CCP needs their money.
The problem is when they take out all the fun of running regular fleets with distinctive players. As usual, I like your approach.
Now add that gates will auto-activate kill rights on players and kill them on the spot, You just have freed half of Eve of bad actors.
Maybe they just mined all the ICE in the system within 1hour, and haven’t harmed anyone, but some of these kind of Multiboxing are not a real issue, untill they do no engage in criminal activities…
Yes
Every year
Several years ago yes, and I adapt when changes are made… you may want to actually do the same.
There is not, just a delay due to server ticks if you are red cycling and reactivate.
It’s a proposal that will be laughed at.
It’s called a trade off, for more active tank and more DPS. If you are looking for more EHP, there are faction bastion modules that do give you more EHP.
Then you are against the majority of the population, alone you will not accomplish as much as a group of people who are organized.
I and plenty of other EVE players do every day.
Side note, what does any of this have to do with making PVE challenging?
A trade off for a faction module worth 1.1B?
And geared towards active tanking and not real EHP?
It’s called a rip-off.
And it0s following a clear policy path,
that you fail to recognize.
Or just have decided that is impossible to deal with the real policy makers, and long learned to adjust, stay silent, and adapt.
I don’t judge you.
But your judgment is impacting me.
No one is forcing you to use it.
Exactly, as I said, you learned to adapt.
But these policies are affecting me, not the other way around.
They won’t touch Multiboxing revenue,
but Marauders resilience was a localized problem that should have been dealt locally.
Maybe sipping a cup of tea and writing down a coupl e of possible outcome for the new policy.
They problably say their numbers go up again, and called it a day.
But it ruind hte life of hundreds of Marauders pilots with different habits, that are used to fight multiboxers since day one.
What policies are you talking about? You are the one making the choices that lead to you losing assets.
The Marauder Nerf was a EVE wide policy, because Multiboxers weren’t pouring Money onto MCT Time anymore and CCP lost money. Read my previous comment.
These are policies with a long reach.
My Marauder loss is just at the very end of a chain of avoidable events if only someone drank some Tea 5 mins. and draw a couple scenarions before comiting those policies with the
Big BS Nerf update to save Multiboxers losing to fleet of Marauders.
That’s not a policy…that’s just game balance.
Had nothing to do with marauders being nerfed…they were nerfed because they were oppressive in PVP while being multiboxxed in pochven and high sec wars and a few other places.
Correct, you were missioning in populated space with a bad and blingy fit. If you just used a faction battleship or just a T2 fit you would have been fine (as far as being ganked goes). Even without the nerfs to marauders, it still would have been ganked and lost. The bonus to shield extenders would not have mattered.
You have a lot to learn (that’s not a bad thing), I recommend using cheaper equipment and focus on learning the game before you try and change it.
1 Like
Ok, Ok, you win.
Dude…almost everything you talked about in there is out of line regarding the topic, so: what the ■■■■? No need to spam other unrelated topics because you get negative feedback in your own ones…
Besides missions in itself are a problem since they are outdated and an untouched engine that can be replaced by better content. But thats for a different topic.
you’re mostly off-topic here…
maybe you need to try another mission agent not beside jita? 
Nah…better not - a Marauder loss a day keeps the forums-boredom away…
At least it is entertaining. For me. To some extent.
But having so many threads on it will trigger a moderation reaction anyway. I suspect at least a merge of the 10 threads or what it is now is incoming and a warning not to do this in the future.
Implement a mechanic similar to module stacking penalties: the second unit receives 87 % effectiveness, and the third unit receives 50 % effectiveness. Apply this penalty to alts sharing the same hardware, email address, or account owner. The penalty would take effect when these alts run PVE content simultaneously (bounty penalty), engage in PVP combat simultaneously (damage penalty), and mine simultaneously (yield penalty).
This is an idea I came up with a few days ago. Given how long EVE Online has been around, it is quite possible someone has suggested something similar before.
Capsuleers would still be able to run a modest number of accounts to perform largely the same activities, such as burner missions, ratting with smartbombing, multiple Ishtars, or combining offensive‑firepower and logistical alts during combat. However, it would discourage running excessive numbers of accounts for identical tasks — for example spawning an entire combat fleet with thirty‑plus accounts controlled via synchronizers or manual “piano‑key” multi‑boxing workflows.
I am not taking a stance on whether multi‑boxing ought to be restricted at all. This is merely my proposal, should restrictions be considered.
1 Like
This is exactly the Arguments i am looking for.
Alternative persective how to solve this issue.
Rest here is kind of bringing kindergarten arguments like Multiboxer are paying the game with real money. Bla bla bla
Some people are just simple part of the problem and don´t want to accept that Multiboxing 20 Toons in pochven is simple wrong and other games don´t have this.
This IS NOT A UNIQUE SELLING POINT I WOULD BE PROUD OFF, IF I WOULD BE A GAMING COMPANY.
Show me other MMO which you run 20 Accounts, i am waiting.
Multibox stacking penalties would encourage players to start multiboxing on ‘unaffiliated’ accounts.
Different emails, VMs to hide hardware and suddenly you get a good damage boost.
It’s a way to push multiboxing into cheating territory which some players will do, which I think is not a good solution.
I’d rather see the effort that FC puts into catching cheaters to go towards botters and RMT than to add multiboxing to that list.
1 Like
What I don’t understand is why people care if someone is running 4-5 accounts (see OP) to multibox anoms.
It’s not like there’s not enough anoms left for everyone else is it?
Is it just jealousy that they’re making more ISK than you can be bothered to?
| MMO | Setup Name | Typical Account Count | Primary Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| EverQuest | Full Group Boxing | 6 Accounts | Full party size to clear high-end dungeons and legacy raids completely solo. |
| EverQuest | Three-Box (3-Box) | 3 Accounts | Casual community standard balancing a self-sufficient core (Tank + Healer + DPS/Utility). |
| Dofus / Wakfu | Full Team | 4 or 8 Accounts | Optimal scaling for turn-based tactical dungeons to maximize rare boss loot drops. |
| Lineage 2 | Buff Train | 3 to 5 Accounts | One main damage dealer trailed by passive support classes (Prophet, Bladedancer) for stat buffs. |
| Final Fantasy XI | Apex Trio | 3 Accounts | Efficient endgame capacity point farming using a dedicated Damage Dealer, Support, and Tank. |
| Old School RuneScape | Market/Flip Network | 5 to 10+ Accounts | Parked permanently at the Grand Exchange to bypass item buying limits and control markets. |
| Final Fantasy XI | Pocket Support Duo | 2 Accounts | Standard veteran setup featuring a main combat class with a pocket White/Red Mage for heals. |
| Old School RuneScape | Alt-Scaping Duo | 2 to 3 Accounts | Active gameplay on the main account while background accounts passively farm gold resources. |
2 Likes
None of those games have spaceships in them.
True, but the request was about general multiboxing in other MMOs. And time was of the essence as he was waiting very impatiently…
And before anyone now jumps on the keyword “typical” in “typical account count”…this means as much as “average”…some people run more than the typical number…
1 Like
Fair enough, I was being somewhat facetious, but comparing EvE with other MMOs is somewhat flawed as it isn’t very similar to them.
1 Like