an ISBoxing fleet of miners is an ISBoxing fleet of discophoons.

Who put the goat in there?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2014-08-16 10:43:00 UTC
Yes, it is time to do something.

So go do it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jegrey Dozer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-08-16 10:45:39 UTC
So let me get this straight.

OP says that multiboxers are the problem. Then somehow drifts off into complaining about procs/skiffs being too strong. And the solution to multiboxers "making billions" in High-Sec is to nerf procs and skiffs.

This is all very amusing because there is not even a mention of nerfing spawn rates of ice belts. This would actually be a direct nerf to the High-Sec players who are "making billions" multiboxing.

The OP's suggestion would be an indirect way of nerfing the mean ol' multiboxers that are apparently not abiding by the norm that OP seems to have conjured up in their head.

This is nothing more than a poor attempt of a ganker crying about not being able to gank a 200mil ship in their 2mil Catalyst.
Hanna Cyrus
Spessart Rebellen
#16 - 2014-08-16 10:54:54 UTC
OMG.
Wardec him, thats what the mechanik for.
Grab yourself some miningships and do the same, if you think it's easy money.
Space Therapist
Better Days Ahead
#17 - 2014-08-16 10:56:05 UTC
Oops Must be due to the crickets.

See my bio for rates and services.
Garnoo
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2014-08-16 10:57:05 UTC
move to lowsec, no isboxing miners there

People are going to try to ruin your day. Get together with others, ruin their day back -  EvE
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#19 - 2014-08-16 11:00:48 UTC
You can't do anything about the locust swarm.

It's the first plague of the revelation.

EvE is dying.
Faeana
iD00M
#20 - 2014-08-16 11:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Faeana
Prince Kobol wrote:
If you don't like it then do something about it.


I am, but my options are limited. that's why I posted this thread. Give players the tools to police this kind of behaviour. With Procurers so cheap to buy, with the tank of a battleship, ganking them just isn't going to happen enough to have any impact. They need to be toned down a bit. They are clearly too powerful as the anomalies are filled with Procurers and Skiffs.
123Next pageLast page