What you have to come to grips with is that EVE is a fundamentally unfair game. The people you are discussing with are people who believe that’s how it should be because, in large part, they have figured out how to leverage that unfairness to their advantage. In essence, what you are proposing to them is, “Hey, guys, you should lose, too, sometimes.” Their response should be predicted easily enough.
From here, you must decide whether to continue playing the unfair game or not. If you choose to continue, you must choose how YOU wish to play. Will you conform to their paradigm? Will you remake yourself in their image for the sake of “winning” a game that does not even have set victory conditions? Or will you remain true to your current philosophy? Will you resist?
I hope you make a heroic choice, but you’re only a human . . . right?
No, EVE is a fair game. The “unfair” tactics are equally available to everyone. What EVE is not is a game where the developers push every fight to be as close to 50/50 as possible, despite one side being better at the game than the other. If you’re dying to a 3v1 it’s not an unfair fight, it’s a fair fight where one side decided to leave 2/3 of their strength behind. If you want other players to lose then stop sucking at EVE, take responsibility for your own success, and go kill them.
Why wouldn’t I? Are you saying that EVE is somehow unfair, that game mechanics only apply to certain players? Is there a certain skill that I am not allowed to train, that other people have access to? Is there a god-mode PvP ship that I am not allowed to have? With the very rare exception of limited-issue ships (which are so absurdly rare and expensive that they don’t matter) everything about EVE PvP is available to all players who invest the ISK/SP into using it. All players can target ships they are likely to destroy, and run from threats they can’t destroy. All players can bring superior numbers. Etc.
Maybe you should read the original post again, but allow me to summarize: Player A risked a queen. Player B paid 3 times as much to use 3 rooks instead of risking 1 queen.
That’s like playing baseball and paying for extra strikes and outs and innings and runs. Does that meet your definition of fair?
Actually a multi boxer will support the game with additional money going to CCP. A bot achieves the same result with out supporting CCP to the same extent.
Further you are assuming multi boxers rat, run missions or incursions and add to the ISK supply. But this is false. Yes I multi box, but I use my alts to do PI and invention. In other words I increase the size of the real economy. You on the other hand have probably injected more ISK into the game in one month than I have in my 10 years playing.
And I learned about invention from other multi boxers who also did not rat, etc. My former alliance was similar. Lots of alts to do things on the real side of the economy. Managing moons, managing reaction POS, building caps and super caps, etc. One guy had alts to run his delivery service.
So, nice try but only a C- here.
Oh and an example of both AFK and multi boxing that helps other players:
Bad analogy.
More like trying to rc three cars simultaneously in a race v one lad driving in person.
If you’re able, fairfucks to you but no ones winning a serious race like that.
The thing a lot of us have Been pointing out here is that the op would have been belted across the arse considerably harder were it a small gang rather than a multiboxed fleet, he would have had no kills at all and would instead be winging about something vaguely related to drones/wormholes or the Nestor.
No, but it is clearly different than commanding one object on the field of play, and clearly different from racing in that the pieces interact with eachother, whereas in racing, the racers are not supposed to interact. Each is supposed to run his own race. Having multiple race cars wouldn’t even impart any advantage, whereas having multiple queens, extra rooks, bishops, and knights, a horde of infinite pawns . . . these would give a player in a chess game a clear advantage. Similarly, one player having mutliple ships on the field clearly gives advantage in EVE. That’s why people do it. If it didn’t yield a considerable advantage, they wouldn’t even do it. I understand that it’s in your interest not to understand this, but you honestly seem . . . dumb . . . to sit there and argue that 2 ships do not have an advantage over 1 ship.
This is the analogy you made. This is what you are comparing multiboxing to, and the conclusion you appear to be leading us to is that multiboxing does not yield an advantage over just driving your car. Am I misinterpreting that? How so?
This is basically your argument and the argument of many others in this thread. I don’t think I have to tell you why its wrong.
There ARE advantages, to multiboxing, to fleeting up with others, to having skillpoints, etc. Multiboxing is pretty obviously a tactic used to make the engagement unfair for the other person. That’s why CCP can charge double, triple, quadruple, etc. for the privelege.
