A suggestion to make gameplay healthier. CCP please read this

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
#1

Hello, dear CCP. I would like to make a proposal that one person can only play on one account. I will give my arguments. In its current state, the game is weakly similar to MMOs, since the ability for one person to run several windows makes players self-sufficient, and almost completely turns off the social component of the game.

Objectively:
I have been playing for over a year and have never seen anyone looking for pilots for an ore anomaly, or to go through an abyss or an expedition. No, they just launch 2-3 windows themselves and they are self-sufficient, but also, they remain alone in this universe. They don’t need to interact with other players. The only thing that brings the pilots together is the CTA fleets (~obligatory) and roam (voluntary). I believe that removing the ability to run multiple windows would make the gameplay healthier. Recently, in Stein, I witnessed a situation when an alliance of said 2-5 alive people launched 60-80 windows, - made a fleet and drove a whole small alliance of ~30+ real active people out of the region (on papers it has 1100+ members).

Also, I recently heard about another one flaw of current ingame opportunity of multiboxing. Some people go multiboxing farm at 5-8 motherships at once. This leads to significant ISK inflation since there is an unknown number of this kind of people.

I believe that you, as I do, think that this situation is indicative of a problem in the current state of the game. And I am sure that removing the ability to run more than one window in the game will make the game much more social, players will no longer feel lonely in the crowd, and will spend more time here, and abuse of the ability to run the game in multiple windows will be eliminated.

#2

Being unable to multi-box would lead to huge un-subbing. There’s a lot of money for CCP in allowing multi-boxing. Not to mention its pretty much unenforceable. Players can find ways around such restrictions by using multiple pc’s or virtual pc’s.

Multi-boxing isn’t going away.

What we can do though is find ways to make multo-boxing harder or not scale so easily. Taking away afk friendly mechanics. Making activities more intensive. Allowing pvp to happen.

3 Likes
#3

How would you ever enforce this?

So this is just all based on your perceptions and feelings, not actual “objectivity”.

And now we’re just resorting to hearsay.

We’re supposed to change something core to the game because some dude on a forum just says “I am sure”??

You said

But never actually gave any arguments. Where are they?

1 Like
#4

A lot of activities in EvE are just too slow-moving for them to be enjoyable single boxing. You need to multi-box just to give you enough to do to not get bored. I think shifting away from multi-boxing would require a whole lot of major changes to gameplay. E.g., imagine just sitting there with one ship mining or harvesting gas clouds. One click every few minutes… Even doing missions is a whole lot more dull with just one account. A lot of EvE seems to be kind of set up on the assumption that you’re multi-boxing.

1 Like
#5

I think Daichi is spot on here. But I did want to add a few things.

First, there was a guy saying in your duplicate thread that multiboxing doesn’t contribute to inflation. I disagree. I personally multibox an activity that generates large amounts of isk, and I inject so much in-game currency into the economy that I effectively warrant my own spot on the MER isk sinks and faucets bar chart. For example, I personally negated the Planetary Export Tax for the entire game for the month of October. And I’m on a tear again this month. And that’s just me. That doesn’t include any of the other multiboxers, whose activity adds up real quick.

Of course, multiboxers don’t just generate isk. They generate a ton of ore, moongo, Triglavian building materials, and all that. So, banning multiboxing might help keep the money supply from growing too fast, but it would also decrease supply of a lot of stuff too. So, even though it might keep the money supply in check, and lower the prices of pilot service items (such as plex), it won’t necessarily improve everyone’s purchasing power when it comes to ships and fittings.

image
image1920Ă—1200 259 KB

Second, multiboxing does allow people to be more self sufficient, and getting rid of it would push more players towards fleeting up. However, and this is a big however, a lot of players insist on playing solo, even in MMO’s. And getting rid of multiboxing won’t make them fleet up and make friends; it will just make them feel like CCP is attacking their play style and the solo community. Moreover, multiboxing can actually help smaller groups and fleets to exist. For example, small groups will multibox a lot to help them to compete with larger groups, and those participating in group PvE activities will sometimes have to multibox just to keep the fleet from standing down to a lack of numbers.

2 Likes
#6

You know, I think you might be right. i wasn’t thinking as big. However, I do think that the changes that CCP has made recently such as the DBS and ESS as well as the supercarrier fighter changes have impacted how much ISK a multiboxer using supercarriers can print specifically. You clearly have more experience than me in this area so if I am still missing anything feel free to correct me.

1 Like
#7

Suppose they could actually remove multiboxing , the technical problems this would pose will be gargantuan. It will also lead to a ton of unsubs , since most of the players have been multiboxing already for ages.
You have to keep in mind that not all of the players are multiboxing , I know a lot of them that just use 1 account.
Multiboxing is a problem indeed , but it will never go away, CCP has made it this way a long time ago and encouraged it. As long as the accounts are paid, they don’t care if it’s just one person with 100 accounts. Why it’s a problem ? Well it takes away a part of player interaction and roles that should have been filled by actual persons are filled by the same dude multiboxing X accounts . It also makes some of the players joining said organizations feel useless.
The perfect example is the lone person in j-space multiboxing X accounts, with characters specialized for everything that you need to succeed there , when in a normal situation that would require the effort of a small corporation with more that one actual person in it . Same thing goes for industrial corporations, that are focused on resource gathering and/or manufacturing.

#8

Most of the people that i interact with who multibox typically do so for light tackle or dread alts or cloaky eyes. Multiboxing for light tackle such as a sabre is particularly common because who wants to miss out on the fight because they got blapped right as your fleet landed? You aren’t really replacing someone’s role by multiboxing and bringing a light tackle alt. Particularly when you have a corp with relatively few people in it, multiboxing logi or fleet ships can be necessary to fight a larger group. While I understand that people can use multiboxing to print isk in large quantities, it also has the potential for motivated players to punch up (Think Olmeca Gold and players like that).

1 Like
#9

No thank you, I like the convenience of being able to get stuff delivered to nullsec, especially with the annoying mineral changes that now require importing from Jita. Go delete some other activity and leave jump freighters be.

#10

Meanwhile, at the Rubal household, Brisc gets home from work:

are_ya_winning
are_ya_winning1200Ă—704 46.1 KB

:slight_smile:

Meanwhile, at CCP HQ, CCP_Hellmar walks into the office:

CCP_Hellmar: Why can’t I check out the latest release?
CCP_RIse: Sorry boss. Thanks to us implementing Visceros Auros suggestion, only one of us at the office can be logged in at a time and I’m currently running some solo pvp.
CCP_Hellmar: When will you be off?
CCP_Rise: In a while, but you can add your name to the list. We had to start a queue because of the new restriction.

Note: none of this is intended to be impersonation. No CCP CEOs, CSM members (or their families) or devs were harmed in the making of this post.

4 Likes
#11

Imagine participating in a TiDi battle with this restriction. :sweat_smile:

1 Like
#12

They cater to activities that allow AFK play.

For example, it used to be that command ships like the Orca were poor miners. When that was the case, people used exhumers. Exhumers suck for AFK because you have to move the ore every few minutes or that hold fills up.

But then they gave Orca drone mining and guess what, the ore goes directly to the ore hold.

So with Orca you put one drone on each big rock/ice and go AFK for all the time it takes a single drone to use up the target.

They literally fixed something that wasn’t broken so it would be AFK friendly.

#13

No, it was broken, because Orca’s were relegated to alt use since they had no active role in a fleet. And it was not so it would be AFK friendly, it was so that they had something to do in fleet actively.
Also if they mine the way you say, they mine like 10% what an active Orca mines. You could do the same with a Retriever, just use mining drones and put 1 per rock and afk mine for ages.

1 Like
#14

How exactly would an Orca that splits its drones and going AFK, but coming back to put the drones back on a new target, only mine 10% of that of an active Orca? I’ve never mined with an Orca before, however, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if the Orca is purely using drones to mine.

#15

Travel time. If they are splitting their drones they aren’t at 0 on the rocks for at least 4 of the rocks, which means inefficiency.
Also coming back to put your drone on a new target is vague at best, if you are talking about a survey scanner and stopwatching it you aren’t really talking about afk anymore in that situation, so much as afw which isn’t really what people are usually talking about.

#16

They aren’t active now. Not for mining anyways. And aside from solo mining, they are still relegated to alt duty.

You could nerf their yield and they’d be just active as they are today and just as relegated to alt use.

#17

What game were you playing?

They were LEADERs of the fleet, Orca/Hulk fleets were all over, teamwork even among players who didn’t even know each other was rampant.

Their role was Command Ship. I guess you think any role that cannot be soloed is not a real role.

1 Like
#18

I agree with yea, the Orca should go back to a command/hauler ship like it was in the beginning. As a miner it makes me mad that my career path is being destroyed by CCP because they are not smart enough to deal with an AFK player without tossing innocent people under the bus. Not every multi boxer is a BOT or an AFK player. I could care less how people play the game and would not even care about it if CCP had not used it as their reason to destroy the game.

#19

Someone is living up to their name with salt and also not bothering to read.
The Orca was not the leader of a fleet, they were sat on a POS with boosts turned on on an alt account and left to run for hours without even looking at them.
Now if bothering about mining speed they are even more active than mining barges as you have to be constantly repositioning as well as paying attention to range from the barges in your fleet that you are boosting.
Nerfing their yield will just force them back into the alt role again.

1 Like
#20

Nerfing their yield, provided you do not nerf it all the way to 0, will still require the same repositioning as now.

And nerfing the yield to 0 will still require the ship to be on field and in range of the barges, unlike back when it was on a POS with unlimited range.

As such, no, I do not think that nerfing their yield will force Orcas into an alt role any more than they are now.

2 Likes