[Devblog] The Future of Force Projection Feedback Thread

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
589

Option 3: Limited Time Delay Gated Access. Has a much more honest and balanced approach.

Mapping systems…I know alot of people are wed to Dotlan. I personally find EVE Eye a whole heck better and more information dense than even the current “updated in game system” it allows me to see some of the undercurrent of the game and its smaller day to day affects like system adjustments. And its customizable to finding things. It even has a zkill feed, so players can see locations and where activity is going. With delay again, and obfuscations. There are some wormhole mappers that allow people to track connections and create a fairly accurate constellation of wormhole interaction system.

Market systems are another big headache because although it helps day to day players to see what is available. There have been instances of “Insider Trading” because people have used information they gleaned from in game and out of game data mining + leaks. And the issues of market manipulation which can have massive negative affects on the players. I think alot of the market information could be pulled back into the game. Especially using a market Hub comparison tool. Also sometimes the market data is either lagging behind in game application, or it shows market content that isn’t generally public knowledge. [Example of Spiced Wine…generally a thrown away NPC loot item…but fairly valuable per unit in certain NPC lowsec and nullsec areas.]

Fitting systems and capsuleer training organization systems. Do allow people to see what they should be training towards and how their ships should be operating in some content. There is an argument of “solving content” before it even hits the game. But if we had a more comprehensive fitting and pod simulation system in game…things like Pyfa and EVE Mon wouldn’t be necessary. [although people have used such programs to data mine their opposition before.] But also these fitting services do have blindspots. Currently Pyfa has not accurate way to simulate current Edencom Fortress Bonuses for each Empire. So some knowledge in game is actually ahead of the simulation systems. Useful…but always needs to be treated as if its not 100% accurate.

Hoboleaks…is one very question mark situation. Because its a data mining sort of service that shows what has been added or removed from the game. Sometimes you get a preview of content before its deployed to Tranquility. Currently hoboleaks has kind of given away some of the new content materials related probably to the new update and event. So some people have always had legs up in getting a head start into some content. But its not 100% ontop of things. Some of the “ninja updates” get past Hoboleaks. Like alot of the smaller art upgrades of ship models do not show up or get dev blogs, and this is continously ongoing. If API/ESI delays or even security options were enforced. Alot of content would be “Day Zero” deployment start for people. [Unless well you got a “sanctioned whisper”- headsup from Fenris.]

If Fenris wants to democratize information and intel, it has to begin to pull alot of this data back into the game and modernized how this information gets out inside the game, or is accessible. In game tools would rapidly break down third party networks and systems. Does that make their job easier…probably not it would probably make things more complicated.

1 Like
590

I do have to make an argument of alts diluting social interaction in the game, and the original social interaction/community system. And from another fiscal perspective of the consequences of alts driving prices both in and outside of the game up.

Although finding a true total solo account- solo character in EVE is fairly rare for most. And to me has more respect, because its like playing this game on Expert Mode.

Although I will say EVE sometimes has more in relation to RTS games…than an MMORPG.

1 Like
591

absolutely. This is a point often forgotten. Alts erode(d) a once unique feeling about EVE - that group play is insanely benefitial for the involved players, because you can achieve things and get access to content that you cannot get alone. That felt totally awesome and rewarding in the first years when I played and it totally vanished when I got more and more accounts. Leading to the point where I intentionally limited myself to two Omegas and will always keep it that way, even if I could afford a whole army of toons.

I personaly absolutely believe in the point that there should be a lot of things in an MMORPG that a single person behind his PC simply cannot get done. He has to cooperate with other real players, and some times lots of them to solve certain content and break certain barriers. Mass-Alts and especially mass-multibox-alts totally change how the game and it’s universe feels. And I can ensure everyone: It felt a lot better in the early years.

2 Likes
592

Like moving freight volumes of cargo? Where you need at least 3 accounts, maybe 5.

It’s hard to imagine someone playing the game to be the return cyno for a fleet too.

There’s a lot of roles, which if EvE was a one account per IP, or whatever it is you want, would be far too tedious and no-one would do them, this would break the game.

…and we’re back to the perennial question which noone can answer, how many alts is too many, how many is to few, and even if we can agree on an answer, enforcing it is practically impossible.

1 Like
593

I never said that. And I am not interested in strawman debates.

That myth has been debunked a 100times over and is only repeated by people trying to give the illusion that “nothing can be done anyway!”. Any service that can install a program on your PC can uniquely identify that PC a 100%. We aren’t talking about browser connections or “IP checks”. CCP/FC can enforce any limit they want, if they would want to.

594

and any idiot can buy two PCs.

595

So what? Nobody said you can’t play 2x EVE on 2 PCs.

Try to play 20 Ships on 20 PCs in your room. Not even counted the costs for purchasing them, keeping them up to date every so often and having an nice power bill plus probably needing a separate air cooling just for your living room.

As said, thats a total strawman debate. As if the people who right now multibox 10+ accounts would purchase 10 PCs and run around from one keyboard to another. :roll_eyes:

596

So you do want to nerf hauling into the ground as you need to run 5 clients to do it safely.

Why do you hate haulers?

There’s a device called a KVM switch which is the hardware equivalent of EvE-O preview.

All your changes would do would be to make multiboxing more expensive, i.e. make EvE pay to win.

:clap:

597

Stop the strawman. I never said that.

598

Well the things you did say, would result in that, so you did say it, even if you didn’t realise or mean to.

599

No I didn’t. Maybe you want to read again and stop putting words into my mouth.

There is no problem people having 2, 3 accounts running, for simply QoL purposes like being able to scout, cyno or do some boring hauling task while playing/waiting with the PvP char for some action. Literally NO ONE seriously asks EVE to be 1-player-1-char.

The problem is mass multiboxing (for me personally anything above 5, but I would also agree on 3) ships with the exact same purpose just to scale up profits/firepower - with very little drawbacks/diminishing returns.
We aren’t talking about multiboxing 3 different roles in a fleet here. I know how hard it is to be a combatscanner/scout, main-fleet Anchor and using a FAX on the third screen. Thats only stuff a handful of people can do efficiently anway. They don’t disturb the game and ruin the content and immersion for normal players. People using 10+ Miners, PvE-Grinders, Gankers, PvP-Dronebots etc. do.

1 Like
600

So I need 4 PCs and a KVM switch and I can box 20 accounts under your new 5 per PC rule.

I mean it raises the bar a bit makes the set up cost higher, but they don’t need to be very good PCs if they’re only running 5 accounts.

It might reduce the prevalence of multiboxers in New Eden, but I don’t think it’ll stop them, it will also mean that rich people will be able to do it and poor people not so much.

Is that what you want? it doesn’t sound good to me.

601

It will reduce the prevalance of mass multiboxers by easily 90%, because the main reason people are boxing so many accounts today is the incredible convenience to do it on one machine. The handful of obsessed cracknerds trying to build what you imagined will basically have almost no impact on the greater game.
Not even counted in that those 20 ships will have - at least in combat - a much poorer performance than today. It will be much harder to switch between the clients, quickly find an attacked one, insanely annoying to move around on grid by anchoring all the accounts up, jumping gates, activating the modules.

And yes, that is exactly what I want. A major reduction of mass-multiboxing. The poor-vs-rich argument is always the last straw. It literally can’t get worse than today where “rich” people swipe the credit card and buy as many pre-skilled chars and skill-injectors and blingstuff as they want where “poor” solo/2-accounters need to wait years for.

1 Like
602

Why?

Are you saying that it’s impossible to write a piece of software which controls a bunch of PCs and switches as smoothly as EvE-O preview does?

Do you imagine there isn’t a motivated geek, or collection thereof, in the EvE community to rise to the challenge?

Are you living in cloud cuckcoo land?

The debate about swiping for PLEX/shiny stuff in game is entirely orthogonal, please try to stay on topic.

603

CCP can easily lists any use of any software controlling more than 5 clients at the same time as bannable offense and suddenly the risk of losing all your accounts if someone reports you, you forget to edit a screenshot/stream or they just happen to check some logs on your “suspicous” activity skyrockets.

I mean, it’s a theoretical debate here. Why do you desperately try to create the illusion it would be “impossible”? Just say that you like the idea that everyone can run as many accounts has he likes, fine thing. It’s your good right. As it is my right to dislike that idea. We don’t have to agree, not a single bit.

Not really and you don’t need to get personal. It’s always a sign of losing the argument.
I play this game for almost 20 years now, pretty intensive. And I met hundreds of players during that time. From all of them, an absolute tiny tiny tiny number would even think about “building a setup of 4 PCs each running 5 accounts, conneced via an input-switch and controlled via a special software that risks getting your accounts banned”. And maybe one would maybe do it. Maybe. I highly doubt it.

So yes, maybe it could be done. Maybe a handful (at most) people would then try to (illegaly) still run 20 accounts at the same time. That would have total insignificant impact on the game compared to what massmultiboxing is doing right now. For me personally, a MUCH preferrable scenario.

1 Like
604

Well, in consideration after looking the commentary back and forth.

If EVE were to contract to 3 characters minimum to 1 account. This would be grounds for actual in game activiity/content buffs right?

The freight argument could be easily fixed with several major changes. [Which would be opposed by the collector class in this game. But we can also service their concerns by changing how capitals repack…and where they can be reassembled. Allowing the highsec capital collects to keep valuable special items…without them being dilute in price. Ganking would also by virtue get a massive buff.]

Shrinking the character pool…would also put a bit more choke on skillpoint farming. [I keep hearing people complain about skillpoints…and how fast people now skill up. And people screech about store packs…but then again the concept of skill points and skill extraction was supposed to be in a concept of a slow skilling platform…and you could “reroute” skiilpoints to other content. But people have taken advantage of just farming skillpoints and selling them in game. Or self-boosting with skillpoints characters for self-use or sale.] This another angle people will oppose because the gravy train on this side and how it devalues long term gameplay and experience would go. (Allowing people to side step paying Fenris for relative speed skill “upgrade”)

Roles argument…is kind of undermined by the whole mobile deployable items. [mobile cynos/cover cynos] OR OLD SCHOOL group activity. Its more complex if you try it solo, and more risky. But you have mechanics in game that allow you to solo operate, but you have to really think out and plan [Drop the deployable…bounce back to the station (deathclone/self-destruct/jump clone whatever you want to do) and then jump to the deployable]. Thats the tradeoff, and also the “punishment” for operating solo. Because EVE should reward group/social activity. But not…be self-group activity. [over the three]

The argument of “pay to win” is so bizarre in this game [EVE Online]. You would think…like other MMOs or other games. [Lets use Second Galaxy as an example] Traditional Pay to Win, is people buy a limited amount/limited time ships/vehicles that are in a store…and are absolutely cracked, broken. Or you buy a special commander/ship combo that is completely OP and has special priviledges, access, bonus etc. Or you end up with WoT where they had “golden ammo” which has been gone for years. Where you were paying with actual money for better performance ammunition to actually damage someone. I think CCP/Fenris has been much more cogent of player dissatisfaction over such mechanics, and its really bizarre that there are so many insane checks on this kind of activity or potential. That there isn’t really a internal “pay to win” system in this game. [Some people may argue with the Omega status…but thats kind of narrow in comparison even then.] Because of the way this game works…and the difference between being “skilled into access” versus actual skilled play.

And when we had a situation with MONTH LONG specific damage boosters…[which could apply to non-bonused ships…with specific modules) You guys LOST IT. Not really about the month long bonus, everyone was freaking out…because it would have meant certain groups who have very specific doctrines would have the advantage for a month! Not really about the pack and the cost…it was more about NOT ALLOWING certain groups and ships to be used for a month. Which would have had a really bonkers affect on META response shake ups. So the screeching was over strategic considerations. No one wanted to sudden have a massive nullsec based shift…even for a month long time frame. Yes…I do not agree with the month long timer…but yeah, it wasn’t really a problem…in comparison the real strategic implications, and may have indirectly played a role in some content implosions for certain groups. {And some issues for CCP/Fenris on their financials]

So the argument of “pay to win” suddenly comes into a very strange focus…where if you can afford to pay for a new computer, or remote/cloud/virtual machine tech. Alot of the big names are “tech support” guys, so they have access or wherewithal to have such machinery. So if pay to win…is now defined as having N+1 computers…then it comes down to how much money one person can put down on the game hardware wise. But, then why are we arguing over the costs of the game? And if its now a N+1 computer scenario…what differentiates it from the bot makers? And CCP/Fenris has for a time had the capability to zero in on people who are physical multiboxing.

But then again some gamers…especially old school gamers. Find Smurfing and Multi-boxing as unsportsman like. Yes, the mechanics are clunky and tedious…but that should drive more community based responses as an ecosystem, and if some stuff is tedious then we give feedback on ways to upgrade or buff that content. Not a “pay to win” input cluster of computers etc to offset the problem.

In many ways I see the issues that are currently plaguing EVE as unintended consequences to some decisions in the past. Or some might even argue there were bad-faith actors who deliberately gave feedback and ideas so they could benefit from certain changes by putting them on the board.

I could live with 3 per account…and people only having 1 account. If someone wants to solo-solo…let them. But I do think over 3…means alot of mechanics need to be revisited. I mean, we could have discussions on if we can buff/nerf stuff…so that boxing becomes less useful or problematic. I know people will argue the pricing etc.

Although I have to be honest even the price value…purchasing argument starts to fall apart under scrutiny. People purchase bulk omega and plex…but only one time…because they logic it out as “cheaper” over months/years etc. But for Fenris its a one time purchase. Bulk…but one time…or limited numbers. While for smaller players or accounts, they can probably only afford 1-3 months of Omega…and a certain price point of PLEX on the regular.

Its a fairly complicated mess, but using these arguments to defend certain actions/activities isn’t always going to survive review and scrutiny.

That said, If we are honest. Most of the alliance in this game being affected by the force projection should be Omega. I would be concerned if someone was not.

605

Sure, but that’s not to their financial advantage, which is the crux of the matter, I guess.

I don’t have a problem with people running as many accounts as they want to, I struggle to understand what people like yourself find so egregious about it, but you’re all entitled to your crazy opinion I guess.

I don’t think it’s as easy as you say to make enforceable rules, which are fair and don’t stop legitimate actions like 5 brothers sharing an internet connection all running whatever the limit of chars is, but that too is a moot point.

We all seem to agree that there’s a lot of reasons to run at least a few accounts and that makes me feel that any limit is arbitrary, and personal, and thus it’s probably best and easiest just to let folk run as many as they fancy, that certainly seems to be Fenris’ position, a position which also maximises how much Omega they can sell.

606

It’s not to their short-term financial advantage. As explained in countless discussions before. Largely visible mass-multiboxing reduces the attractiveness of the game as a product for casualplayers, which costs them a lot of customers that will never begin to play (and pay) or keep playing (and paying). Believe it or not: The overwhelming majority of all players dislikes this part of EVE Online. (again: NOT talking about a scout or a cynochar, but MASS multiboxing).

And it’s clearly visible over the years: The amount or real persons playing this game has shrunk, while the accounts per person have gone up. Thats a sprial that is not sustainable. Fenris is very well advised to revert that course in the long run.

It’s not a crazy opinion, it’s common sense among pretty much every game design that was ever applied to any successful competitive multplayer game.

Find some successful competitive games where one player can bring more and more accounts online at the same time to fight another player (or group).
Every known game to me that has attracted millions over millions in players has had limits implemented that made sure even if you get an advantage, the other side is motivated to keep competing.
In pretty much any game there are limits of power to be fielded at the same time, no matter how much money one side has, you can’t stomp your opponent with a 1000 supply army in StarCraft, you can only have 200 at the same time. You can’t have 10.000 rounds of ammo or 500 plates of Armor in Call of Duty, nor can’t you have 25 persons on your team. You can’t have 10 rings in Diablo or 200 charms in your inventory to buff you. You can’t have 100 pieces in a game of chess. A soccer team can’t field 30 players at once.

Please, name me long-term successful competetive games where one person can just keep adding accounts to multiply is power present at the same time.

Sure it is. But there should be one. Balanced. High enough so people can still do useful/basic things even of they just have no team ready at the moment but low enough to make sure a single person can’t get too powerful to make the playing environment unattractive for other players.

Yeah sure, who doesn’t know them… the 5 brothers who run 20 PCs in their moms basement. lol.

1 Like
607

Got some actual statistics to back this up?

Seems a pretty unlikely claim, given the number of multiboxers in the game, who aren’t being ostracized by all the corps/alliances.

That seems wildly off topic for these forums, and I don’t play or care about many others games and I don’t think there’s many games comparable with EvE, so no I shan’t.

You’ve still never said why mass multiboxers upsets you so much, leaving me to guess that you’re just butthurt at losing, and if multiboxing was banned you’d be just as butthurt about alliances with more members than yours. Essentially you come across as a sore loser who can’t make enough friends.

608

looks like you get personal again after running out of arguments, hm?
I get my opinion from a lot of personal talks to players over the years. Making sure to get a really 1-person-1-opinion point of view, and not some “forum poll” where especially people with many accounts tend to use those many accounts to vote multiple times. Because, winning whatever the costs is part of their personality, thats why they massmultibox in the first place.
And from all those personal contacts, be it within smaller or larger groups, on RL meetings or online, the summary is very onesided. Almost everyone I ever talked to is in favour of some limit of multiboxing, usually in the 3-5 chars range, so you are able to have your own little party when nobody of your peer group is online to still get things done, but you can’t excessively excert force all by yourself.
Even CCP has realized that we have a problem, or what do you believe why they nerfed the DroneAssist down to 20 now? Massmultiboxing is a growing problem, whether you accept it or not.

Doesn’t surprise me, because, as I said, it’s common sense about game design that some limits need to be in place for adding power to one side (by whatever mechanic), else the game simply becomes unattractive to play. And it has nothing to do with the point that there isn’t really another game “like EVE”. It applies to all games where there is competition between players.

I said so on many occasions, but for you, I gladly repeat it:
Before everything else I care for the long-term health, attractiveness and potential of the game. Because I deeply love the concept. Massmultiboxing is one of it’s problems I’d like to seen pushed back to a level that seems acceptable. As said before, 3-5 capped. Abritrary? Of course! Like 200 supply in StarCraft and 4er Teams in Warzone.

But to be honest, given the constant personal attacks coming from you, I doubt this discussion can be fruitful even if I try my best. :person_shrugging:

2 Likes