Okay, I’ve seen a few comments now that makes me wonder if everyone is on the same page. So for clarification:
- No one is arguing that 1 multiboxer doesn’t have an advantage against 1 solo player
- People are instead arguing that 1 multiboxer is at a serious disadvantage when compared to a fleet of real people.
- Therefor, multiboxing does have a counter that is effective and not onerous*.
- This is a counter argument to the idea that multiboxing is inherently unfair**.
Fleet of Real Players > Multiboxer > Solo Player
*Note that not all counter play options are created equal. For example, counter play options that require an unreasonable amount of effort, or that suck all of the fun out of the game, do not make for compelling arguments. The end result should be game play that is fun and rewarding for everyone. And if a counter play option fails to achieve that, then it’s not a very good argument for keeping the status quo.
**Note that another counter argument to the idea that multiboxing is unfair is that almost everyone can do it -which turns multiboxing into a personal choice. I broke down my reasoning in another thread, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that around 70% of Eve players already posses the hardware needed to quad box. Of course, this ignores all the players who can’t afford a system/internet connection capable of multiboxing. So there is an argument to be made against this line of reasoning.
Edit: It does look like Cypherous is arguing that dying to a multiboxer isn’t any different than dying to a bunch of people ganging up on you. Which is a good point. Eve isn’t exactly a symmetrical game in that it doesn’t ensure balanced encounters. In order to survive and thrive, you have to learn how to survive when the odds are stacked against you, and how to stack the odds in your favor as much and as often as possible.