Multiboxing discussion

Communications Center General Discussion
1

I am replying to discussion that started in Team Security: Rules and Policy Clarifications about multiboxing, so we don’t offtopic that thread any more.

@Syzygium this is something I can agree with you at least. And you forgot to add one thing, a multiboxer doesn’t have to share the profits with anyone. If the 20 players mined the belt, then each player received their own profit. If it is one multiboxer then all that profit goes to him. (Of course he needs to PLEX those accounts, but if it wouldn’t be ultimately at a profit, it wouldn’t be a thing right?)

This is one of the main reasons why the ganking is usually solo activity using multiboxing. Even if you could find someone interested in this activity who would fly with you at the same time, or who would loot for you, the need to split the profit with him makes this no longer profitable.

I agree with you how to fix mining, as for ganking, the only fix there can be is to lower EHP of the barges (that was already 0 profit activity, but by requiring 5+ destroyers to kill even retriever in 0.5 now, it is now purely a multibox activity when previously players were cooperating). Other than that, rebalance of clone soldier tags would help → it would incentive to train up smaller amount of alts into battlecruisers instead of 20+ alts in catalysts. This would not change anything for Tornado gankers though.

But it won’t be just mining and ganking where this is a “problem”. It is going on on multiple activities which are not visible as the alts doesn’t have to be present at the same time or actually present in space…

Eitherway, while it is not a good design, it is the design that allows to cash more money and design that the developers chosen to run. So it is pretty guaranteed that our ideas how to “solve” massive multiboxing won’t be heard as it is exactly that what generates the income for CCP.

2

Could the same thing be said about PVP battles where a Capsuleer flys their own paid for ship from converting plex to isk to then buy from the market? But doesn’t loot so receives enjoyment of the act of pvp on weekends?

Time also could be reasons for multiboxing where more time is available than out of pocket cash to spend on a game.

Time also could be preventing more pvp happening as the solo Capsuleers are not given the tools to pvp with quickly, though that is the model of converting plex to isk to buy from capsuleers that do have time on their hands.

3

The ability to multibox has been a thing since day 1. It’s not going anywhere. If someone in null sec has 30 accounts they use to multibox at once, it has exactly zero effect on my gameplay. More power to them…

4

But it will impact someone else’s gameplay.

Not that I have anything against multiboxing as such, although when it gets silly the ships just look like automatons which has this eerie uncanny valley kind of vibe, affecting immersion.

1 Like
5

Yes, for players like this the kills themselves are profit. And if he didn’t multibox, then he wouldn’t be able to get that many of them.

Seriously, PvP multiboxing is basically just ganking or call it blobbing if you like. Or it will be citadel bashing, or those alts will be logistical, you can’t multibox more than 3 (and I am generous) ships (effectively) in large chaotic battle without cheating. So how is it any different from doing the same in highsec where somehow it is a “problem” ?

1 Like
6

Yes this too. Immersion.

It is completely different thing if you see 20 random names mining on belt and when you see 20 characters with same name and number at the end. I bet this made players quit, I didn’t like it either when I was new as I came from Diablo2 which was destroyed by multiboxing and botting.

The thing is, with multiboxing comes the other problem of using macros or bots…

3 Likes
7

I didn’t check the other thread you refer to since I don’t care about multiboxing as an issue. However “make miners easier to gank” as a “fix” is basically only saying “It’s better for EVE to have a few gankers subbing than 20 miners”. Which is the economic suicide that EVE’s been seeing for over a decade now.

Multiboxing is a thing because CCP made some fundamentally flawed monetizing decisions 20 years ago. A “player-based economy” means you can’t monetize gear, for the most part. Other games sell ships/vehicles/mounts/weapons/armor/boosts - EVE can’t. At least without causing riots.

They also buggered their chance at decent cosmetic monetization by having no avatar gameplay, and adopting a “design philosophy” that meant ship skins were various combos of mostly dull, painted stripe patterns. They further compounded that problem with a game design that favors being scrolled out to the point where you can’t see your ship or combat detail anyway.

Finally they focused the game on playstyles that guarantee EVE will be a niche market, limiting the potential playerbase.

Since CCP basically limited their monetization options to account subs and progress-faster boosts with a narrow playerbase, it’s natural they eventually pushed the design to support milking as many subs as possible out of the comparatively few players they have. That’s caused the whole drive to “join alliance, move to Null to farm multiple accounts so you can fight big battles that create CCP’s PR for them” that CCP’s been herding the playerbase towards for over a decade.

It’s not good game design, true, but then what about EVE is?

The real issue is, if they’re subbing or plexing accounts who cares if they’re multiboxing?

CCP can’t attract 20 new paying players but they can sucker some of their audience into paying for 20 accounts. 20 subs is 20 subs and keeps the game paid for. Players only care about multiboxers because the multiboxers are doing what the player wants to do and out-competing them at it.

If you removed 10,000 multibox accounts from the game all you’d accomplish is hurting CCP’s bottom line. It might bring back a few hundred players who “hate multiboxing”, for a major net loss. It’s not like we’re all out of asteroids or anomalies or even PvP targets to farm.

Multiboxing has to be part of CCP’s monetization plan because they chopped off most of the standard income streams by design.

EVE desperately needs more players and more accounts subbed, by whatever means. All the people constantly crying “we need less farmers, less miners, less traders, less gankers, less abyss runners, less AFK bounty farming” etc. etc. need to take a serious look at the player count trends.

What we really need less of, is less people in a friggin’ sandbox game saying “I don’t like what some players do with their sand. They should play the way I want them to or GTFO”.

6 Likes
8

But you’re “all tore up” about miners in HS? How do you balance that spreadsheet?

9

CCP should just sell in-game macro licenses. That way people can sub more omega characters, pay extra to CCP, and macro mine all day. It boosts CCP revenue, it boosts the concurrent player numbers, it is a net benefit all around. At the same time, while the macro is active, these accounts would be un-targetable by other players. Money talks, PvP walks.

10

Excellent argument. All the cheaters who are botting or input broadcasting/using macros will definitely agree with you.

The ultimate issue is that, despite not against rules, the massive multiboxing is half way there. And in most cases it comes along with it.

11

It’s balanced because that miner in nullsec with 30 accounts can get dropped on at any minute and obliterated…

1 Like
12

“Actual players doing legitimate things need to be removed, because some of them look like cheaters or botters to me”.

Good argument.

Tell me, if someone is, for instance, multiboxing 20 exhumers, or 3 abyss runners, or 8 ganker Catalysts… how exactly does that ruin your playstyle?

I mean, other than the usual “they’re doing something I can’t, so I want them to stop it” jealousy.

13

Even if we were limited to a single account, there are still players who are simply better than others, have more time to play, and will always have more…

2 Likes
14

I am aware of the “money issue” that CCP has that it has to resort to this (+sub cost increase) to pay for servers and make profit. What I am saying is that in ideal game this should not be a thing.

There is no way that CCP will do any of this, multiboxing is a money maker for them, so this is all just theorycrafting here. I dislike multiboxing and I think it is against core principles of gaming and that it is wrong, but well if you can’t beat them… so I do it too. The game is too bland and boring to play just 1 account anyway.

So please lets not resort to the “CCP can’t do that because money money money”. I think we all know it.

I think you just saw I am suggesting a buff to ganking and as a gank-hater and no-PvP in highsec supporter you had to pick this up. But you realize that gankers are the players who are squuezed by this design the most do you? We are receiving nerfs after nerfs or our “enemies” are receiving buffs after buffs all in order to force us to multibox even more accounts than we do now… We didn’t need 5 characters to kill retriever before, now we do.

15

Oh is that what I said? Weird.

Btw, do you honestly belive that multiboxed fleet of 26 covetors (spotted in Faurent recently) is legit? Or that these multiboxed smartbombers in Ahbazon are legit?

I am not envy of anyone. I multibox too and I know how to cheat as well, I even received a tips how to avoid CCP’s detection radar on discord. I simply won’t do that because it is against my belief.

16

That is for CCP to investigate and decide. You don’t punish everyone for the actions of a few…

2 Likes
17

Is that a “yes” then?

18

That’s a fair point.

It should be IMPOSSIBLE in HS. Not even an option to engage a miner.

19

You apparently have trouble identifying the reality of the things you’re talking about, so it’s not surprising you got this wrong as well.

So you mean, CCP is treating you like they treat every other playstyle. Gosh, how hard that must be for you.

I honestly don’t care if they are or not. I know that if I wanted to, I could certainly run 26 miners. I can’t imagine why I would want to do so, but it’s possible. It’s also fairly likely, in my mind, that someone running 20+ accounts with near-identical names is botting or broadcasting or cutting some other corners.

And again, I ask, how does this hurt you? In concrete terms, please, not “it disturbs my immersion”. He’s paying for 20 accounts, he’s mining, who cares if he’s AFK all day?

I understand you want easier targets with cheaper consequences to make your chosen gameplay easier for you. I assume the guy with 20 miners wants the same.

What makes your demand better than his?

3 Likes
20

LOL.

Are you really asking why does it bother me, or anyone else, that some players are cheating?

ROFL straight into ignore with you, you are no better than Lucas. I wonder what is his stance on the subject.