Okay, well, you have no actual notion of how a legitimate multi-boxer doing his thing harms your game. And no valid complaint, so instead you stick with “they must all be cheaters, and cheating is bad”. With no actual valid complaint on how cheating harms you either.
So it’s back to “they’re doing things I don’t like so they must all go”. Well, welcome to EVE with player count sub-10,000. Enjoy your “ideal game” with vast empty stretches of space and no one in them.
Personally, I’d rather improve gameplay and player options to the point where we might even need to care about bots and farmers again. You just go on ahead figuring out who of the few remaining needs to be removed though - I’m sure you and CCP can agree on another 10k players to kick.
It’s just his pretend excuse, like the standard “it hurts my immersion” or “it’s bad for the game” reasons. People don’t understand how something affects the game but they don’t like it, so they find some excuse to say “that shouldn’t be allowed”. Same for anti-farmers, anti-AFKers, anti-nullers etc.
Thing is, multi-box and input broadcasting was legal, for years. CCP only (tried to) put a stop to it when EVE had a much higher population and RMT and resource competition was getting out of hand. We’re talking 2013-2014ish here, when paid player accounts were more than double what we have now even with free accounts.
(I assume Xeux knows all this, just commenting for the newer crowd.)
Apparently Vokan doesn’t understand how or why other people’s gameplay affects his own, all he’s got is “I played a fantasy game once where multi-boxers annoyed me, so they’re all cheaters and must go”.
Either that or he’s straight-up going for “I only want my playstyle to work cheap and easy and I don’t care about the overall game”, but just doesn’t have the guts to say so.
There are loads of Retris that you can kill with fewer than 5 chars.
Unless you are bad.
Moreover. Check these two:
The second tanked more and needed fewer catas in higher sec status system. Just because Aiko ganks with overkill doesn’t mean that you have to do the same or that you cannot kill Retris with fewer than 5 chars.
I haven’t specifically mentioned it because I don’t know what the huge profits of that multiboxer are used for, sometimes they just fund their alliance as a large-scale-supporter and don’t just keep every ISK for their own, I cannot know that. But you are right of course, doing stuff together and sharing the profits is like glue to the social structure of smaller and medium corps, at least among the casuals. If one guy logs in and farms with massive multiboxing in a way that 80% of all profits go to him, its - not nessessary destroying, but harming - that structure.
The point is that even the stupid retriever can be tanked to withstand five t2 catalysts in 0.5. Hence gankers are bringing that many to avoid failing. Of course it is possible to kill retriever with 1 character, I never claimed otherwise, but it is nonsense to just fly around and jump blindly with 1 talos/hecate on first retriever you see, the amount of failures will be huge.
You are just scaremongering with baseless facts. Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it is done. See above. There are plentiful targets available. If you are too … how did you call my kind … stupid to find them, that’s on you.
Why should you be able to kill a larger ship with just 1 destroyer? If someone put the effort into tanking their ship properly to withstand a weak gank attempt, that’s their right. Bring more ships next time – and most importantly, more people, not characters. Let me tell you a real story: Gankers told me in the past that I should not fly my freighter alone. I should web it, scout ahead and have a remote rep buddy with me, ideally. That’s 3-4 characters at least. Same for a JF: I am expected to have a cyno, an emergency cyno, a webber and a scout. Even more chars. It’s only fair to expect that gankers should not be able to gank with fewer chars.
Also the issue is that gankers can save money by multiboxing (by reducing the total value of ships used), while freighters for example MUST multibox to not lose their ship (while increasing the costs)
But… I do not see an issue where a ganker has to jump blindly from system to system scouting dscan all day solo searching for a potential easyer kill as the smarter ganker would be carrying the modules to carry out the scans needed to bookmark warp ins.
What I do see a issue with is the removal of redocking. That right there now requires multiboxing to not have to keep logging out and back in instead of docking and swapping out the probe launcher etc.
(-10 can scan while bouncing around the system but they can’t sit idle to change a fitting unless you are extra quick at the mobile depot)
The latest redocking change is a huge disadvantage to a playstyle and now to think some Capsuleers are going after multiboxing is rather disappointing to read.
Which particular parts of the subject do you want my view on. I generally think multiboxing is fine, no matter what it’s being used for.
Can you show any evidence of cheating?
Just FYI, this almost certainly will be legit. Mining is a relatively easy task and pretty easy to scale which is why large-scale multiboxers like it. At my peak I ran 32 in two fleets of 16 in different null systems, all controlled manually, no macros, no input broadcasting (input broadcasting let you run 200+ when it was allowed, it was wild).
The solution to mulitboxing - if you indeed think it is a problem - is for gameplay to be dynamic enough that it’s difficult to scale. As has been pointed out though, CCP rely on the income from multiboxers so they have no incentive to alienate multiboxers.
Just want to clarify that if a multibox miner is “AFK all day” then they are not mining. As muuch as gnakers like to claim that they are hunting AFK people it’s nearly impossible to actually be AFK and get income, particularly in highsec like he’s complaining about. Between mining hold sizes and rock sizes anyone AFK for more than a few minutes at a time will not be mining anymore (unless their efficiency is shockingly low).
Well it kinda comes from the olden days when people could sit around in practically infinite ice belts all day just unloading their cargo from time to time and from the really early days of hauler mining.
This then got used as an excuse when goons created CODE, and now people who don’t know any better just pick it up and run with it even though changes have been made that make it impractical. Pretty much the only way to be AFK and mine is to massively lower your efficiency, which defeats the purpose.
The idea that a boosted fleet of exhumers will be AFK mining in highsec is straight up lunacy.
True enough, and of course I meant only mostly AFK. There’s a big difference between only mostly AFK and all AFK.
Yes, that was the actual point. Not saying that anyone’s AFK, just that even if they are, who cares? What harm does it do?
Just like the scam from CCP back when they were saying “the economy is unsustainable, must be nerfed!” and I pointed out that it was all working reasonably well, people will use any excuse or stick on any label to justify their prejudices.
I say PvP and basic game mechanisms in EVE are very badly designed and lead to low player count/activity… Nolan Varkar interprets that as “you hate ganking and are anti-PvP in high sec”.
Someone else says players should be able to do their own thing in high sec without too much interference, suddenly they’re multiboxing farming RMTing coward cheating economy-wreckers.
Virtually none of these people can present an argument as to how the thing they don’t like actually affects the game… they just know they don’t like it and will stick labels on it until someone makes it go away.
Well, CCP’s been listening, and players have been going away for a decade now.
