The difference, of course, is that in eve you get banned for input programs. Multiboxers don’t use input programs, and the ones that do lose everything when they’re banned.
1 Like
How many EVE players thought they had someone they could trust only to lose their entire corporation when they found they were wrong?
I could just as easily say there is no excuse for taking any risks, or even undocking. Your absolutism is an oratory weakness.
1 Like
Exactly!
What would EVE be if it didn’t put players in a place where they can trust each other, or could break that trust?
Boring.
Eve gamaplay is massively buid arounf multiboxing.
You could don’t like that, it’s a fact (cyno is a good exemple of that).
if you get ganked by 25 people … maybe you need to think of what you are doing wrong, and not blame other people.
No multiple account don’t “break economy”, beacause economy was built with mecanism who take in count the multiple account.
In a lot of other MMO limit to 1 account you have people who cry when they get trap by group of player and ask for nerf…
Let me introduce you DOFUS a french game. They have create mono account server… They open a lot in fact, they was “popular” unless people star to understand when a game is build on mecanism for people who have multiple character … it’s a lot more harder to make it in mono account… Beacause a lot of boring stuff need to be doing, and well… if you are the one who need to make the boring thing … not fun for you.
For information : Now they have merge all mono account server, it’s the most streamed on twitch (easier to sream 1 account on this game) … but in the other side you have a lot more multi account server, with more population in unique player and account.
Mono account in eve is the same, you think it will solve all you’re issue, and it will just create more issue.
There is no multiboxing in EvE because EvE is one box (sandbox) already, and there are not multiple of them. 
Many. And yet, it still remains a fundamental truth that this is a personal issue, unique to each individual player based on their skill with the game.
No, actually, you can’t, because we can quantify risk-taking very neatly using an ROI calculation, with the result being that at the very least, there is no excuse to not take at least some risks.
I cannot make heads or tails of this statement.
What seems true to me is that some people learn not to trust and others don’t learn. I learned. I only trust infomation from others if it won’t get me killed or I can avoid getting killed if its wrong.
Sure there is. People have been rightly advised to leave EVE and take zero risks. That was based on their desires and attitude.
Plenty of people don’t have trust issues in EVE. I don’t have trust issues with my friends. My friends don’t have trust issues with each other. We know that we won’t screw each other over intentionally because it’s a collective understanding that the friendship is worth more than whatever trinkets we accumulate within the game. For example, I’d let a friend borrow whatever they need (if it’s within my scope to give) because I’m making the conscious decision that even if they can’t pay me back, the friendship is worth more than those items.
Once again, this is a personal issue that you’re describing. If your play style only exposes you to miserly carebears who value hoarding wealth above everything else, then you’ll never make meaningful connections. Your only “friends” will be associates by circumstance who are only concerned for their own well-being, and the scammers that ultimately prey on such individuals.
I am a fighter, and I don’t have that problem. My circle is composed of people who understand that having someone you can call upon for help is worth more than the scrap you can sell from awoxing a faction-fit battleship. If someone I know wants the latter, they can just ask me for one, and I’ll give it to them. They don’t need to scam or assassinate me for it.
My condolences if you’ve never experienced this higher form of human interaction in EVE.
That has nothing to do with risk and everything to do with a shitty, unwelcome attitude, and you know it.
2 Likes
I know nothing of the sort. There are more reasons than you allow for, and one is their inability to accept certain amounts of risk.
As for your friendships UP TO NOW, that’s great if its been great for you. But everyone has different experiences. But if you cannot see the inherent weakness in online only relationships well, then you are not seeing a lot of the picture.
1 Like
You’re right. Poor ol’ country-bumpkin dum-dum Destiny Corrupted has no idea what she’s doing, blundering through the game like a potato rolling down a steep hill.
2 Likes
I have found most of the people I have met in Eve to be trustworthy. Most people aren’t thieves or scammers. And they don’t betray friendships and communities over a few 1’s and 0’s on a server. True, there are people who lie, scam, steal, and pretend to be your friend with the specific intent of stabbing you in the back, but they’re actually rather rare.
It’s unfortunate that a relatively few number of scumbags can cause severe trust issues in so many players. Personally, I’d rather consider people trustworthy friends and occasionally get burnt, than keep everyone at arms distance just to prevent a loss of space pixels. Come to think of it, I follow the same philosophy in real life.
4 Likes
I think a key point that makes a difference is the driving motivation. There are lots of stories about people who, while trying to make themselves rich and powerful, trust someone to do their work for them and get burned in the end.
If you put yourself out there for another player’s benefit, though, they generally reciprocate in kind. People recognize the benefit of having allies who are looking out for them instead of just ‘number one’.
It can be difficult to explain this to people, though, because it takes a certain amount of empathy for others to recognize the difference between a relationship and offering someone the table scraps left over after your megalomania is satisfied.
4 Likes
In my 10+ years of eve, no one has betrayed my trust. People have moved stuff for me, they have scouted for me, they have webbed my freighters and orcas through dangerous space and they have borrowed ships. For years before the AWOX nerfs, my corp mates could shoot me anytime they wanted with no concord response.
These kind of events in the game, though notorious, were not common.
The closest thing i came to such a betrayal was letting someone borrow my orca whilst i went to have dinner during a mining op and to come back to them having sold it to a client. Bless his heart he didn’t mean anything malicious by it, he got an offer for the fit he couldn’t refuse and gave me the isk and selling Orcas was, after all, what we did.
3 Likes
Solo = 1 not 34050389572094752088935739857098357092385725
You only need 34050389572094752088935739857098357092385725 boat to shoot 1 boat.
Pro player detected.
You can do 34050389572094752088935739857098357092385725 missions / incursions / invasions at once, has infinigillions per second and can then complain that your purple fit titans are already replaced and your ship loss means nothing to you anymore because you has infinigillions per second.
It’s not a shocker that someone who multiboxes would list a couple of reasons why they think it’s advantageous, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to add.
We know also what Shipwreck means by ‘solo’ in this context since multiboxing requires one to have multiple accounts in operation at the same time by definition. He means one real person can accomplish more virtual things without getting help from a second real person. Splitting hairs on definitions is only useful if it helps get everyone on the same page, but I think we all are on the same page in this instance.
The OP has a bias for multiboxing and he makes no attempt to deny that. He at least goes to some effort to mention a number of drawbacks we on the other side of the table like to point out. So why not just diplomatically say you think multiboxing PvP and PvE fleets is an unfair advantage? When someone goes out of their way to set aside their preference as much as possible and present two sides of an argument, it’s probably safe to lower the pitchforks and take the hyperbole down a couple notches.
5 Likes
If it was a rule that to debate you had to debate FOR the side you dont want to win, people would get a bit more honest.
But what if you don’t want either side to win?
I’m neither for or against multiboxing. I mean, prohibiting multiboxing and limiting players to only play one account at a time is unworkable and unwanted. On the other hand I think something needs to be done about the ease of multiboxing low effort PvE activities.
Can I now debate for either side or none? 
1 Like
Debate for fence-sitting. I’m well practiced in that too.
A discussion really isn’t about sides, though I did use the term earlier. What we’re talking about is a thing, and whether people should or shouldn’t do it.
Like a lot of other things, Multiboxing isn’t a black and white issue. It isn’t all good, nor is it all bad. People don’t have to, and probably should not, label everything that has to do with one side good, and everything that deals with the other bad.
People can, and should, state their nuanced opinions. We, if we’re looking to be constructive, are trying to find understanding and common ground even if agreement is impossible or impractical. For me, it is enough that the OP acknowledges accepts and considers my concerns as legitimate even if they are not sufficient to change his mind on anything. I give and am given the same courtesies. I acknowledge there are upsides in my opponent’s position but they are not sufficient to change my mind.
The ‘you’re with us or against us’ mentality is a bad habit and I don’t know how people pick it up, but I think it wise to appreciate a person with a well stated moderate point of view.
7 Likes
Easy peasy
Then you must argue WHY they should remain as they are or even deserve a buff.