Hey I despise polarisation as much as the next one, but if people are going to argue over red or blue and forget green exists, may as well make it more interesting and have people understand the opposing view by making them argue for that which they do not desire.
Iām all for trying to increase folksā understanding of their opponentsā positions. I donāt know if it sounded like I was being contrary to your statement, but if so that was not my intent.
Iām a listener more than a talker. To some degree I enjoy listening to people express their opinions and so I donāt want people to decline to express an opinion because it doesnāt fit into a predefined box or āsideā. I also feel like I would get significantly less out of life if people did not challenge my positions with new ones from time to time because it would deny me a learning opportunity that does pay off on occasion.
1 Like
No no, I hear and agree. Yours is the more sensible and orthodox way of approaching a quandry. Im just pondering other approaches too 
Polarisation and blinkering to the opposing views have long bugged me in regards to debates, in general I feel.
1 Like
Sure thing!
'All gradations of effort and risk should be available in the game, to allow for a broad spectrum of players to populate EVE. As such, low effort easily multiboxed gameplay should exist in EVE.
Iād rather see space filled with afk players that I can shoot, than Iād like seeing less players in space with meaningful interactions.
I also value my own wallet getting filled by multiboxed ISK over a good funtioning economy in which a newbie in a single ship gets paid well for their game time.
This is why I believe easily multiboxed PvE should continue to exist!ā
How did I do?
It wasnt bad, but it doesnt feel sincere, you know? I doubt anyone who was in favour of it being supported would believe it was anything but good for the economy?
Anyway a good attempt, if a little sarcastic. Now all we need to do is find someone who is in favour but willing to argue against their own position to test it against.
While itās off topic I would suggest this mentality has become more prevalent due to how a number of real world things donāt really have a āmiddle groundā, however going into that further is likely to spark a rules violating discussion.
More on the topic, there are some interesting things one can do to reduce the amount of multiboxing without removing the capability or affecting peoples overall abilities. One of the ones I find most interesting is a dual action of increasing the concord timer & toughening up the combat capabilities of haulers, making it less a blink and dead action & more a sustained act, which then requires more piloting skills per account, so harder to multibox effectively. Net output with regards to ganking should come out pretty neutral.
3 Likes
You cannot reason with or compromise with evil, demon worshiping, anti-boxers that want the Sansha to win.
1 Like
Need?
Or want, and are allowed?
VERY different positions.
āGadget only trust her own alts as scoutsā¦ sometimes
2 Likes
With regards to that; natural clone killer may be onto something.
Maybe āassault damage controlsā should have been āhauler-hunkering-down-until-assistance-can-arrive controlsā
The whole premise of Eve is Spaceship systems are integrated in One Capsuleer. One person. One ship. It is profitable for CCP, so it isnāt going away. Iāll come back and play again for awhile. Multiboxers are killing a great game.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.