Warfare & Tactics

You buy an item that represents 1 month of game time, not ISK.

Then you sell that to other players for what they think 1 month of game time is worth. That game time token is ultimately converted into someones subscription.

No isk is generated, and all you have done is physically pay for someone elses game time.

The pay to win topic has been hashed out on hundreds of occasions, and im afraid, as Andre has said, you are on the losing side.

Having more isk doesnt give any single player an arbitrary advantage at the character level. You need more isk to lose than you do to win tbh.

I already made the point, which perhaps you missed, that most people who pick up an MMORPG expect to encounter some form of progression mechanic. It's a long-running element of the genre and everyone has to start out at the same place at one time or another.

Whereas paying +$20 or +$40 a month or however much you want to spend to have your own personally controlled fleet, is definitely pay to win. You are paying real life currency and receiving in return a massive ingame advantage that frees you from having to interact with other players in an MMO.

It's not a question of arbitrary barriers but rather of where it is reasonable to erect those barriers. I'm arguing that "You have to endure the same training process ingame as everyone else, actually not even all of it due to various changes" is fundamentally different from "The ability to multibox second and third accounts is sufficiently widespread that I need to invest in that capability myself in order to compete against a significant portion of the player base."

Or, I can simply avoid the players who engage in that behavior, which leads to an overall decrease in content, especially as other players adopt the same approach.

Now, the difference between OGB and a number of other multiboxed trump cards is that OGB currently faces far less risk. That's something we agree needs to be changed. If you are going to pay $ for an ingame advantage, someone else should be able to reasonably counter that advantage by bringing friends. Which is frankly what started this entire debate - I was not responding to you so much as the people spouting gibberish about Falcons and "buy your own booster" who were completely missing the point.

We don't want more ships in space. We want more players in space.

But this is exactly why I don't think they should exist. You shouldn't have to own a second account to pick off opponents that you separated with good, skilled flying. But as you said, it was required because of the current system.

I'm not saying I would oppose mays suggestion being used, but I do think boosts and fleet bonuses need to go.

You can generate isk just fine on your regular account with your main or one of your two free character slots. You just can't run it concurrently with your main, which doesn't bother me and if you pay for that feature it's not different from just being in game more often, so it's not as big of a deal (though still p2w).

It's very different from gaining a flat out range control advantage which can lose or win an entire fight for you because you have a booster, allowing you to stick to or disengage targets at will. Or a dps/EHP boost. Such bonuses should not exist.

If I see one ship on grid, I should be fighting against 1 ship. Not one plus links and fleet bonuses.

Just going to toss this out there, but boosts aren't only used in PVP. PVEers and miners use them regularly. So when talking about wanting to make them gain a suspect flag or weapons timer, realize you aren't only affecting the boosting alts you see in your PVP activities.

Changes/fixes should have a balanced approach.

Most people play this game with more than one account. It is not a problem.

Thats your choice. Im sure someone can find the stats.

Can i have your stuff?

There is a clear distinction between alts and multiple accounts. I use my two alts for logistics also. But I will not pay for a second account.

I'm still waiting for someone to link data showing "most" players have multiple active accounts. I'm pretty sure that's bullshit, and if it's not I'm unsubbing.
Show me data that there are more USERS from multiboxing than from single accounts. Or even that there are more multi boxed accounts in total.

You think EVE is meant to be played solo? EVE is a MMO. You don't need a second account, just friends to even the playing field.

Scenario 1: Player A enters a FW system and sees it is being contested by 5-10 opposing militia members. He doesn't have any friends online at the moment, but he does have a booster alt that he can use to effectively help even the odds if he is smart. Using his boosting alt and manual piloting skill (plus knowledge of the game) he is able to curb their activities until others get online. USING LINK ALT AS INTENDED.

Scenario 2: Player A enters system and sees it being contested by 1 person. Logs on boosting alt so he can easily smash the other player in and lower his risk. NOT USING LINK ALT AS INTENDED.

When a player is using links to even the odds, then he is using them as they were intended (at least in my view); but when a person is just using them for easy kills, then it is abuse.

This is why I just want the links shown on the killmail and given a weapons timer for now. If CCP can make it so they have to be on grid in the future, that would be nice. In the interim, I just want the evidence; to show the people who use their links only to increase their likelihood of an easy kill.

Since most people dont go out and look for 1v1's im going to dispute your reasoning. Also, boosts are fine at the small/med gang level.

Links add verity to gang fighting, and solo is just a vocal minority. Also, those soloists blaming boosts for their losses will just move right on to blaming other things for their losses.