While this would make things harder for multiboxing it would also add to sites that are already far to safe to run at the moment.
+1
Thanks for taking the time to write this down.
See Phantom’s post.
Sums it up nicely.
Your intellectual honesty and/or motive, should be put in question if you still dont see any of this as a real problem.
Because rampant multiboxers have a tendancy to acute blindness when shown the problems for what they are.
No , I’d already dealt with that several hundred posts earlier…
" Seems to me people are trying to have it both ways. The OP claims there is ‘no incentive for collaboration’…yet surely what you describe is the incentive for collaboration! "
Not nessessarily.
- sites can be designed in a way that the acceleration gates have a larger activation radius (like FW gates), so you could sneak in a gang of Recons/T3s/Bombers under cloak.
- the design could also make sure the gates to each next area are close to the warpin, so cloaky ships or fast tacklers can get in without needing too much time from gate to gate. Only the hacking/triggering mechanisms can be further away, but a gang of hunters doesn’t need to care for that, since when they enter, the gates are already unlocked.
- sites could also be designed in a way, that the initial acceleration gate always shoots new ships into the last “unlocked” pocket, meaning directly to the guys running the site so multiple pockets arent a time-consuming protection layer
- sites can also be designed in a way that each further pocket has more and more beefy tacklers, so a hunting group could watch Dscan for certain wrecks and if they appear they know the guys in the site are now in a new pocket and tackled for the next minute
- sites can be designed to spawn some beefy dampening ships if a player tries to MJD multiple times and just snip everything, making sure he has to stay within <100km to be able to make progress
- sites can be designed to start a lockdown-timer and fail if the players inside go too far out, forcing them to stay in a certain area while they are doing the content
So, there are lots of options for the game designers to make sure it is still dangerous and people aren’t invincible in there. Creativity and balance is the point. Tbh, someone who pays attention to local and Dscan, keeps some range to the warpin and flies mostly pre-aligned should have high chances not to be caught in there. If he plays flawless, he should be rewarded for it. You still have options to catch him outside if you are patient, he will need to use a gate or a wormhole sooner or later or enter another site where you could already wait for him.
You’re not sneaking anything in anywhere. Most of these sights are already ridiculously safe. It’s time from showing up in local to getting a point down. D scan isn’t even needed.
Likewise it doesn’t matter if i can warp right from one gate to the other the delay from entering warp to exit to enter to exit is already going to eat up loads of time.
Currently you’re only chance is they are in bastion and the cycle just started. Adding a bunch of gates is just going to lead to absolute safety.
Better option is just to remove gates from sites like this. You can have all your hacking and what not just make it required to spawn waves or get access to x portion of the loot.
I keep seeing this “Multiboxing Issue” thread return in some form or fashion. When CCP clearly sells multiboxing to omega players, what makes anyone think, for one hot minute, they would remove the feature? If someone wants to shell out big sums of cash for pay to cheat, let them. It isn’t like they are getting godmode for their money.
These complaints are not aimed at illegal multiboxing, most seem to be concerned about one player paying CCP to be in command of a fleet of ships. I would think 7 or 8 real players in a fleet working as a team could out manuver anyone legally multiboxing. If CCP sells it, they won’t stop it.
Have fun!
1 Like
Thats why the more profitable sites should have tacklers in it that ensure someone can’t just instantly warp out any time. If he has cleared them quickly and choses to abandon the site if someone enters the local to get safe, his choice.
Absolutely not, gates offer great balancing and design options. I get the feeling you are part of the reason everyone instaruns when someone enters the local, because you show the attitude that everyone trying to make an ISK should be your prey and you have some ‘right’ to kill him. Earn your kills, make a good plan, accept that some will get away. Live and let live.
If they would fix the ai that would be interesting. But just look at the winter sites. You just burn 300km off and if someone shows up the rates warp to whoever comes to kill you and points them rather than you lol
Everyone should be someone’s prey yes.
That said the current sights really aren’t balanced. It’s impossible to get caught behind a gate in something like an Ishtar unless you’re not paying attention.
I already adressed that one. Going outside a specified zone should make it impossible to progress. Various mechanics for that already exist. I agree that the current design isn’t good.
Nah, I killed dozens of ppl behind gates even recently, in FW plexes or event sites. I don’t expect to catch all of them with ease tho, some escape and thats fine, you can even chase them and sometimes catch them at their warp destination… Ceptors are pretty fast. And Booshers come down 300km pretty quickly if you chain them.
My point is that you shape the environment you live in. The wolf that hunts too much deer will starve to death once there is nothing left to hunt any more. Having chances to run sites without being caugnt will motivate more people to try it, more people to venture into those areas, maybe settle there if they can make a living. Overfarming people trying to make some cash in PvP zones willmonly lead to a lower attractiveness of these areas and with that a lack of targets.
Anyone with half a brain is pay attention no matter how safe their space is. Has nothing to do with “over hunting” just the standard risk adverse nature of people in eve. I also didn’t say it was impossible. I said it was impressive to catch anyone paying attention. Especially behind multiple gates.
No it’s not the incentive.
No one should be forced into multiboxing or exploits just to remain on par.
It’s simply bad design once that becomes the case.
Like I mentioned above, you’re blind to the issue.
So you are likely using mutliboxing yourself, and would not want your advantage taken away or changed.
But the current situation on this issue of needing more than one pilot active runs along side of many aspects of the game!
How effective can a solo pilot operate without multiboxing?
Thank you for your insights, Syzygium. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position.
My intention is not to eliminate multiboxing from EVE Online; I understand and respect that it is a legitimate and enjoyable playstyle for many. Instead, my focus is on making Faction Warfare sites more accessible and engaging for all players—whether they prefer solo play, small gang operations, or larger fleets.
The current mechanics tend to favor those who can field multiple accounts simultaneously, which can inadvertently create barriers for solo players and small groups. To address this, I propose introducing more active, mouse-driven gameplay elements, such as mini-games or puzzles, within Faction Warfare sites. These challenges would require real-time decision-making and interaction, shifting the focus from sheer account numbers to individual skill and engagement.
An added benefit of this approach is that players who dedicate more time to mastering these mechanics would naturally become quicker and better at solving these mini-games or hacking challenges compared to those who engage less frequently. This means that income or rewards could be tied to performance—how many puzzles or challenges a player successfully completes—making it a matter of skill and effort rather than simply the number of accounts they can field.
By implementing such changes, we can create a more dynamic and inclusive environment in Faction Warfare, where success is determined by player ability and dedication rather than raw numbers. This would encourage broader participation and foster a sense of fair competition among players.
I look forward to further constructive discussions on how we can collectively improve the Faction Warfare experience for everyone involved. Let’s keep working to make EVE Online even better!
You’d still be free to use multiboxing any way you see fit, just that its specific use in FW needs to be severely limited to allow room for those who dont use that playstyle, to participate without feeling forced to multibox to be on the same edge as those that do.
1 Like
You’re not being forced into multiboxing. You’re being made to collaborate. Ya know…the original OP claim was ‘there is no incentive for collaboration’. Well…there’s your incentive…huh ?
That’ll be 1bn ISK for my consultation fees.
That is how CCP sells it. Come play in our sandbox for free… oh, I see you don’t have a bucket or shovel. Do you want to buy them to keep up with the other kids? Players like myself just opt not to play in that area. The only option to take part, is to join and work with others. I suspect even 3 players could take out 1 multiboxer, since they have to mentally juggle tasks. The only way for the multiboxer to cheat co-op teams would be using bots or AI for their other ships.
Have fun!
Collaborate how, by multiboxing too ?
Look around, no one actually cares to «collaborate » just to chase a bunch of exploiters that would warp off at the first sign of real trouble but would gladly keep awoxing single ships with no repercussions, and gladly single handedly monopolize and plex out valuable systems.
Why the fck would people waste their time gathering a fleet up for that ? First, It would not be fun nor engaging content and second, the multiboxer would warp off as soon as we land at 0.5 au …
So you most likely have fckall knowlege and experience about FW, so that would probably explain a lot …and you should probably either shut up now, and/or remain in your self-satisfaction.
Er…collaborate by collaborating. And if the multiboxer warps off…then what is any longer the issue ?
You seem to want to have it both ways. First you claim there is ‘no incentive to collaborate’…then when told the multiboxer IS the incentive to collaborate you make excuses for not collaborating.
I don’t agree with Gloria/Altara on many points, but I think this is one of them.
The “multiboxers are unfair” appears to mostly boil down to “I don’t like it when other people take sites that I want”.
The game has bots, seagulls, scammers, exploits, abusive corps, 24x7 players, people who use outside software, etc. There’s always someone to blame for your inability to take the sites you want to take.
At least multiboxers are paying for multiple accounts and playing as a human. Which means yes, if you wanted to, you could get some people together and outplay them. And if you don’t want to, ‘because reasons’, then that’s on you.
It’s unfortunate that CCP decided to go the route of selling multibox to an increasingly narrow player base, but I suspect if they hadn’t done that, there’d simply be no EVE running today.
At any rate, it’s here, it’s staying, it’s a valid playstyle. Canute can tell you, there’s no point yelling at the tide to stop. Either suggest new content that supports more playstyles, learn to deal with multiboxers, or let your feet do the talking.
Because that’s what CCP really listens to.
Edit: Oh, or find ways to exploit multiboxing so badly that it breaks the game and makes CCP look like fools. That’s the other thing they really listen to.
1 Like