EVE General Discussion

Nice ad hominem and speculation of your own - The fact is, CCP have looked at multiboxing and decided to implement this change. That kinda suggests to me (and any one with a degree of rationality) that they think multiboxing, on the scale it curently works at, is breaking the game...or they just hate you superior beings and want to troll your 'gamestyle'

Change the game that the majority are happy with to cater for the few that are breaking it? Like changing cloak mechanics or adding 4-digit bomb arming codes...seriously the only two suggestions I've seen from people clinging to their personal isk faucets are completely terrible.

Out of curiosity, what would you say your Net Asset Value is across all your toons - and your personal hourly isk income (after plexing ofc)

Me - 100mil/hr, somewhere between 10 and 100billion....edit: takes me about 20hrs to plex my 2 accounts.

Citation required.

There are ships that need you to have multiple accounts to be remotely playable. Unless titan pilots only log in for 5 mins a month to bridge someone, it is expected that they have sitters and cynos and stuff.

I can F1-TAB-F1-TAB-F1 as fast as i can just hit F1 many times. I don't need isboxer for round robin. I don't need anything other than a machine that is good enough to play many clients.

Multiboxing is going nowhere. It is right there in the OP.

I don't know, ask them. There certainly won't be any other differences from this change though. If I had to guess I'd say that like out here in the forum, within CCP there have been those for an against broadcasting, the discussion has come up and they've gone against it, with very little consideration to any follow up changes.

I think in general most devs, and players, would prefer that. The fact is though that the game has grown into supporting multiboxing so much that they offer special deals specifically to have multiple accounts. I doubt CCP would do anything to try to break that up unless they were in a considerably stronger position than they currently are.

Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to as well. Round robin will be ideal for bombers really. The other type of people it will get rid of (or at least downsize) are the 40+ accounts players, of which there are probably only a few. I can only think of 1 off the top of my head.

I was up to 70, but not in PVP.

And I know of Bikkus Dikkus, who is verifiable as running 40 or more toons inHighsec HQ incursions.

As for boxed mining fueling the CFCs industrial arm, boxed mining happens. It happens alot, and tends to run boosted high skill mining fleets for reasonably long periods of time. I wouldn't be surprised if as much as a quarter of all miners came from people running at least 2 accounts.

TLDR: You don't care about ISboxers keeping their preferred gamestyle either, you just want it ended in a different way that requires more coding, changing of mechanics and more hassle for the majority of the playerbase - but you agree that multiplexing (and excessive multiboxing of any fashion?) affects the game in a detrimental way.

And you disagree that hard bans on some of the specific techniques of doing this will be successful?

:)

See I'm not envious at all - but it does negatively affect me by making plex more expensive meaning I have to spend extra time to continue playing for free which isn't the same thing as envy at all. Likewise any small scale miners get negatively affected by bad mineral prices without having any need to be envious of the person making more isk than them.

Unless you're Bill Gates you must surely have become accustomed to others having more than you in the real world, let alone having it upset you in a videogame - so yeah I think 'envy' is not the reason that people have a chip on their shoulder about ISboxers - that's without even getting into the direct pvp results where 1 man can effectively suicide gank almost any ship in the game without any need of outside assistance if you cross him the wrong way - or take down a POS - or completely swing a whole battle in nullsec... I can't think of an RL analogy for this.

dual post, lol

You're implying that PLEX increasing is relatively recent and is only caused by multiboxed accounts when CCP themselves admitted that less plex was being moved on the market. PLEX is a consumable item that has had it's demand increase thanks to dual character training and there are many people who hoard hundreds if not thousands of PLEX like it was gold. In this case correlation =/= causation.

As I've said and as Lucas has mentioned in previous posts, there is a very vocal subset of the playerbase that hates "Alts Online" and will QQ if you use two toons at once, let alone a fleet. These were the ones running about screaming about bots in local whenever they encountered a mining fleet, or sending hundreds of petitions because they disliked ISBoxing because they couldn't do it or they didn't want to do it.

ISBoxers have always had a "live and let live" policy when it comes to other players partially due to the fact that we sacrifice quite a bit when we box a fleet.

It might not be the only cause but when you have players that have excessive isk/hr earning potential and are using increasing numbers of plex across all their accounts, then it's going to exacerbate the problems of plex shortages.

70/40/20/10 accounts being plexed by one player every month? At the high end of the spectrum that's close to 5 years worth of gametime for someone with a single account all gone in a month and all used in bringing in either exorbitant amounts of isk, LP or minerals that are affecting the markets for everyone - it's like a double whammy of bad for the game. And then some of those players falsely claim that they're a key market for CCP because of using these plex (which would get used by other players if they cost less isk anyways) - leeches not whales.

I've never screamed about bots or QQ'd about multiboxers - but I will cheer efforts to restrict them down to less superhuman levels of income multiplication because it's a fix for the game and - as I've already said - I think that people trying to sidestep the implemented measures on technicalities are fighting against the ones making the rules and on a slippery slope to more draconian measures.

It seems that Lucas actually doesn't really care about maintaining ISboxers' playstyles at all so I wouldn't really reference him in your points - he just doesn't believe that this specific change will work as a form of controlling the symptom - which he's currently correct about since there's so many workarounds to the current policy. Where we differ is that I believe the policy can be tightened up to close those loopholes whilst he believes a complete redesign of the core gameplay mechanics is required to do so.

The only people with access to full details about the effects of multiboxers on the economy are CCP... and guess who's implementing this change?

So lets think about reasons WHY they might be implementing this:

- because lots of non-multiboxers are whining?
- because it was being used as an excuse by various botters?
- because it adversely affects their game design (through breaking pvp combat with bombers and screwing up their player driven economy)?

Feel free to come up with your own and try to figure out which are the most likely reasons for them to restrict a playstyle like this.