Multiple Accounts the good and bad for eve


(Ildrara) #41

Are you always wrong on purpose or is it just natural?


(Aedaxus) #42

How would you play it otherwise? It’s multi-account to win. See the other posters? forum alts… yes, even for the damn forums they have alts, go figure. Alts/multiple accounts is the best way to counter the difficulty of this game.


(Ildrara) #44

It was like that before a Korean company bought out CCP games.

Just wrecked your ■■■■ tier argument.


(Sade Musana) #45

Is that the nice way of saying Pay2Win around here?


(OId SouI) #46

5 extra pc’s 6 alphas. :rofl:


(Meilin Nightstalker) #47

multiple accounts maybe a thing but we should have a limit to how many clients connected at the same time… maybe 2 or 3? hell just one client per player…


(Savoycabbage) #48

As has already been established, having a capital pilot is impossible without an alt - if only to light a gtfo cyno.

Making any meaningful isk out of mining is impossible with only one account - unless you own a Rorqual (see my first point). The problem with this is that the economy would collapse without multiboxing miners.

Being an effective hunter/ganker/lowsec gate camper/hisec wardeccer (even under the upcoming system) is impossible without an alt to scout/bump/logi etc. I can tell you now that the current hisec wardec corps all make extensive use of multiple accounts. Taking down a citadel, for example, is much harder without them - the number of players behind computers isn’t as high as you might think.

Why would anyone want to reduce the number of clients connected, or even number of accounts a player can hold? EVE would literally collapse without it, and not just through CCP revenue but through the in-game economic damage it would cause.


(Aedaxus) #49

First of all, what you say is true for more than just the economy, in most gameplay you are severely disadvantaged with just one account. However, not using characters as tools might make the game more “human/personal”. I however think this is technically impossible as people can find many ways to make accounts look like owned by others. Maybe end the tutorial with “And create an alt NOW because you don’t want to screw your standings on this character”. :wink:


(Sade Musana) #50

Utter rubbish.


(Meilin Nightstalker) #51

the economy would adjust itself to the new paradigm, tactics would adapt and the gameplay would be healthier… This were supposed to be a massive multiPLAYER GAME and not a a massive multiACCOUNT GANGBANG. (If isn’t fair it isn’t a game)


(Lena Crews) #52

And your cost to play would go way up.

If the average eve player has 3 accounts right now… that means that CCP is taking in between 45 and 60 dollars a month for each player. If you limit them to 1 account… that account would have to cost between 45 and 60 dollars a month.

Someone buys the plex that are used up when people plex their account. Perhaps not the person using them… but someone does. Reducing accounts to 1 per player will make it way more expensive per account to play.


(Sade Musana) #53

Why would the cost to play go up?

The people using the PLEX are contributing nothing financially to CCP. The PLEX has already been bought.

There was a time when a months worth of PLEX was 300 mill, and people still bought PLEX to sell on the market.

PLEX can be used for many things other than just gametime for multiboxers.


(Savoycabbage) #54

Oh my, someone really doesn’t understand basic economics.

PLEX is overwhelmingly used to run multiple accounts. Yes, you can buy pretty ship skins and run multiple characters on a single account if you want to, but primarily it’s used to run multiple accounts.

If less PLEX is sold on the market, then the price of PLEX goes down dramatically. Eventually players who buy PLEX from CCP to sell on the market are going to stop doing so because they can’t get the isk they want to out of it.

Yes, PLEX used to be worth 300Mil. Those days are well and truly gone.

Firstly, EVE has never been a fair game.

The economy would not ever recover I’m afraid. EVE has nowhere near the number of “people behind computers” as it used to. It was fine 10 years ago, but now there aren’t enough people playing to make it work. Who would mine the minerals needed to build the ships? Who would then build those ships? Who would huff the gas needed for T3 components? Who would do the PI needed for pretty much everything?


(Meilin Nightstalker) #55

So it is not a game…


(Savoycabbage) #56

I see you’ve decided that you can’t actually come up with a response and so have settled on inane nonsense instead.

Fair enough.


(Meilin Nightstalker) #57

what I said is just a fact… I don’t care about your or anyone else opinions about it :slight_smile: I play this thing long enough to know that it will never change and it will become crappier and crappier in this regard… the only reason I’m here yet is because Star Citizen manage to suck more… I don’t know how but it does.


(Lena Crews) #59

Savoycabbage pretty much summed it up.


(Sade Musana) #60

It’s like the blind leading the blind.


(Fluffy Moe) #61

Those are reasonable, I will also point out that they exist due to lack of systems game mechanics. A well designed game should never have any need for this sort of stuff. But its the otehr ones that screw up the game.


(Savoycabbage) #62

Can we just take a moment to appreciate that EVE would not exist today if it were not for multiple accounts per person? If CCP did not receive that revenue, the game would not be sustainable and would have been either FTP with microtransactions or just plain non-existent.

I’ve no statistics to back it up, only CCP would have those, but I reckon that there are at least 2 accounts if not 3 per player in EVE. I have 4 and I know many people who run more that 8, and that’s just hisec wardeccers. Imagine how many some of the NS miners have (regardless of botting issues which are irrelevant here).

Let’s go with 2 accounts per player (and be conservative). Let’s now reduce CCPs income by 50% - EVE would not be financially viable to exist with development happening the way it is. People complain about game balance and community engagement now, just think what it would be like then. Who thinks the game would be “healthier” with that level of investment into the game?