That’s obviously not what he said or meant, but that was a cute attempt to try and mis-characterize his point and derail the conversation.
I have a better comparison for you:
Inflating fleet numbers to exploit a mechanic that makes payments based on fleet numbers.
1 Like
Multiboxing isn’t banned by EULA, as long as the player subscribe every account. And by multiboxing you still invest your time earning your reward. Botting, on the other hand, is clearly an exploit and not allowed.
Let me be absolutely clear here.
At no point am i suggesting multi-boxing is against the EULA. Nor am i even saying multi-boxing EC’s is recognised by ccp as an ‘exploit’.
What I’m saying is that ccp may have saw the multi-boxing behaviour around EC’s and/or the rewards being pulled in from EC’s and thought:
‘Perhaps we should dial this back a bit.’
Multi-boxing miners is a terrible comparison. However, i can see some similarities in the way incursion payouts work and find it interesting that certain behaviour involving multi-boxing (well not really just inflating fleet numbers) has recently been declared an exploit…
Capiche?
Yeah ran 30 of these over a few hours/systems today. There were literally only 5 modules drop and less than 10 surveys. These are done.
2 Likes
I agree with that the reward is incompatible with risk. We earned way too much and bear nearly zero risk(I lost my vindi only once…from disconnection).
But again, why just highsec? We have pilots sitting in nyx/hel afking through hundreds of havens in nullsec, and that isk faucet is probably much bigger than the conduit one. The truth is CCP doesn’t have the nerve to change what’s happening in nullsec because they’re so eager to appease null players, as a result they chose the easy target, which is highsec players.
7 Likes
This is pretty much true.
That and upcoming changes removing bounties on missions and replacing with 2% LP increase will drastically cut down some income.
Upgrading FOB and Trig rats to come to ice mining anoms and mission pockets in systems.
NPC podding of players upcoming
But now i just give up on conduits complete waste of time thanks alot ccp.
source ?
2 Likes
The biggest problem is that sisi has been closed for over a month. None can check beforehand what is coming. CCP does not inform about numbers if the change is major and always put it to sidenotes or does not inform of exact day so to confuse players or forgets to mention it at all. Then gives some free skill points lol. And the amount of brownnosers on the forum is horrible. Sometimes one can wonder, do we still play the same game or we play different game than them and devs. CCP really.
Or!
CCP has realized how good the competent playerbase in EVE Online is at figuring out the game rapidly within the first couple of hours of seeing changes on SISI and adapting in anticipation of that (a big example is that one guy who made over 400b ISK by seeing the build components of Excavator Drones when they were first introduced, did market research and cornered on of the core component necessary to build them before the patch was sent through to TQ).
So instead, they’re keeping it hush hush (not completely, you can still see things via Hoboleaks) to give everyone an equal footing when a patch hits.
Either way, they took away another good high sec income (mostly because of bots).
But do nothing about sov null. That there is a income gap, that i do understand but now it just has ridicule large proportion.
Feels like they want everyone to move into nullsec…
3 Likes
I don’t disagree with this at all. They have serious tunnel vision issues when it comes to null.
But two wrongs don’t make a right.
This really frustrates me as well. Another example of enjoyable and challenging content that I don’t have to spend hours and hours on to enjoy and make some ISK, being “balanced” by CCP.
It’s just bad game mastering IMHO, if did this crap to my D&D players for example, they’d leave and never come back. Don’t take away from players, add to enemies. Keep net loot the same, While you increase the number of waves, for example.
I could go into a big long rant, but I’ve done so before on other changes to no avail, and the valid points have been made in other posts in this thread, so I’ll save my breath and speak with my money.
Apparently it doesn’t matter at all to CCP or they wouldn’t do this crap, but you are likely going to lose a decade + subscriber over this one.
3 Likes
Ccp really needs to take a bit from the books from blizzard and stop instantly reacting to botting issues. They should study the bots for a quarter or two and try to understand exactly how they are working. This will provide a much better end result to the botting issue. players hate nerfs, especially when they are big.
@ccp, here is a big tip.
Value in = instability out.
The more bigger the numbers are, the more impact it has on players, and the game. This is a chief principle for development principles you seem to not get.
If a player see’s 3% damage increase, or 3% Reduction, they are less likely to be upset then saying a 10 to 15 minute increase, or a 25%-50% adjustment.
4 Likes
I like how you say this as if you think CCP hasn’t been doing this for the last 16+ years.
Source?
1 Like
haha uncle google helps, nice try, how does it refer to EC botting? figures? sources? you got first hand knowledge or it is your assumption all this applies?
Obviously CCP will not released detailed specifics on the different types of botting, since that would give away too much information about how they collect specific data.
But if you’re just gonna move goalpost immediately in your second response, we’re done here. 
Oh, and with a username like that, what a shame.
OFC they won’t and can’t. And now arguments like your mother makes loundry in river lol.