Proposal: Revamped Site Mechanics to Reduce Multiboxing and Promote Cooperation

Communications Center General Discussion
, ,
22

The premise of the thread is a good one, no doubt about that in my mind, but the approach to just involve tedium, ad nauseam at that, isnt a good way to implement it imo. Not only would it become tiresome quickly when you are going to grind, the fact that youd be “busy” doing these things would make getting jumped easier, not that thats a totally bad thing, but it would tip the scales to favor hunters again. This would just encourage warping out quicker in the final end.

I have suggested something akin to the more active ‘goals’ in sites posts before. Though keeping retention on someone doing it for the umpteenth time is hard the more goals there are. It is a fine line. The other aspect is making the NPCs harder using new AI. The possibility of spawning functionally harder AI in sites would be an induced work around. Where, though they are only 3-4 ships of the right class for the site, they would use different tactics to force certain types of ships to essentially work “harder” or “smarter”. But then not have them spawn all the time. Sometimes you can just sit and shoot but every so often youd need to use tactics to kill them, especially if there isnt a name change on the Overview, just a tactics change which would negate, hopefully, botting or lazy mechanics usage.

Drone bunny changes would only push the goalposts to different fits and ships. More sites with new AI/implementation changes, while keeping the old sites the way they are, would present new options for people. Then based on usage, fleet compositions metrics, etc a reduction/increase of one type versus another could be a viable option using a dynamic system. Then many different solutions could be tried against one another perhaps.

It is quite true that people hate others simply because they do something another doesnt like or finds “unfair,” yet the game itself allows. And yes generally if the whine from players gets to a high enough amount then sometimes CCP will change things for them. Usually if its fiscally beneficial for CCP to do so in some way.

23

I did not say make “another account”, I said make another character!!

You have 3 slots on your account, put one of them in the opposing militia and go hunting the guys your pissed at in the militia you are in. Problem solved.

24

To Gloria Exercitus: The point about collaboration versus multiboxing is that the former involves real players, each bringing unique decision-making and skill, while the latter consolidates power into the hands of a few who are essentially gaming the system. A group of 20 players coordinating their actions brings diversity and engagement to the game, while a 20-ship multiboxer is just a single person with a numerical advantage, effectively locking others out of content. The disparity isn’t about fairness in a “wah wah” sense—it’s about maintaining an ecosystem where multiplayer interactions actually thrive.

Multiboxing at this scale removes opportunities for others and discourages teamwork because you’re no longer competing against people, you’re competing against one individual’s wallet and computer setup. That’s not a multiplayer game; that’s economic dominance masquerading as skill.

To Eternus8Lux8Lucis: The concern about tedious mechanics is valid, but the proposed system isn’t designed to be mindless grind—it’s about creating engaging and skill-based challenges that require active participation. The idea is to shift away from passive mechanics (like AFK drone setups or sitting still in plexes) to something that keeps players invested and actively thinking.

Regarding your point about dynamic AI, that’s certainly an interesting idea that could complement these changes. However, relying solely on NPC behavior may not be enough. Experienced multiboxers will eventually adapt and script around those mechanics, shifting the goalposts without addressing the core issue of account domination. Combining better AI with systems that require real player input (like mini-games or puzzles) makes it much harder for one person to exploit the system with dozens of accounts.

Additionally, the suggestion to keep old systems while introducing new ones is a fair compromise. Having multiple pathways to engage with content can satisfy a broader player base, ensuring there’s something for both casual and hardcore players.

To Max Deveron: Your suggestion to “make another character” assumes that the solution to systemic imbalance is to add more imbalance. While creating another character might help some players individually, it doesn’t solve the core issue of multiboxing dominance. Players shouldn’t have to abandon the gameplay they enjoy to “fix” a problem caused by poorly balanced mechanics.

Moreover, the dismissive attitude toward affordability completely misses the point. The average player isn’t crying about not being able to afford accounts—they’re frustrated because multiboxing creates a fundamentally unfair playing field. It’s not about “wah wah someone can afford more accounts”; it’s about the fact that those accounts allow one person to monopolize content meant for groups. A single multiboxer in a drone bunny setup can invalidate the efforts of multiple real players. That’s not a question of fairness—it’s bad design.

Players want an experience where skill, cooperation, and engagement matter more than how much someone can spend on Omega subs. The proposed system isn’t about punishing multiboxers; it’s about making the game more accessible and rewarding for all players, regardless of their financial situation.

1 Like
25

The reason we have multiboxing is a direct result of players dog piling onto small fleets or solo players. You can argue that multiboxing isn’t good for the game - but it’s what’s resulted from the current game mechanics.

But I do agree that it’s become cancerous to some extent. Here are some ideas I’ll throw out there (purely for discussion only):

• Limit the size of fleets in low-sec (10) and high-sec (5) - regardless of skills
• Fleet members who have an active weapons timer are no longer eligible to be warped to

1 Like
26

I would suggest
-Limit the size of fleets in Lowsec ( 15 ) and Hisec ( 3 ) unless one of the members has 50,000 Evemarks then ( 5 )

-Fleet members who have an active weapons timer are no longer eligible to be warped to and fleet members cannot warp to unless they have 50,000 Earmarks or 50,000 LP to any corporation.

27

Don’t mind him, whatever you say would never be approved by him. His last name is Mr.Contrarian.

28

Can you expand on your thoughts behind the Evermarks/LP requirements?

29

@Arthur_Aihaken Of course.
I feel that PvE takes a back seat in EVE and is ignored by a lot of EVE players ( especially the PvP nuts ) and CCP neglects it. If more players would PvE then they would demand that CCP takes care of the longstanding PvE issues and EVE would be a better game for it.

1 Like
30

You’re absolutely right that PvE often feels neglected in EVE, and that’s part of the problem this proposal aims to address. If players could reliably handle just one account and make decent ISK through engaging PvE, we’d attract more players—both new and returning. The barrier to entry wouldn’t feel so steep, and casual players wouldn’t feel forced to either multibox or give up entirely.

What’s more, these changes would have ripple effects across the ecosystem. With the introduction of mini-games that require focus and keep players actively engaged in sites, PvE pilots will naturally become easier targets for PvPers. This makes space more active and rewarding for hunters, which in turn increases risk and drives up LP prices. The circle completes itself: more people running sites, more PvP opportunities, and better LP value for everyone.

In short, balanced and engaging PvE content doesn’t just make the game more accessible—it breathes life into all aspects of New Eden.

2 Likes
31

Why would CCP want to promote cooperation?

Any feature implemented in EVE is designed to contribute to selling more PLEX in the shop. Doesn’t make sense to improve cooperation where players could stop playing their alts.

1 Like
32

One of the core principles of this game is: That if you seek certain content, then you have to create the content, risk beign THE content, because you(the players) ARE the content.

TLDR: dont cry to CCP, get off your arse and do something about it

33

post with your main 15 day old alt, or are you afraid of me knowing who you are…

1 Like
34

Right, he’s going to take on all the multiboxers in New Eden :rofl::rofl::rofl: That’s genius.
Another one like that and you’ll be accepted in Mensa.

35

For Christ’s sake you’re not supposed to say that out loud!!

36

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.

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 `?

37

@Gloria_Exercitus I think you’re confusing something very fundamental here, let alone that your reply is completely upside-down and makes as much sense as a one-legged man at a butt-kicking contest.
He’s not making his proposal for your approval, he’s making it to CCP.
You can’t implement it so all you have to do is say “I don’t like it” and be on your way.

His proposal is fantastic.

38

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.

39

First the PvEers should be pleased because they are food for the PvPers and the PvPers come last because they are like vaultures feasting on the PvEers.

1 Like
40

That’s all you people can say when someone shows you off to be full of sht.

41

@Phantom_Silver

Anyway, the more they reply the more it proves your idea is good.
They are jealous because it’s not their idea.