| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
   |
Posted - 2010.04.08 04:54:00 -
[31]
1. 7 (obviously not "cheating" per se, but very, very lame)
2. 10 (EVE would be a hundred times better without multi-account meta-gaming lameness)
3. 5
4. 7
5. no
6. 10
7. 10
8. no
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:17:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: iP0D
[...]Sigh.
What's the point here, call me old but this bears a lot of similarity to the debates the year before CCP decided to make GTC for ISK legal. Not that you can compare the topics. But serious again, what is it that you're after here.
Just curious how much people would accept or even welcome novel ways for CCP to make cash off of people that want to be "leet" 
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:26:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Akita T
Just curious how much people would accept or even welcome novel ways for CCP to make cash off of people that want to be "leet"
That would seem rather obvious to have little to no internalised limits, human behaviour is after all easily pushed into patterns, being a commercial operation CCP is quite aware of this phenomenon.
If you really want to dive into such things, you'd have to tap into the masses who are not directly vocal or visible through exposure. Not by directing this to a forum, least of all this forum where player behaviour tends to be rather outspoken.
The majority of subscriber types who would go, and already go, for such "feature sets" are however not very vocal. For obvious reasons of disinterest, fear, guilt and more of that.
Personally, I doubt anyone should jump into this pit. Except to clean it and fill it with concrete so folks don't stumble into, either by choice or by being naive.
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:33:00 -
[34]
1 - 0
When you so commonly have gate camps of 30 against 1 as part of the game I could care less if there are 30 people or 27 ... the game competition isn't about 1 vs 1 prowess (although prowess does't hurt).. its about mustering armies and coordination of fleets and a person multi-boxing faces challenges not too much harder than making friends to do the same.
An important issue in this is that a player can earn the extra accounts in game buying game time with ISK ... that makes the multi-boxing an option for people who've mastered economic parts of the game , not just people with more $ in real life.
2 -7 also 0 and answered above.
8 No, I think the proposal is unecesaily complicated and a poor use of development resources that could be focuesed elsewhere. AS much as I don't mind the practice I don't think it should be made easier. The only counter to that is that people with more rl $ can buy equipment to more effecitvely mutlti client but the use of development resources trumps that in a big way for me.
|
lookatzebirdie
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:55:00 -
[35]
Edited by: lookatzebirdie on 08/04/2010 17:58:45
Originally by: Seth Ruin
Originally by: Ick Ickagami
1. 10
2. 10
3. 0
4. 0
5. Yes
6. 10
7. 10
8. No
I bet you're jealous of the guy who owns two TVs too. 
No I don't think so, I think he would rightly get pee'd off if there was just one cable connection to the latest TV show and that guy had twice the chance to watch it that he did due to number of TVs owned... catching my drift ?
An implementation such as described would effectively be writing in stone a CCP doctrine that currently is stated very softly ... "wealthy players are more equal than those less so". What's more it would be yet another encouragement to blob. 
(Yes akita i relise u are not suggesting this )
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 20:47:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: iP0D
[...]Sigh.
What's the point here, call me old but this bears a lot of similarity to the debates the year before CCP decided to make GTC for ISK legal. Not that you can compare the topics. But serious again, what is it that you're after here.
Just curious how much people would accept or even welcome novel ways for CCP to make cash off of people that want to be "leet"
Well, yeah, but the solution of slaving ships would be most likely buggy and lag inducing.
There's much faster ways to essentially do the same thing. For instance, give a "jam opponent" option in combat which charges you x $ off your credit card (the whole messing around with a Falcon alt just wastes bandwidth and creates lag).
Also, for instance, buy skill to 5, etc (what - you can practically do this legitimately with money->ISK->buy character).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 22:22:00 -
[37]
Just make them play regularly with all those accounts.
I personally get all twitchy and uncomfortable when I'm not 2boxing in EVE.
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
rofl
edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 23:42:00 -
[38]
eve would have been better if there was a way to prevent the use of alts
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 11:19:00 -
[39]
Originally by: bff Jill
eve would have been better if there was a way to prevent the use of alts
Short of an unified world convention requiring some form of unique, unfalsifiable personal identification for everybody online (yeah, right, like that's going to happen) there's no way to prevent that with any reasonable degree of certainty.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 11:37:00 -
[40]
It promotes solo/solistic gameplay and therefore has no place in an MMO, on the other side it would also lower the need for alts which CCP won't like very much. AI is stupid, AI programmed by CCP will probably turn on yourself. All in all, a very bad idea.
-----------
I think, therefore I'm single.
Want to learn combat/PVP?
Alliance creation service |
fivetide humidyear
Gallente
Fool Mental Junket
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 13:48:00 -
[41]
So, now, the polling questions are... IN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION :
1. 1
2. 1
3. 6
4. 7
5. No
6. 10
7. 10
8. No
feels as though it's wrong and will impact the game sub optimally. the drawbacks would have to be high enough that you couldn't easily fund them as gaining gametime through their activities otherwise farmed activities are only going to get worse.
I see nothing wrong however with a second account, the game is too damned big to do all you want to well on one character and location and gain any fun in the playing, for me as a pilot who loves to shoot things, a scout alt or 2 and a hauler biatch makes my life so much easier and more fun in the game. but to have both characters on a grid in a PvP situation I have to work hard at it, with no small amount of skill in planning the roles both will play is a better experience than having one slaved to f1
I've always been of the opinion that it's wrong to buy your way through the game, one of the reasons i don't like people who sell vast amounts of GTC to get ahead (Siigari et al) and prefer to work at the game with friends rather than my friend Mr Visa.
|
fivetide humidyear
Gallente
Fool Mental Junket
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 13:51:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Marko Riva
AI is stupid, AI programmed by CCP will probably turn on yourself.
I remember drones attacking gangmates almost as a preference back in the day.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 14:08:00 -
[43]
Why not just add micro transactions so you can choose an enemy to explodify for a mere $2?
[Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES] |
Dorotent
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 14:48:00 -
[44]
Originally by: bff Jill
eve would have been better if there was a way to prevent the use of alts
I think one of the best ways to promote this would have been one character per account; not a main and two free alts.
Currently it's too easy to make, eg, a scout alt, do something nefarious/illegal with it and then biomass them. This ruins the impact of the sec-status / reputation hit.
The skill training system keeps people fairly main focused, but there's always a bias towards, "Just use an alt to scout the gate first" that effectively prevents the game mechanics getting discussed properly - using alts isn't bad or wrong of course, it's just that, as with all on-line games, over-use of a convenience by power-gaming lamers changes how the game feels.
I have much less issues with anyone paying for a second account - they're investing in the game, fair enough.
|
Ana Vyr
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 15:04:00 -
[45]
You lost me when you said you'd have to buy a second account. I wish this game did not reward multiple accounts as much as it does. It would be really cool if you could use your same account alternates in such a manner though.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 16:30:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 09/04/2010 16:30:05
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Why not just add micro transactions so you can choose an enemy to explodify for a mere $2?
No, that's unfair, the other guy doesn't stand a chance. You need to let one, eg. cause 10K damage for a dollar, and the other guy boost 10K damage for a dollar. Limit it to, eg. once per second so the other guy has a chance to pay up.
Or, eg. 15$ for 1M SP (that'd be popular!), etc.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |