Proposal: Revamped Site Mechanics to Reduce Multiboxing and Promote Cooperation (FW)

[Verlyn]

Because, the minute we leave system due to them warping off instantly, they’re simply back in one click and continue being a problem for somebody else … ?

Are you even remotely intellectually honest in how the game works … ?

Did you even factor in the main issues in OP yet :

- Awoxing without repercussions.
- Valuable system capture hoarding/monopoly.
- Stagnant tug of war / warzone control as a result.

I mean … they’ve been laid out a few times… did you adress them even once ?

Since you keep asking for specifics …

Here’s a rundown of your entire history in this thread.

None of these replies touch either topic mentioned by the OP, regarding the uses and abuses of multiboxing in the game.

You’re just trying to consistently drown the issue with “it’s only a perceived problem” or “it’s a collabration issue” nonsense …

@Gloria_Exercitus

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.

What’s more, why should 1 person against a collaborative group of 20 be any more ‘fair’ than 1 person against a 20 ship multiboxer ?

Whenever I see threads against multiboxing, all I really see is ’ wah wah…someone can afford more accounts than I can '…all wrapped up in a disingenuous attempt to portray multiboxing as somehow ‘harmful’.

@Gloria_Exercitus

Perhaps you cannot see the internal contradiction in what you are saying.

You are arguing for collaboration, yet my simple question was to ask where is that collaboration. If the multiboxer is predominant then surely the problem is not that the multiboxer exists but that the collaboration you speak of doesn’t exist.

And what about the flip side…where your collaborative group of 20 outweigh a solo player just as much as any 20 char multiboxer could. Multiboxing is surely the answer to that particular problem.

@Gloria_Exercitus

We’re born into a game in which vast 30,000 player blocs own trillions of ISK and vast swathes of space and we start out in a piddling little Venture…and you’re concerned because some mythical guy ( who always seems to have 20 accounts ) can log in a few times more than others `?

@Gloria_Exercitus

But then we get threads complaining about that by PvE-ers who seem to think PvP-ers have no right to ‘interfere’ with their activities.

Good luck with CCP trying to please all the people all the time.

@Gloria_Exercitus

He’s making it on a public forum where I have every right to comment and express my disapproval without some arrogant person thinking their opinion trumps all.

@Gloria_Exercitus

I’m pretty sure Steve Erwin would have told you that live and wriggling Australian bush grub served up with toasted tarantula was fantastic. Bon appetite !

@Gloria_Exercitus

Uh uh…yet another arrogant person. I guess it goes hand in hand with being a forum troll. I decide what I say means…not you. And it is entirely possible to put someone on ignore and ignore the vast majority of their junk whilst selecting one or two to respond to. That’s up to me…not you. So with all due respect…take a hike.

@Gloria_Exercitus

Oh…is that why you gave my response nothing but ad hominem 7 times in a row in which you never once addressed the actual topic ? I gave the topic a detailed response. ALL you gave was silly insults.

@Gloria_Exercitus

Then all you had to do was agree…rather than endless ad hominem on anyone who disagrees. I have a proposal that CCP should create a kindergarten forum for those who have not yet acquired the skills to debate with adults.

@Gloria_Exercitus

Welcome to Eve ! Twenty years of glorious unfairness…and long may it continue that way.

The lack of a level playing field, and the fact that we are born into a universe already populated by mega corporations some of which gained their stature in the shadiest manner, is precisely what makes Eve such a great game.

@Gloria_Exercitus

Not everyone is multiboxing 30 accounts. Some, like myself, use multiboxing primarily for real time scouting. Imagine the hassle of having to log out one account, log in another, do the scouting, log that account, log back in the original…and so on. Being able to multibox at least 2 accounts is essential for real time scouting without that hassle.

People make way too much of a disproportionate fuss over the 30 character multiboxers and forget that most people are multiboxing 2 or 3 accounts.

@Gloria_Exercitus

Meh. The only ‘addiction’ I see is to whining about it and exaggerating a so-called ‘problem’ out of all proportion.

Why do you even care about it ? In what conceivable way does it personally affect you ? It is yet another of those manufactured ‘problems’ that is grossly overstated. The number of people who obviously have 20 accounts or more running, which you can only really tell from the similar names, is actually miniscule.

And why should anyone have to ‘co-operate’ if they don’t want to ? Other people are unreliable, not always logged in, can be deceitful, and so on. For a small fleet…what’s more reliable than it all being oneself ? And again…nowhere do you state why this is a ‘problem’.

In the end, it always seems to me that multibox whining is solely down to envy…’ that person can afford to run 15 accounts and I can’t ’ .

@Gloria_Exercitus

How to identify a manufactured ‘problem’.

1. Advocates of the ‘problem’ will always use emotive language without ever actually telling you specifically what the ‘problem’ actually is.
2. Advocates of the ‘problem’ are never able to specifically tell you how the ‘problem’ affects them, or indeed anyone else. Theorycrafted ‘examples’ will be used…rather than ever a single actual real world example of anyone facing the ‘problem’ or its effects.
3. The ‘problem’ will be greatly exaggerated. Every system will have the ‘problem’ 100 times over. There’ll be made up reports of ‘30 multiboxers’ in one system after another. Never mind that earlier I flew all the way from Jita to Amarr and back and only in one system did I even encounter 5 similar names.
4. The ‘problem’ will be alleged to be ‘ruining the game’…without any explanation of how this is so. The usual ‘think of the noobs’ type semantics without any specific mention of who is affected or how.

@Gloria_Exercitus

But you haven’t actually answered any of my 4 points. There’s a reason they were worded as they were. The issue is not specifically if this or that is happening…but why it is a ‘problem’.

@Gloria_Exercitus

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! "

@Gloria_Exercitus

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.

@Gloria_Exercitus

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.

Like a broken record …

[Verlyn]

@Kezrai_Charzai

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.

That’s exactly what this thread was aimed at.

Not get rid of multiboxing at all, but to even out and diversify the ecosystem a little by making it a little harder for them to hoard on sites so easily, and with stronger repercussions if they abuse the system (awoxing etc)

Some people like Gloria, who no doubt multiboxes, and likely enjoys easy isk, would not want his/her life made harder and tries to shift the attention from the design problem into an ingame “player collaboration” problem…

Classic blame shifting to maintain a status quo, lmao …

[Spacetramp_Drago]

@Princess_Rose_Ivory

The only way for the multiboxer to cheat co-op teams would be using bots or AI for their other ships.

They do, but it seems CCP is presently ignoring it.

Remember the security updates we used to get a few years back? We don’t see them anymore, probably because they don’t exist and team security got re-tasked.

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Verlyn

Because, the minute we leave system due to them warping off instantly, they’re simply back in one click and continue being a problem for somebody else … ?

Gosh…I have to be amazed at the psychic powers by which you know what is happening to ‘someone else’ when you are not there. Especially as you’ve stated nobody collaborates.

@Verlyn

You’re just trying to consistently drown the issue

No, as I just showed above, I’m just pointing out the multiple internal contradictions in the story.

[Princess_Rose_Ivory]

@Spacetramp_Drago

Remember the security updates we used to get a few years back?

No. I just started playing this game back in 2023, but I understand what you are talking about. It seems like they could “task” a fisherman off the pier to look over the logs for suspect information. I wonder if Iceland has unpaid interns? I know other games use the Easy Anti-cheat software, but that would cost more money than I think it is worth. Instead of worrying about UI and graphical upgrades they should task the art department to security. They would look cute in their new uniforms.

Have fun!

[Verlyn]

@Gloria_Exercitus

Gosh…I have to be amazed at the psychic powers by which you know what is happening to ‘someone else’ when you are not there. Especially as you’ve stated nobody collaborates.

@Verlyn

You’re just trying to consistently drown the issue

No, as I just showed above, I’m just pointing out the multiple internal contradictions in the story.

You’re so hellbent on sticking to this collaboration issue when it was clearly stated and shown by OP as only a symptom of the specific problems stated above, none of which you’ve specifically addressed so far.

Address those first, then talk collaboration.

Here they are once more, in case you choose to overlook them for the 100th time:

- Awoxing without repercussions.
- Valuable system capture hoarding/monopoly.
- Stagnant tug of war / warzone control as a result.

If you overlook them one more time, your trolling simply ends here.

[Phantom_Silver]

Thank you for your response, Gloria. Let me clarify a few points and address the core of your arguments.

First, this thread was never about removing multiboxing or blaming it as the sole issue in Faction Warfare. Multiboxing is a valid playstyle that has its place in EVE Online. However, the current mechanics in Faction Warfare create a system that heavily favors multiboxing over skill, strategy, and collaboration, which undermines the purpose of the warzone.

You keep pointing out “collaborate by collaborating,” but this misses the nuance of the issue. Collaboration is meaningless if the multiboxer warps off at the first sign of trouble and simply moves to the next system. The problem isn’t just the multiboxer themselves—it’s how the mechanics enable them to monopolize systems without meaningful counterplay or risk. This is not a “perceived” problem; it’s a gameplay imbalance.

Let’s focus on the actual issues raised in this thread:

1. Awoxing without repercussions
   Current mechanics allow players to abuse the standings system by averaging it out with alpha accounts or alts. This loophole makes it possible for bad actors to infiltrate and disrupt their own factions without facing meaningful penalties. This isn’t about collaboration; it’s about fixing a broken system that rewards exploitation.
2. Valuable system capture hoarding and monopoly
   Multiboxers can dominate plexes in Faction Warfare by simply warping in with fleets of alts, running multiple sites simultaneously, and warping off at the first sign of resistance. The ease with which they can return to the system after being disrupted ensures they maintain a monopoly over these systems. Collaboration doesn’t fix this issue when the mechanics themselves favor numbers over skill.
3. Stagnant tug-of-war and warzone control
   Faction Warfare is designed to be a dynamic and engaging system, but multiboxing fleets create stagnation. There is little incentive for smaller groups or solo players to participate when they are constantly overshadowed by fleets of alts that dominate systems without meaningful interaction or resistance.

The solution proposed here isn’t to remove multiboxing but to even the playing field by introducing active gameplay mechanics that reward skill and effort over sheer numbers. Features like mini-games, hacking challenges, or other active elements would shift the focus from account volume to individual engagement and teamwork. Players who invest time and effort would naturally perform better, creating a fairer and more competitive environment.

Finally, addressing your point about collaboration being the “incentive” for multiboxing: Collaboration can only be meaningful if the game mechanics support it. Currently, they do not. Multiboxers can warp off and return with ease, making chasing them not only tedious but unproductive. The gameplay becomes unengaging, and the incentive to collaborate diminishes as a result. Fixing these mechanics would create more opportunities for meaningful collaboration, ensuring Faction Warfare is engaging for all players—whether they’re solo, in small gangs, or part of larger fleets.

This isn’t about whining or shifting blame; it’s about making Faction Warfare more rewarding and accessible for everyone. I hope this clears up the intent behind the proposal and the actual problems we are trying to address. Let’s focus on solutions that enhance the gameplay experience for the entire community.

[Glenduil]

So what you’re saying is…

You want sites to be more profitable by adding in more enemies and hacking and loot. Yes. I can see how everyone could support this. Sounds awesome! More loot! Hacking players aren’t really needed anymore. You can put a cloaking hacking frigate in a battleship (Marauder or Vindicator) giving one ship mastery over two rolls. It leaves your battleship vulnerable, but it is possible to do combat and hacking in that configuration.

[Phantom_Silver]

Thanks for your comment, Glenduil, but I think there’s been a misunderstanding of what we’re proposing. The goal isn’t to just add more enemies, loot, or make sites more profitable in the traditional sense. Instead, the idea is to shift the gameplay mechanics to focus on active engagement—things like real-time puzzles, hacking challenges, or mechanics that require mouse clicks and player input to succeed.

This isn’t about making certain ships or configurations obsolete. In fact, the goal is to make Faction Warfare sites accessible and rewarding for all playstyles, whether you’re solo, in a small gang, or multiboxing. The emphasis is on rewarding active gameplay rather than purely numbers-based or passive playstyles.

It’s not about creating bigger loot pinatas; it’s about fostering a system that values skill, decision-making, and interaction over simply fielding as many accounts as possible. Hopefully, this clears up the intent of the proposal. Thanks for engaging!

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Phantom_Silver

Awoxing without repercussions
Current mechanics allow players to abuse the standings system by averaging it out with alpha accounts or alts.

Alpha accounts can’t multibox. So any such accounts would have to be ‘averaging out’ individually…and thus not multiboxing in the process.

@Phantom_Silver

Collaboration is meaningless if the multiboxer warps off at the first sign of trouble and simply moves to the next system

Why would you care that the multiboxer is now in the next system ? You’ve chased them off in this one. Chases them off in the next one.

Perhaps you’d be so good as to name a system where this stuff happens…so I can pop down there and see all these hordes of multiboxers in action. Or even a screen print showing ‘Multiboxer_1’ to ‘Multiboxer_30’ in Local in such a system…which surely someone should have provided by now.

[Phantom_Silver]

Thank you for your response, Gloria. I’d like to take a moment to clarify a couple of points, as it’s evident there’s been some misunderstanding about the mechanics and the intent behind this discussion.

First, regarding awoxing without repercussions, the issue isn’t about alpha accounts being used to multibox directly. You’re correct that alpha accounts can’t multibox. However, the problem lies in how alpha accounts or alt characters are used to manipulate the standings system within a corporation. By averaging out negative standings with these alts, corporations can remain in the militia despite actively undermining it. This isn’t about simultaneous account usage—it’s about exploiting the system to avoid penalties. Ignoring this key point shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics, and it’s critical to addressing one of the primary concerns in Faction Warfare.

Second, your suggestion to “just chase them off to the next system” oversimplifies the problem. The issue isn’t the act of chasing multiboxers—it’s the lack of meaningful consequences or counterplay. Multiboxers can easily warp off and continue exploiting the mechanics in another system with no risk or engagement. This turns Faction Warfare into a tedious game of whack-a-mole, rather than creating dynamic and meaningful gameplay that fosters player interaction and collaboration. Simply telling players to “chase them off” doesn’t resolve the underlying problem of imbalance.

It’s also worth noting that several people have now tried to explain the issues at hand to you, yet you continue to dismiss the key points. Instead of engaging with the actual concerns—such as awoxing, system monopolization, and stagnant warzone dynamics—you’ve repeatedly shifted the conversation or reframed it in a way that doesn’t address the intent of this proposal.

For that reason, this will be the last response directed to you on this topic. The points have been made clear multiple times, and further discussion seems unproductive given your unwillingness to engage with the core issues.

To reiterate for others reading: This proposal is not about removing multiboxing. It’s about creating fairer, more engaging mechanics in Faction Warfare that reward active gameplay and player skill rather than sheer account volume. By addressing issues like standings manipulation, awoxing, and system monopolization, we aim to make Faction Warfare more rewarding and accessible for everyone.

Thank you for your time, Gloria. I hope this clarifies the points you’ve repeatedly overlooked, and I encourage others to focus on constructive solutions moving forward.

[Glenduil]

Ah so this is all about null-sec war between two corporations, is that right? I was wondering why it would matter that someone was running 5 accounts through a mission or ratting a wormhole or abyssal space- basically killing NPCs and salvaging. It didn’t make sense why that would hurt someone else’s gameplay who was somewhere else dealing with his own NPCs.

But this is about not being able to completely win a war because they have unreachable alts screwing up numbers? I see how that could be a problem.

[Phantom_Silver]

Thank you for your comment, Glenduil. Just to clarify, this is specifically about Faction Warfare, not null-sec wars or other PvE activities like running missions, wormholes, or abyssal sites.

Faction Warfare is designed to be a more accessible form of gameplay, especially for newer players or those looking to experience structured PvP without needing to dive into the complexities of null-sec politics or high-end PvE. It provides a great starting point for players to engage in the game while contributing to a faction’s war effort and learning valuable skills.

The issue we’re addressing here is how certain mechanics—such as the ease of multiboxing and standings exploitation—can make Faction Warfare less accessible and rewarding for newer players or smaller groups. When one person with multiple accounts can dominate systems or manipulate standings without meaningful interaction or risk, it creates barriers for those who want to participate but can’t compete with those numbers.

The goal isn’t to eliminate any playstyle but to ensure that Faction Warfare remains engaging and balanced, with mechanics that reward active gameplay and skill rather than raw account volume. By doing so, we can make this space more inviting for new players and more rewarding for everyone involved.

Thanks for taking the time to engage with this discussion—I hope this clears up the intent behind the proposal!

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Phantom_Silver

When one person with multiple accounts can dominate systems or manipulate standings without meaningful interaction or risk

Nowhere in this thread has there been any examples of this happening or evidence that it does, or if such evidence exists, then evidence of the extent of it.

[Mr_Epeen]

@Gloria_Exercitus

Nowhere in this thread has there been any examples of this happening

How about log into the game for a change and instead of playing turkey shoot, join a faction.

Then when you have a clue what FW is like by - you know - participating, come back and post about it.

Mr Epeen

[Verlyn]

Lmao

You’re a terrible troll…

No one will waste anymore of their time for your sake.

You don’t even appear to know how FW works atm … too funny

[Verlyn]

He wont, he’s just a fckin troll

And Inb4 he comes back with something along the lines of :

«Well burdens on those making such claims to provide evidence. »

And then fcks off looking very pleased with himself…

[Verlyn]

Have you raised the issues with CSMs btw ?

And if so, what do they think ?

Fyi, Im asking because I am utterly appalled at how the FW changes a couple years ago were supposed to take us away from a stale farmville online and into a more dynamic warzone, but that got ruined fast into another farmville, due to mentioned issues, and until I just couldn’t be bothered anymore.

If I started seeing some glint of work being put into resolving these issues, I would probably come back.

And Im not alone im sure.

[Spacetramp_Drago]

His answers remind me of someone else like that, maybe it’s the same person?

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Phantom_Silver

Just to clarify, this is specifically about Faction Warfare,

@Phantom_Silver

you’ve repeatedly shifted the conversation or reframed it in a way that doesn’t address the intent of this proposal.

Your OP didn’t say anything at all about FW? Just about replacing “group sites” with multibox-inefficient sites. Despite saying “it’s not about removing multiboxing”, replacing multi-ship sites with anti-multiboxing mechanics pretty much is about removing multiboxing.

Not that I’d care if that happened, but I expect it would significantly impact CCP’s bottom line.

Also, the multiple points about FW multiboxers are not well made. I haven’t FW’d in over a decade: I found it boring and annoying back then and none of the changes I’ve seen since have promised better. Although at least they have made some changes, which is hopeful after they ignored it for so many years.

At any rate, awoxing and stagnant warzones have been problems for years, afaik, and not limited to multiboxers. And I’m not sure how a multiboxer “monopolizes” a system while also at the same time immediately warping out when any threat shows up? Or how one person monopolizes 5-8 sites at the same time more efficiently than you can with a friend or two?

I’m sure FW has many problems - it always has. If it’s not multiboxers, it’s bots. If it’s not bots, it’s awoxers. If it’s not awoxers, it’s low-sec corps flying in to nuke everything even though they’re not enrolled in FW. Or it’s cheap ships (Atrons etc., or Ventures back in the day) filling complexes and warping out the second anything blinks.

I get that nobody likes to show up at content and find a multiboxer already there. And we all agree it’s not ideal, but reality says it’s necessary.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask you to either support your case better, or make proposals that don’t blame multiboxers for everything wrong with FW and instead perhaps address the actual core issues: awoxing, poor site design or whatever.

“Everyone knows multiboxing is totally dominating and ruining FW” certainly sounds dramatic, and I’m sure they’re annoying. And I have no qualms with, say, adding a hacking step to flipping a complex. Although I doubt that would solve your issues, especially since you’re trying to hang generic FW problems on an unrelated cause.