Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
 

I think there should be a limit on how many clients are running on one

Author
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2017-04-20 18:56:18 UTC  |  Edited by: radkid10
I honestly think more than 10 is kind of stupid and also I think people using more than 10 are most likely using multi broadcasting

when I was in horde one thing I really hate it is people using ridiculous amounts of characters when there's a 30 man local Spike you usually expect a lot of enemies then it turns out to be a person with a **** ton of alts

seriously there needs to be a cap on how many accounts per computer or IP address
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2017-04-20 18:58:03 UTC
radkid10 wrote:
I honestly think more than 10 is kind of stupid and also I think people using more than 10 are most likely using multi broadcasting

when I was in horde one thing I really hate it is people using ridiculous amounts of characters when there's a 30 man local Spike you usually expect a lot of enemies then it turns out to be a person with a **** ton of alts

seriously there needs to be a cap on how many accounts per computer or IP address


VPN on virtual machines.

Your move.
Caldari State
#3 - 2017-04-20 19:27:02 UTC
You think it's stupid.

They think it's fun.

1 opinion minus 1 opinion = neutral.

If you think they're broadcasting inputs, report them to a GM with any relevant information. That will solve your problem, as well as allow legitimate uses of more than 10 accounts.

For example, I know someone who likes to cloaky camp... so he uses 40 accounts to cloaky camp most of a region. Hilariously fun, you shut down a massive number of nullbears all at once. Scares me to think how much isk he has, that he can just say "yea I plexed 40 accounts, injected them into bombers with cynos, we're gonna start dropping on things" on a whim.

There was a point where we were dropping 50-80 bombers on vexors (not even navy issue) because they weren't bringing anything else out to try and rat, they just knew we were ready to drop pretty much across the board.

He didn't get a lot of sleep while we were doing that, he was in USTZ and the EUTZ folks would regularly ping him when the map started showing ratting activity.

They as the people being camped may not like it, but unlike most of the complaints about cloaky camping, we were generally always actively hunting them. Definitely makes being deployed a whole lot more fun!


So with that story out of the way, why do you think that people should only be capped at 10 accounts? "It's stupid" is a stupid opinion.
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2017-04-20 21:18:59 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
You think it's stupid.

They think it's fun.

1 opinion minus 1 opinion = neutral.

If you think they're broadcasting inputs, report them to a GM with any relevant information. That will solve your problem, as well as allow legitimate uses of more than 10 accounts.

For example, I know someone who likes to cloaky camp... so he uses 40 accounts to cloaky camp most of a region. Hilariously fun, you shut down a massive number of nullbears all at once. Scares me to think how much isk he has, that he can just say "yea I plexed 40 accounts, injected them into bombers with cynos, we're gonna start dropping on things" on a whim.

There was a point where we were dropping 50-80 bombers on vexors (not even navy issue) because they weren't bringing anything else out to try and rat, they just knew we were ready to drop pretty much across the board.

He didn't get a lot of sleep while we were doing that, he was in USTZ and the EUTZ folks would regularly ping him when the map started showing ratting activity.

They as the people being camped may not like it, but unlike most of the complaints about cloaky camping, we were generally always actively hunting them. Definitely makes being deployed a whole lot more fun!


So with that story out of the way, why do you think that people should only be capped at 10 accounts? "It's stupid" is a stupid opinion.


your friend was most likely hacking is there's no legitimate way to control that many accounts at once
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2017-04-20 22:02:30 UTC
Please tell the class why you would need to be hacking to log in and turn on a cloaking device 40 times.


Personally I have zero problems with multiboxing, and really, it'd be a cat and mouse game CCP would inevitably lose trying to catch people using virtual machines or multiple computers or whatever other workarounds they come up with. EVE players are a creative bunch.
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2017-04-20 22:08:31 UTC  |  Edited by: radkid10
Danika Princip wrote:
Please tell the class why you would need to be hacking to log in and turn on a cloaking device 40 times.


Personally I have zero problems with multiboxing, and really, it'd be a cat and mouse game CCP would inevitably lose trying to catch people using virtual machines or multiple computers or whatever other workarounds they come up with. EVE players are a creative bunch.


the cloaking device is doable without cheating but using all the bombers to attack at once with one computer

no one can micromanage 40 characters at once in combat without cheating it's not humanly possible

how do you like losing 14 Capital Industrials it's amazing how they lit all their cynos at the same time instantly

https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/year/2017/month/4/
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2017-04-20 22:15:38 UTC
If you have fourteen rorquals on grid with no panic modules and cynos fit, then frankly you deserve it.
#8 - 2017-04-20 22:26:54 UTC
Isboxer can be set up do you can have ten screens on the go at once. Activating bombs like that would be like activating ten mods on a normal character. It's within the realm of possibility.

Its not input broadcasting.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

#9 - 2017-04-20 23:25:01 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
VPN on virtual machines.

Your move.


I don't want to limit the number of clients, but honestly, if someone goes through the trouble to set up something like that for a video game, they have bigger problems to worry about. This is a game, not your job...
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2017-04-21 03:20:47 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
VPN on virtual machines.

Your move.


I don't want to limit the number of clients, but honestly, if someone goes through the trouble to set up something like that for a video game, they have bigger problems to worry about. This is a game, not your job...


It's EVE.

'nuff said.
Wrecking Machine.
#11 - 2017-04-21 09:14:06 UTC
Also, assuming you know what you're doing and have some experience in the matter, setting up a VM with VPN is actually easy, setting up five or six (times 10 giving what i consider the absolute maximum usable limit of alts running at the same time) shouldn't take more than an afternoon.
#12 - 2017-04-21 13:13:53 UTC
radkid10 wrote:
no one can micromanage 40 characters at once in combat without cheating it's not humanly possible

They used to say that man would never fly now were soaring in the sky and that is quite literal with human powered aircraft a reality.
Honestly history is filled with this crazy notion that something cannot be done by humans so here is just a short list of the things that the best minds on earth used to think were impossible for human beings to do.

The world is flat, sail to far and you will fall off the edge, a few thousand years later no one has found that edge, at least not yet.

Over 25 miles per hour unprotected and the wind pressure on your chest would cause you to stop breathing and may even kill you, yet people routinely run motorcycles at speeds over 200 miles per hour and no one has died from the wind pressure on their chests.

Not physically possible for a vehicle of any type to go over 100 miles per hour, the current land speed record is well over 700 miles per hour and expected to go to over 1,000 miles per hour in the next 3 to 5 years.

No human being will ever be able to run a mile in less than 4 minutes, it is common now to have every single competitor in a meet to be well under the 4 minute mark.

A friend of mine is a weight lifter, I cannot even pick up the 250 pound bars he uses to hold the weights he lifts. For those curious he uses the heavy bar because he finds it easier to control and therefore safer to use for training than the standard bar and weight set ups.

Einstein could do math calculations in his head in seconds that most people on earth today would need a calculator to do.

Bottom line here is this, because YOU cannot do something does not mean that others cannot.

With that said, personally I think allowing players to have multiple accounts online at the same time in a game that promotes gathering into groups and working to achieve a common goal is rather idiotic, but hey not my game and not my rules so whatever.
Caldari State
#13 - 2017-04-21 13:44:58 UTC
radkid10 wrote:
I honestly think more than 10 is kind of stupid and also I think people using more than 10 are most likely using multi broadcasting

when I was in horde one thing I really hate it is people using ridiculous amounts of characters when there's a 30 man local Spike you usually expect a lot of enemies then it turns out to be a person with a **** ton of alts

seriously there needs to be a cap on how many accounts per computer or IP address



That goes against the current Eve model of getting your current players to buy more subs to do the solo game-play they occasionally desire with the multiple accounts that are required.

#14 - 2017-04-21 14:35:22 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
VPN on virtual machines.

Your move.


I don't want to limit the number of clients, but honestly, if someone goes through the trouble to set up something like that for a video game, they have bigger problems to worry about. This is a game, not your job...


This isn't particularly hard to do, I've done absolutely zero prep for this and I don't currently have either a VM or a VPN setup. I could be running an Eve client inside a VM tunneling through a VPN inside of two hours from when I get home and after that I don't have to do any significant work on it ever again.
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2017-04-21 15:00:40 UTC
There is no justification for arbitrary rules, if they are truly multiboxing and not input broadcasting, then there is no issue if they want to pay for even 100 accounts.

To you or me this would however be an enormous pain in the ass to do, but some people are willing to pay for that.

Go figure?Shocked
#16 - 2017-04-21 20:25:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vokan Narkar
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
VPN on virtual machines.

Your move.


I don't want to limit the number of clients, but honestly, if someone goes through the trouble to set up something like that for a video game, they have bigger problems to worry about. This is a game, not your job...


This isn't particularly hard to do, I've done absolutely zero prep for this and I don't currently have either a VM or a VPN setup. I could be running an Eve client inside a VM tunneling through a VPN inside of two hours from when I get home and after that I don't have to do any significant work on it ever again.

One could do that as well to run multiple alpha clones. Perhaps there are even players who do that.

But, out of those who uses dozens alts already, many of them will not go through that to workaround it. And even those who will will be severely annoyed by it and will most probably slowly turning away from it or limit the number of running accounts either because its then becoming more hw-intensive and also manually intensive.

I was multiboxing in diablo2 using VM and each VM and client running slowed others down which severaly restricted the number of running clients even I had 40 legit cdkeys I could not log more than 8 at once on my machine. Granted EVE is different game and today's hardware is somewhere else but it will have effect. EDIT: and why I was multiboxing in diablo2 ? because others were multiboxing and I wanted to compete - I believe some of the EVE multiboxers doing that from very same reason.

Even if 6 of 8 massive multiboxers keeps it running through VM/VPN it will make this game better. CPP however will have to find a different way to provide these players something to spend € or PLEX for.
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2017-04-21 22:33:00 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
You think it's stupid.

They think it's fun.

1 opinion minus 1 opinion = neutral.

If you think they're broadcasting inputs, report them to a GM with any relevant information. That will solve your problem, as well as allow legitimate uses of more than 10 accounts.

For example, I know someone who likes to cloaky camp... so he uses 40 accounts to cloaky camp most of a region. Hilariously fun, you shut down a massive number of nullbears all at once. Scares me to think how much isk he has, that he can just say "yea I plexed 40 accounts, injected them into bombers with cynos, we're gonna start dropping on things" on a whim.

There was a point where we were dropping 50-80 bombers on vexors (not even navy issue) because they weren't bringing anything else out to try and rat, they just knew we were ready to drop pretty much across the board.

He didn't get a lot of sleep while we were doing that, he was in USTZ and the EUTZ folks would regularly ping him when the map started showing ratting activity.

They as the people being camped may not like it, but unlike most of the complaints about cloaky camping, we were generally always actively hunting them. Definitely makes being deployed a whole lot more fun!


So with that story out of the way, why do you think that people should only be capped at 10 accounts? "It's stupid" is a stupid opinion.

That's not how it works.

OP has one vote.

10-client multiboxer has 10 votes, because 10 accounts.

A signature :o

#18 - 2017-04-21 23:01:11 UTC
Vokan Narkar wrote:
One could do that as well to run multiple alpha clones. Perhaps there are even players who do that.

But, out of those who uses dozens alts already, many of them will not go through that to workaround it. And even those who will will be severely annoyed by it and will most probably slowly turning away from it or limit the number of running accounts either because its then becoming more hw-intensive and also manually intensive.

I was multiboxing in diablo2 using VM and each VM and client running slowed others down which severaly restricted the number of running clients even I had 40 legit cdkeys I could not log more than 8 at once on my machine. Granted EVE is different game and today's hardware is somewhere else but it will have effect. EDIT: and why I was multiboxing in diablo2 ? because others were multiboxing and I wanted to compete - I believe some of the EVE multiboxers doing that from very same reason.

Even if 6 of 8 massive multiboxers keeps it running through VM/VPN it will make this game better. CPP however will have to find a different way to provide these players something to spend € or PLEX for.


Anyone running more than 10 accounts at one time almost certainly already has multiple physical machines running them, which means they don't have to.

I was simply pointing out the basic in-feasibility of trying to restrict this sort of behavior in software, especially at an arbitrary number of accounts.

I also dispute the assumption that removing multiboxing will make the game significantly better or that there would be any kind of collective sigh of relief. Per CCP's own internal numbers the vast majority of players have 2 or fewer accounts, and the majority have one account. This means that most people aren't multiboxing, and most people are not in any rush to try to catch up to those people who are multiboxing.

A possible reason for this can be found through simple economics, running multiple accounts is *really #$%#ing expensive*. If you're running 10 accounts, you're either spending ~10b more in PLEX every month than someone running 1 account, or you're spending enough money to buy ~9 PLEX every month and sell them for in-game currency. This means that for that level of multiboxing to be profitable you have to be making enough with each account to justify its existence above and beyond the cost of the PLEX, otherwise you're better off using your money to buy PLEX and selling it, or not spending all that money on PLEX every month.

This means you need to be doing something with each account lucrative enough to not only generate that much ISK per month but also additional profits.

There are certainly activities that pay that well in Eve, but not that many, and most are SP and time intensive. Rorqual mining probably being the best recent example, so you're already looking at sunk costs of around a year's worth of PLEX for each character which then have to be earned back as well.

In short, having alts and multiboxing is *expensive*.

Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
That's not how it works.

OP has one vote.

10-client multiboxer has 10 votes, because 10 accounts.


This isn't how anything works either. The only people with votes work for CCP, the rest of us just make suggestions, and those don't get weighting per account Big smile
Forum Jump