I did. But I’d rather have old stef produce proof for these claims 
LOL. Almost anything is possible. But I’m guessing you don’t live your life in a certain way because maybe a meteor could impact earth. Let’s be real.
Your words. So you must have proof its happening. Right?
Again, your words. So you must have proof right?
LOL. Possible is one thing. If it’s actually happening, that’s another.
The justification for this nerf is what you’re claiming. Yet you got no proof bruv.
Guess where that leaves you
But nobody cares about your “anything is possible” .
Because again, that’s off topic.
No it’s not. My answer to your off topic post was not a justification of anything. You got no proof bruv.
I did not make any claim that you are talking about.
The claim that you associate with me (that it is done) are plain hallucinatory delirium on your part.
THAT is fact. You are repeatedly forcing words in my mouth. That’s harassment.
Ma’am, that complain about alphas getting abused as gank toons has been around since like the first forum thread on the dev-blog where they got announced. CCP even responded to that specific fear.
So it’s now 6 years that this is possible. If that was always enough then why is it getting changed just now?
Something has changed. Either it was actively abused, or it’s simply CCP that changed.
It’s written on CCP post. It’s changed because they will make toons with low ss being an issue.
The issue as announced by CCP is NOT the multiboxing of alphas, but the salvaging of low-ss toons. Anything about multiboxing alphas being an issue is off topic in that case - though it may also have an effect on such an illegal activity. Maybe the ability to multibox alphas was also a concern, but if that’s the case it’s not talked about in that announcement.
By introducing these changes, the consequences for ganking have become more severe. To avoid players attempting to work around these new rules using Alpha clones, we are preemptively removing the ability for Alpha clones to disable safety while in high security space.
No, it isn’t actually. Despite your hyperbole, your words are quoted for emphasis above
You’re claiming since these things are possible, the nerf should happen. So I asked for proof that it is happening, so the nerf would be justified.
TLDR: You got no proof and you are a duck out of water
Because as we all know it isn’t happening.
Drop the proof that is in fact happening.
I’ll wait
By introducing these changes, the consequences for ganking have become more severe. To avoid players attempting to work around these new rules using Alpha clones, we are preemptively removing the ability for Alpha clones to disable safety while in high security space.
I read that and wondered what they were actually saying here, at a guess they might have been worried that a load of butthurt gankers will create a mass of alpha accounts and start butchering new players to pay back CCP for daring to remove a buff and apply consequences. I noticed several gankers saying on these forums that they would create an Alpha account to blow up new players, so it could have been solely due to that type of thing.
I asked in another thread if gankers were killing new players with Alpha accounts, because I thought that was the only thing that could justify this, but obviously on reflection based on that paragraph it was to prevent butthurt gankers from trying to get even with CCP by forcing new players out of the game.
It’s possible, but the only thing that is said is that people could avoid the mechanism change using alphas.
The only way to avoid that change is by using new alphas, which are free once you set up the salvagin+training automation.
So maybe there are other concerns, but those are not expressed in that announcement, and claiming they are “the real reason” for those changes is personal interpretation and claiming otherwise is rumor mongering.
Very true, at the end of the day only CCP and perhaps the CSM know their real reasons unless they make a public statement, we of course can only guess at it, which is what I just did based on that statement. Still it is a pretty good reason imo of course… o7
That can be easily proven with evewho. Can you prove that gankers did this?
If anyone did this, because gankers knew it is against unspoken rules and we might get banned for it, it will be killright baiters. But if I look at killboard I don’t see multiple chars by the same name, meaning that even they are ratting or tagging it back.
The problem was that you could always circumvent this unspoken rule, if you were alpha, by creating a brand new account anyway. So you didn’t have to biomass anyone.
And this upcoming alpha ganking nerf doesn’t prevent us to biomass gankers on our omega accounts, in fact the new price of clone soldiers promote this. So the reasoning really doesn’t make a sense.
Again, that’s completely off topic.
ANY point that uses “prove me this happened” is by definition stupid. Because this is about a future change and what could happen in the future (not in the past).
There is NO claim in that post that the issued actually happened already ; and whether or not it happened before is nothing to consider. It’s as stupid as if I said “I’m gonna get an umbrella, it might rain next week” and you ask me to prove it rained last week.
Also it’s CCP’s announcement. Trust them or not, I don’t care.
Since you don’t even try to understand the actual issue, I’m not really surprised that the reasoning does not make any sense to you.
I suggest you actually read what is written and not what your friend claim is written. I suggest you stick to facts as a basis instead of propaganda.
Well, I will say this about CCP, they’ve always been consistently slow (as in years) on making game mechanics more balanced.
Reading CCP’s reasons for these changes made me remember past events that pointed to this very topic. However at those times, any mention of ‘Rookie Griefing’ was always refuted by most as unsubstantiated claims, sometimes even being referred to as implausible delusional ramblings or simply just scaremongering.
Funny thing is that this very topic was alluded to in Hilmar’s 2019 ‘Beyond the Friendship Machine’ presentation discussing the ‘Magic Moment’ - new players first devastating loss.
Course this topic has been around for more than just a few years yet it was usually passed off as never being a problem, like in CCP Rice’s 2015 Eve Fanfest NPE presentation.
Ironically enough back in 2012, CCP added more systems to their Rookie Starter System list and updated their rules pertaining to New Player griefing which caused quite a commotion here in the forums.
Anyway, seems like there’s a new Sheriff in town at CCP…
Recycling low sec status characters tends to attract the attention of CCP, it’s a database call away and from what I’ve been told doing so results in the account holder being asked why; the reason had better be good because it’s a breach of the rules to recycle characters in order to avoid the consequences of low sec status.
Besides which why bother? Alpha accounts are disposable, when all 3 alts are unusable you just switch to the next one.
Recycling is not to be taken as biomassing.
It’s free to make another account with a disposable mail adress.
So yes. You create 20 accounts and when the 3 toons of one are burnt you switch to the next account and start training a 21st.
People are already doing that to spam Jita scams. Just look at all the new toons that spam the hyperscam created by the same person. Like one is created per day. The “how” is not the issue. It is doable, and as such could be an issue with the incoming change.
In that case you need to change your phrasing, biomassing a character to make room for another is recycling; that’s the common usage here when used in reference to characters and accounts.
Switching to another account is not recycling, it’s metaphorically throwing your trash out of the window as you’re driving along.
You’re playing on words. Again, “how” is not the concern.
If I was wrong about the how, then it’s not something to focus on - because it does not change a thing about the argument.
Also biomassing your alpha toons is functionally the same as creating another account. What you did with the old one does not change what you want : it is to have a new toon.
So for alpha accounts, biomassing one toon is functionally the same as creating a new account.
Finally, biomassing your toon is also “metaphorically throwing your trash out of the window as you’re driving along.” .
So both having the same function and being the same metaphorical things, they can both be called the term that is used for that function, wich is “recycling” and is an out-of-game term used by players. Of course this is only true for alpha accounts.
TLDR : stop nitpicking, it’s childish. Focus on the point, not the term choice that have no impact on the actual discussion.
That is true. This is a rabbit hole you fall into when you allow multiboxing and even design your game around it. And then you allow free2play accounts.
So now players won’t “abuse” alphas to gank or anything else related to ganking such as CONCORD spawning/pulling, killright baiting. But dozen of other abuses still remains, blueprint training, scouting/intel, various use cases for pve and if we agree to this alpha multiboxing narrative then you can still multibox mining with ventures, low tier abyssals, hígh tier pve in nullsec and so on…
well perhaps thats the intended effect, you are right.
They are mainly LS, NS and WH people who want to try HS ganking, first with an alpha and if they like it, they move to omega.