Private Hangar Multibox

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
21

This is not even remotely true. Proven by the fact that when I started the game the overwhelming majority of all players had 1-2 accounts, some had 3, but mostly not logged in together because the third one was just a capital/jumpfreighter alt that would be used in very limited situations. And You could play a whole year without seeing anyone multiboxing like 4-5 or more ships at the same time to mass-mine or mass-pve or mass-pvp with them.

In fact, in the first 2 corporations I was, more than 50% of the players had only 1 account. Some had a second to support, like for scouting, scanning, tackling or fleetboost. And less than 5% had a third account, as said, for a capital or a jumpfreighter. And that worked perfectly fine. We did PvP, we did logistics runs and we did group-content actually as a group.

Still everything was absolutely affordable, people used T1, T2, Capital ships…

Mass-multiboxing is absolutely not nessessary to keep the games economy running.

1 Like
22

I used to be in a null corp where they configured assets was with audit log station containers. Since these require a password. Corp members had access to one of the corp hangars. The corp owns several always unless they changed it. The Each player has access to say hangar 1. In hangar 1 Players have their container which are password protected effectively allowing multiple people with the password to acces that container…

Cheers. Hope this helps

23

Well, I think this is a very interesting topic to discuss with people who actually understand the subject.

Providing a more accessible way for you to manage your industrial side across your alt accounts is quite positive.

“Ah, but making multiboxing even easier will just make so-and-so earn more ISK, build more ships, and get richer.”

That line of thinking is not only stupid and disconnected from reality, it sounds more like someone who can’t do something and doesn’t want others to do it either.

“Ah, but you’re defending multiboxing, it’s a cancer in the game, it’s ruining the game.”

My friend, EVE Online has been around for over 20 years. One thing you can be sure of is that they always keep a close eye on the economic side of things. No game has lasted this long with such a player base and a functioning market without resets like this one.

Osterci’s proposal is simple, direct, and clear: “a simpler way to organize your stuff without having to create a new corporation just to do it.” This already exists in the game, but you have to leave your corp to make it work, instead of simply having that option available to the player at the station.

This is nothing more than a quality-of-life improvement for something that already exists in the game. It’s not something that’s going to break anything, and it doesn’t need all this drama.

Many people in this world complain and argue about things simply because;
“if I’m not benefiting from it, then I should fight for it to fail.”

Sorry for the long text above…

I support the proposal in this thread

Fly Safe o7

24

rest assured I absolutely do understand a lot about the subject.

You targeting persons instead of arguments doesn’t make a good impression.
Rest assured the people arguing against multiboxing in EVE are neither unable “to do something” nor simple minded and envy others their pixel money.

There is no drama. There are just people that believe it would be yet another step into a direction that we feel is wrong in general and should be avoided, if not even reversed.

Have a nice day.

25

Syzygium
If at no point I mentioned you in my text, then if the shoe fits… there’s nothing I can do about it.

If you have any understanding of text interpretation, you’ll see that I was talking about the topic itself, about what was being discussed, and I stated my opinion. I won’t remove a single comma from what I wrote above. I didn’t mention anyone specifically — I spoke in a general sense, my friend.

I’m not looking for a fight like you are. I brought facts, not nonsense.

If you enjoy arguing in other people’s threads, feel free — I have much better things to do.

Now, this text was intended for you.

Have a good day.

26

And I never even said that.

Again targeting persons? I am in no way “looking for a fight” or anything.

Not seen any. “His suggestion is making it easier…” isn’t an argument. Everyone understood that his suggestion would make things easier for people with many accounts. Well, exactly that is the reason some people are against it.
The last thing EVE needs is to be even more attractive and catering for people with 5, 8, 10, 12, 20 accounts. And while we cannot (at least not instantly) reverse design mistakes of the past that have lead to the current situation, we can at least advise against going into that direction any further. And then slowly but steadily work on design solutions that more and more focus on single-account gameplay with maybe 1 or 2 supportchars for convenience scenarios when no one else of the peer-groups is online, but not for power-scaling any more (be it combat, grinding or industrial) with mass-alts.

2 Likes
27

My friend, just because you don’t like multiboxing doesn’t mean the game should stop having it — do you understand that? Your argument comes across as very selfish, man.

If you don’t like having 10/20/30 accounts playing at the same time, then just don’t do it — it’s that simple.

“Ah, but I don’t want people who use multiple accounts to get more benefits.”

Simple: make your own thread, bring your arguments, and those “some people” you say are against it can go there and discuss it with you.

What’s being discussed in this thread is something that already exists in the game, and the idea is just to make it more accessible — it’s not something that’s going to break the game.

“I want you to have only one main account and at most two supports.”

Think about it — you’re not really discussing anything. You’re being so selfish that you want to dictate how others should play the game. If it’s not your way, then it’s wrong? Come on.

“if I’m not benefiting from it, then I should fight for it to fail.”

28

Maybe you don’t really understand what a ‘forum’ is? You are in no way entitled to only get responses from people who like an idea. A suggestion to change the game has been made, it will draw attention from people that dislike it as well and their reasons aren’t selfish or driven by envy at all.

I don’t need to ‘make an own topic and discuss there with people who agree with me’. If I don’t like what is suggested here I will just say so, exactly here. Amd I don’t want such a change because it would further drive EVE into a mass-alt mass-multibox direction that I think is not helpful making it a better game.

1 Like
29

Putting aside all that talk above and focusing only on the last paragraph:

“I don’t want something” = that’s fine.

“You can’t have something because I don’t want it” = selfish.

As for your argument that “this would push EVE even further into massive alt multiboxing” —
man, you simply don’t understand what you’re talking about, sorry.

This is something that already exists, and people are already doing it in the game. The only goal here is to have the option without needing to create a corporation just for that.

The game isn’t suddenly going to be flooded with multiboxing because of a shared hangar — something that already exists.

Try to bring a plausible argument for why this shouldn’t be implemented.

30

i agree with @Syzygium
i used to multibox up to 50 accts every day for quite awhile…
my brother still boxes 20 to 25 daily…

both of us did it as more and more players quit trying to being in a corp or wanting to do group activiteis as a “group” to strive for something…

the more ppl wanted isk and only isk and wanted to do things as an individual instead of planned group activities…the more they started to quit playing or put pressure on leaders to provide for those that could not multibox or didnt want to for content and funding…

i eventually went to being available for advice and ganking.
and my brother went full indy.

we hate multiboxing…i especially because it promotes individualism and careberism…

barges should be reduced back to needing only 1 cat to kill retrievers/covetors…2-4 for fitted procs… 1 for a hulk, 2-3 for a mackinaw…and teh usual 6 for a fitted skiff…buffing them also forced ppl to increase multiboxing

CCP went the way after the “summer of rage” when a lot of the player base quit after destroying their charactes and accts - of monetizing multiboxing and the power of alts…the power of individualism…

we dont need this crap…we dont need more reason for multiboxng or making it more efficient than it aleardy is…

this is an MMO not X4 foundations…there that is the argument…you want to treat EVE like X4…go play that instead.

31

You talk so much that has nothing to do with anything. I don’t care about your hate — what I care about are arguments, which you didn’t present in all those lines.

32

i presentedd the reasoning and facts of why as a playerbase we dont need this…

it is not hate…it is love…love for the game, love for players to group up in an MMO…

if you want to play a single player game…
GO DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE

that is the argument…and i dont care if you dont like the truth

1 Like
33

“What reasoning? That sounds more like a personal story than an argument, and it doesn’t really address the topic.

You keep telling me to go play something else just because I have a different opinion — if anyone wants to do that, it’s your choice. I’m here discussing the topic.

I don’t have an issue with how you play EVE; everyone can play the way they prefer. What matters here are solid arguments about the feature being discussed — and so far, you haven’t presented any.”

34

I support ACL hangars. It would make it simpler to just have all my chars in a main corp instead of having to put my industry alts in a personal alt corp. Especially since my main has a bunch of industry skills.

1 Like
35

if you want to play a “single player” game…
then go do that…otherwise stop mewling

36

What does it matter to you how I choose to play or not play? Before telling someone else what to do, put yourself in your place, kid.

37

I think they were saying in that regards to proposed changes here. As in: “these changes will move the game towards single player game”.

This suggestion is clearly incoherent, written by AI and will make industry easier. If industry is more easy to do, then the “cost” or effort required falls, so production and participation increases. Everything in EVE has to have some sort of balance, so I wonder, what would people be willing to give up or nerf about industry. Also, this supports big industrialists and hurts smaller ones by competition.

1 Like
38

I’m sorry SONDER MAJUS, but this proposal was not written by AI. It was written by a professional in the field of industrial processes and technology in real life, who has worked in this industry for over 25 years and who is very knowledgeable on the subject, especially regarding the game mechanics (since 2008). But I don’t even know why I’m bothering to reply to you, since many here are blind to understanding the substance of the proposal: the implementation of this feature will depend on the agreement of the corporation/alliance that owns the station. I am not proposing that CCP apply this improvement to everyone. It will be an option/decision of the corporation/alliance CEO, and furthermore, in designated stations only — meaning it will not be a blanket application, but rather a specific one.

39

So, where do you disagree with my comment, besides the AI part?

40

He doesn’t. Your argumentation is perfectly right. It will make it easier for already big industrialists that already have many advantages and will move the small or solo builder into an even worse spot in the overall competition.

But he doesn’t care. The whole suggestion is made with his own benefit in mind. It should make it easier for himself, thats the main concern. The consequences for others or the game as a whole… not so much…

3 Likes