Roosters don’t like it when another crows louder.
Hens don’t like it when other hens use their nest.
Eve the barnyard 
Remember that saying “Owe the bank a million dollars and you have a problem, owe the bank a billion dollars and they have a problem?”
If a few players worship their killboards, it’s their problem and their loss. If all of the players worship their killboards, we get “I roamed null for six hours straight in a battleship and everybody ran away” kind of stories.
2 Likes
I’ve stared down a bunch of angry German mercenaries on my own in a scary looking legion before.
Granted I was bait but they didn’t know that.
Wut.
Many sports have racing teams. The idea is that at least one of your racers will win in the end.
It also means that you can sacrifice your weakest racer to “take out” another racer. In some race types this is fine - in some types this is frowned upon.
–Coach Gadget
2 Likes
NO.
It’s fair, because ANY Player can participate.
If a player pays the same price that the others paid, then he or she will get the same advantages.
So all players can PLEX or sub an account, find a friend, hire a friend, join a group, etc.
The main thing that matters is the FLEET.
–Fleet Admiral Mitth’gad’getado
2 Likes
So… you agree with him that Trixie’s claim is falacious?
Legit question -
If CCP implamented a mechanic whereby you could pay ISK, via a public auction, to pop + pod all enemy combatants on grid, would that be a fair mechanic? Assume that everyone is allowed to bid as much as they have access to in wallet divisions.
2 Likes
Whose definition of fair are we using?
-Clarifying Gadget
Yours. The one that says its fair because ANY player can participate (the parity of access argument)
1 Like
Then, technically, yes.
It would depend on how it worked.
Auctions make me queasy.
On the other hand, if it were an instant mechanic - pay X ISK to pod someone instantly, then I would definitely think it was fair.
Good game play? Probably not.
Fair in my definition is about opportunity. If I need to pay 5000 isk for a podding to happen, and I choose the spend myself space poor and don’t have the ISK when I need it, then the fairness is in the opportunity, not my lack of resources. A pilot starts with at least 5000 ISK just for being ‘born’.
–Fair and Balanced Gadget.
1 Like
What do you mean by “instant” mechanic? Do you mean a fixed fee or do you mean that there is no waiting for the other player to respond haggling?
Unrelated EDIT: You hit the nail on the head re: it being a ■■■■ mechanic even though it could be a FAIR mechanic. It might be argued that multiboxing is a ■■■■ mechanic even if its fair…not that the OP does so.
I’m not denying that … I’m also not agreeing to it either. 
It is, however, a way for a solo player to participate in a group oriented game.
–Gadget is Legion
Unrelated edit was actually unrelated. I shouldnt have included it. sigh
To the point at hand:
The reason I ask about what an instant mechnic is because if fairness requires opportunity, then an 'instant mechanic" might not be fair at all.
If you mean who r-clicks and pays the fee first wins, then you actually discriminate against the person who has a longer/slower path to the server. At a minimum it is an unearned (relative to in-game) advantage to be living close to London and being able to afford quality internet. As such the person in Panama does not have the same opportunity that the person living in Brixton.
If you really want to focus on the fee, then what if the fee is 50 mil? Does an actual newbro doing lvl 1 missions have 50 mil to drop on popping a vet who can make 200+mil an hour? In what sense does the newbro have actual opportunity? Instead of focusing on 1v1 stuff think about SOV battles. If I could pay to pop+pod NC’s (or goons…or whoever) supers when they mass for structure defense I would assuming I had 50 Mil x #soups . And, since its a flat fee, they can’t also pay ISK to prevent me from popping them. At best they can hope to r-click faster than my team. But, then we are back in the land of different actual opportunity (even if there is equal theoretical opportunity that assumes away all the inconvenient variables).
Just curious how those types of questions get resolved by folks who claim fairness is parity of access.
edit: jeeevus the typos! I need to go to bed lol
1 Like
Wins what? We. Are. Immortal.
Click and kill the guy who killed you.
Ad nauseum if you’re both antsy and don’t like ISK.
That’s why I said it would probably be bad game play/design.
–Gadget presses the button
1 Like
Wins the “fight”.
Anyway… all of this is a roundabout way of arguing that Mayhaw Morgan was right to question Merin’s assertion that “EVE IS FAIR” (which started the very long fairness argument you replied to).
That claim that eve is FAIR is always frought because there are foundational problems/differences which will never be resolved completely. Its far better to just bite the bullet and say “No, eve is not fair. Live with it or ■■■■-off”. Which is what I think Mayhaw was originally getting at.
1 Like
Nobody knows it’s bait until they bite. Until then, they just think it’s bait with varying degrees of certainty.
Can’t argue with you, multiboxing has been a cancer in eve since forever. And sadly in eve, numbers “almost” always win. The sad truth is, you have to multibox in eve, we all do it. (Those who can afford to.) I tripple-box in pvp myself. Hell some do as many as 25x box.
1 Like
Sorry, I must have misunderstood. Your example had an auction involved, and that put me in the mind of the pilots not being engaged - just not happy with each other.
EvE is fair for certain meanings of fair. It’s a sandbox after all. BUT, EvE also has many player-made unfair moments that are created on purpose. That’s why EvE was created in the first place. The creators wanted a place where players would create the social rules. These social rules are what is unfair.
I will stand by my assertion that players are not barred from competing, they just need to pay the correct costs. That’s to play EvE. There are likely people that actually cannot play EvE due to physical, technological, or other reasons. None of those reasons originate from the game itself or CCP. The opportunity to play is there.
Similarly, to play IN EvE is also fair – mechanically. We all use the same rule set. Anyone can catch up in SP instantly with enough ISK,and ISK can be gotten instantly with enough local currency. ISK can also be stolen, begged for, earned, conned, or in anyway gotten that doesn’t break the rules that are agreed to upon entering the game. Every fool had the same fair opportunity to be separated from his or her ISK.
Experience can be earned the hard way, or gleaned from someone else via imitation or instruction.
Now, the local EvE politics within the game are unfair as all hell. Good. That’s the sandbox at work. A player should use the opportunities that everyone is able to access to combat, join, steer, or watch the in-game unfairness. In other words - play EvE.
–Fair Maiden Gadget
1 Like
Are you continuously clicking while you play EVE? I think you might be doing something wrong. Also, have you never hunted in a small gang? Only the scouts and fleet commanders tend to stay very busy. The other players just kind of sit there and entertain themselves, post memes and whatever, occasionally responding to an order or new information. Ask one of the mercs with their own wing of guardians. Their logis are so uninvolved that they don’t even have to be . . . another person. #deathToAllLogistics
You’re using this figure of “20”. But try “2”. 2v1 yields a significant advantage and doesn’t require a lot more input from the player. And then consider that each player in your ideal “small gang” can have “2”.
Who stops getting ISK simply because they have “enough”? There are people in this game with more ISK than they will ever spend. Do you think they don’t want anymore? Do you think they’ve stopped acquiring any? A carebear, the idealized version, JUST gets ISK. That’s their game. They don’t stop when they have “enough”. Same with PVPers. They don’t stop when they have “enough” kills. Miners are greedy [expletive deleted]. They always want MORE yield, MORE ore.
Also, I wasn’t going to mention this but it seems relevant now. A player who multiboxes has a greater incentive to play the game. He’s getting more ISK or kills or ore, and thus, his internal reward system is inducing him to play moreso than someone who is having more limited success. Players who lose are discouraged. Players who win are encouraged. Players who are discouraged probably play less. Players who are encouraged probably play more. Can you start to see the vicious cycle that is forming?
I don’t need friends to win a video game and anyone who tries to use me to win a video game is not my friend. I don’t even know how this is relevant to a discussion on multiboxing, but I just have to say that that idea is disgusting to me. I fight my own battles. I play my own game. Being a friend means helping them, not using them to please and entertain myself.
I agree. A huge stacking penalty (unless you automate). Which is why I don’t understand your examples with 20 accounts for 1 person. Much more likely that number would be 2 or 3 accounts and the stacking penalty would not be prohibitive.
I don’t disagree, but where does 1 guy with 1 account fall into that? You’re not making a fair comparison. The fair comparison would be 1 player per account versus 1 player per 2 accounts (or 3 or 4 accounts). Make THAT comparison. That’s what this thread is about. Read the original post.
STRAW MAN!
I am trying realy hard to see the point behind this post of yours, yet failing badly. Its a advantage indeed, thats how it works and always did and i see no reason to change anything on it. People multibox for various reasons, they have dedicated characters for various roles, logistics, cynos, links, scouts, supercaps, titans, freighters, miners, builders etc, you cannot realy play eve fully with just one char.
the irony of you saying that is brilliant
5 Likes