Too much credit is given to boosting alts. Although they add an edge to the fight, either side can use them. My opinion is that good pilots generally have boosting alts and bad pilots don't. If you want to level the playing field, get another account and train up a boosting alt. Problem fixed.

I think the point is that people would like to be more effective while remaining lazy. People who put more effort and time into the game should not have any advantage over those that dont.

meh. this paradigm doesn't change without links because newbs will still need to know how to distinguish between a fight they can take and a fight they can't take. bottom line is links are pretty damn easy to spot, either by the character in local or seeing them on dscan. handicapping links to make the loser feel better for not being able to spot them doesn't improve anything.

It's funny how people asume that it is perfectly fine game mechanics that everyone have to train an alt for boosting just to be competetive in the current meta.

People who complain about off grid boosts don't realize that if CCP removes them they will be in a much worse off position.


Example:

I'm sitting in a medium plex.

You come to pew pew because 1v1 in an MMO is smart and how it's ment to be played.

I tackle and decloak a falcon because my boost toon is now more useful as an ECM pilot.


That will be the new reality.

Don't think you'll be safe in novice or small plexes either.
99% of frigate fights last long enough for the cloaking lock delay to be well and truly over making a cloaking Griffin very viable. (I have tested this and the tears flowed way more than when I use boosts)


So yeah - keep asking for boosts on grid people. Then you can start complaining about the next thing until all that is left are the things that suit your solo play style in an MMO. Or you could buy Elite Dangerous and get that now.

When I started in low sec - I was a delusional scrub just like you.

Then I realized that it is the 'I wanna play a solo game within an MMO - Imma cry to CCP' mentality that is bad for the game and adapted.

[quote=Demerius Xenocratus] Your logic is that I'm a scrub son CCP haven't nerfed them already.

Seems a shortsighted strategy to me though, it puts me off doing the only thing I really enjoy in this game and the way they've changed the game to require you to have multiple accounts means that most people that leave take multiple accounts with them.

As you say it's a joke right now, and hillarious how some of these people using them seem to think their credit card somehow makes them good.

As for the falcon example....at least that has to be on field and is subject to a weapons timer, making it at risk and let's not forget potentially need piloting and can be countered too. For all the **** Falcon's used to get (rightly so), they're less of a cancer to the game than OGB's now.

So the differences (as if you didn't know) are that Freddy Falcon could miss a jam and I could kill him (there is a chance - no matter how small it is) and then get back to killing you AND Freddy Falcon shows up on the km as obvious proof that Little Sally Rottencrotch isn't really a leet solo character.

Still obsessing over the solo meta in an MMO.

If multiple accounts counter boosts and falcon, why not just bring as many accounts as you need?

By accounts, I assume Crosi means "friends". After all it is an MMO.

Not as much as bringing them on grid will **** them off. No sane person will be willing to field a booster unless there is a real chance of winning. Therfor, the stronger side not only has the best fleet, but they likely have the only booster too. Thus doubling the effect.

Without doubt, removing boosters completely is a better solution than bringing them on grid (without a massive overhaul of commandships and T3's). Of course, most ships will be much more easily alphad so alpha doctrine would be a sensible choice for everyone. So Alpha fleets with a much lower threshold will be pretty much all there is any sense in flying. What a wonderful day that will be.

Nothing here makes sense.

Hatred of harder to fly doctrines, imaginary command cruisers, moving on grid boosters around grid while avoiding 8km/second ceptors from the fleet that doesnt HAVE to move their command ship around grid.

All stupid.

A malediction can go 13km/s oerrheated. It really doesnt matter where on grid you put you links. Links on grid is a disaster for smaller groups.

And if you meant command battlecruisers, dont say command cruisers. Cruisers are a different class entirely.

Every larger fight is decided by a group of frigates. What a wonderful vision you have for eve.

And as i have stated before, You are complaining about the current status quo in a thread that has proposed some specific changes to address the security of boosters on station and gates. Now, if you are suggesting that it is unfair that someone with 2 accounts has an advantage ofer someone with 1 who may be thinking hes about to get some trusolo, then there i have to remind you what game you are playing. Personally, i always assume the target is as well, or better prepared than i am myself.

If one person brings a booster, its not unreasonable to expect the other party to bring a prober. I know its very tempting for people such as yourself to have a massive im[pact on all other levels of PVP in eve just to get a fair 1v1. But mechanics already exist to get fair 1v1s, its called a fleet invite and warping to a safe spot or dueling in high sec with all the other scrubs. That incidentally is the correct way to use the term scrub :)

So you want the game to give you free intel rather than building your own situational awareness?

Ill start you off, i use boosts.

My JF alt is pay to win because he brings in ships for me to win with.
My cyno alts are pay to win because they help me get about the place.
My eyes are pay to win because they sometimes keep me safe.
My deplexing alts are pay to win because they ensure that i can dock in my station.
My oplexing alts make sure i dont run out of isk.

Lets be frank, there are a lot of roles that you wouldnt expect someone to focus on with their main from a gameplay perspective. There are a lot of roles that a main char cannot do given sec status and standing mechanics. Rather than having some misplaced puritanical notion that you can change eve into what you want it to be, why not embrace what it actually is? A terribly boring a limiting game when played as a single account/char.

While at it they should just remove all variations of ships except for the ibis, remove all weapons except for T1 light ion blasters, and if that doesn't work, replace the game itself with pong. Then everyone will be equal and nobody can say it's not fair any more. Alternatively we could replace EVE with online bingo, and let the RNG decide who wins. Though I bet people would still whine about something.

Because getting beaten by 1 person with 2 accounts is totally different to getting beaten by 2 people with 1 account.

CCP have conducted a horrible bait and switch, getting people to play their game based on endless stories of fairness, kindness, honesty and balance then dropping mechanics like this on us.

Its just so unfair, UNFAIR!?!?!, IN MY EVE?!?!?!

IF YOU WANT TO MOVE YOUR DAMN SUPERCAP SOMEWHERE TO HYPERDUNK SOME GUY THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE A FRIEND WITH A 'CYNO MAIN'.

FTFY.

I think all newish players already do and always have realised that they will struggle against a much older player on a 1v1 level.

Hopefully people join eve for the larger fights where even an atron can make a difference as per recent CCP marketing.

Let's not create/incentivize additional barriers of entry based on how much money a player is willing to invest in multiboxing

Why? because you arbitrarily decided which barriers are ok and which arnt?

EVE is marketed as a multiplayer game. Most new players dont join and expect to be able to compete alone. Saddo purists who think that 'solo' is the holy grail do more to damage new players by giving them the impression that the game is unbalanced. When in reality, its just unfair, until you make it unfair in your favor.

No one disagrees that boosts currently can have too little risk. As i have said before, complaining about the current state of boosts im a thread about adjusting risk for boosters is silly. Everyone already acknowledges a change could be made for the better.

However, overstating the problem of boosts based on your own very narrow play style doesnt help either.

And ill give you an counter-example from the content POV. Esesier last month was under attack from some guys. Most of the day it was defenseless. I went up there and fought them off with just me and my boosts 1+1 vs 5-9.

If i didnt have boosts, i wouldnt have been able to compete and there would have been no content at all. They also had boosts btw.

Since most people dont go out and look for 1v1's im going to dispute your reasoning. Also, boosts are fine at the small/med gang level.

Links add verity to gang fighting, and solo is just a vocal minority. Also, those soloists blaming boosts for their losses will just move right on to blaming other things for their losses.

Adds speed, adds buffer, adds local tank, adds targeting range, adds sensor strength, reduces sig, strengthens jams, etc.

Ill link you a video, in this fight we engaged snuff box arty machs. I was in a griffin. I had 2 lokis almost permanently jammed which reduced mach alpha to joke levels. Wtihout boosts, the frequency of jams would have been much lower and our inferior fleet of megathrons would have just been webbed and 1 shotted off field 1 by 1.

So while everyone is important in that fight, its not an understatement to say that 1 griffin helped that entire 30 billion isk killed fight unfold in our favor thanks to links. (we had more griffins but the others died due to no snakes afaik)

I know you come from the perspective of ignorance, but please appreciate that other people are not just trying to argue with you, weve actually know better.

That really says more about you than the way links are used.

All the people I know have at least two accounts. I got a secondary account that I pay with my pvp loot, that's not a super hard thing to do.

I can make 900M isk in a week. It's called the market. Learn how to play the EVE market and you don't have to grind for isk, and the isk that flows into your coffers makes mission/exploration/mining isk pale in comparison.

Making 1b worth of loot in one month isn't hard at all: for instance
This one (1.6b) paid July and will pay a part of august : https://zkillboard.com/br/44286/

Those one paid for June :
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47410293/ (ninja'd 400m)
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47212719/ (ninja'd 500m)
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47212810/ (ninja'd 120m)

And i don't gate camp.

Need more examples ?

I have no problems getting good kills solo without a link alt. Its harder without one sure but its never put me in a situation where i did not feel competitive.

Which falcon alt?

No no, i mean which of my falcon alts does he intend to kill?

I guess since he will bring a blob to kill them that means quality pvp will be had by all.

God forbid someone actually uses probes to solve the problem for themselves. Or solve any problem for that matter lol.

I am linkless when i solo and most of the time linkless when in gang. Just because ppl who have an alt are usually too lazy to take it out.

Not having off grid links is a bad excuse not to do small gang

There is a clear definition of p2w. Boosts alts dont fall under it. i understand why you think it does. But it does not.

Besides other stuctural reasons why 2 accounts is better than 1 and having 2 accounts is not p2w in the way you accuse it of being, if it were p2w it would be unusual for the bonus that you paid for, to be vulnerable to probing / being alphad off station.

So along with the other reasons you dont understand, it would be pretty weak p2w if other players have the ability to deny you of it. Which they do.

And lets be clear, since 'we' seem to be talking for 'everyone'. Ive seen a lot of arguments about boosters, but p2w is a new one to me. So lets be careful before we start assuming that is the populist view.

Agreed, but having boosts is 2 players. 2 players is not 1 player. Its generally accepted in all games that 2 players have an advantage over 1 player.

Also, without JF alts, there would be nothing on field.

Thing is, i could fix your main objection to boosts just by never logging on my pvp alt agains, and only using my booster main.

I have enough kills to not crave any more.

As for being able to pull logi, etc 24/7. I know corps that can ping on jabber and get a 250 man fleet at any time of day. Are we really counting if any of them are alts or does it even matter?

I personally dont care what other people do and how many toons they have. I judge situations based on what happens in game, not what happens in sweaty seats sat upon by naked men.

Each to their own though.

Now you are calling scouts and logi alts into question as p2w?

I really have to ask if you are playing the correct game.

Also, you are seamlessly continuing on from where legatus left off. Did you really just burn your gallente spy in order to make it seem like there are 2 people in this game that think alts are p2w?

Ok.

http://evf-eve.com/services/brcat/?s=45337,45332&b=6619490&e=90&t=4zbaaiuf&r=1

Vid incoming once cleared.

Pay to win is a specific business model to allow a single player who is willing to pay money to gain an advantage over another single player who doesnt.

Yes, yes and yes? Everytime a soloer bitches and moans about people taking the easy road the response is 'its an MMO.'

The guy paying one subscription has to ask/form relations with other real players to engage in any of your examples (links, cyno, hauling.) In that view of the universe he is actually engaging in an MMO, his advantages over other individuals are accrued through working with other real people.

The alternative, the current reality, the player can simply double/triple/10x the amount of money he puts into the game, and now he can bypass the entire need to form relations with anyone with no apparent downside, in fact in many examples multiboxing is more efficient/performs better than having multiple real people controlling individual toons.

There is no need to 'expand' the definition of P2W here. EVE favors those with more numbers, a good MMO, you can achieve the end result by either being sociable and engaging in MMO things, or you can simpy dump more money into CCP coffers and achieve the same (if not a better) result.

"Pay to win is a specific business model to allow a single player who is willing to pay money to gain an advantage over another single player who doesnt."

Any further definition is not needed. If it was the case that paying for a second copy of BF4 enabled you to run two players side by side, and the result was an advantage over someone only running one copy, then you have clear cut P2W. 'Golden ammo' is a nice easy to visualize example, but in no meaningful way is it distinct from other examples of P2W.

Massove strawman. Ive destroyed the P2W argument without sayng MMO a single time.

There is no difference between a friend or an alt as far as an opponent is concerned. And if the opponnt IS concerned about it, HTFU.

Again, all i see is an assertion that multiple accounts is p2w because eve is an MMO. As if that even makes sense lol.

It doesnt matter to me who is controlling what in space. Im shooting pixels, not half dressed men in their moms basement. Someone either has boosts or they do not. They cannot have boosts without a booster. Boosters are easy to spot, and if you want, easy to prevent from being used. There is no scenario where i warp[ into a plex and someone is gaining an undue advantage on their single character because of rl money they have put into the game.

TBH, a closer example of pay to win would be someone meta 14 fitting their ship with gtc isk. But personally, i dont think those people are a detriment to the game either :)

Rather than complaining about something that eve essentially isnt, why not make horrible suggestions that will fix the mechanics and drive behavior in a way that YOU approve of lol.

Just to confirm from this that you see all secondary accounts in general as unacceptable?

Sounds like you should move to another area, or maybe you just can't be bothered with actually roaming around for things to shoot. Your "issues" are based on your apathy to not adapt.

This thread is extremely silly and you should all feel bad for yourselves.

For the people saying HTFU and train a booster alt: spoilers, everyone already did.

I don't feel bad explaining the truth to someone who is denying reality.

I do think Arla is right though, they need to discourage alts and encourage mains. This is why other MMO's have an active character training system as opposed to a passive one. Those games don't have altoholic problems.

I do stand by the decision to remove links though. Other forms of alts in this game are immediately visible and don't specifically grant you a combat advantage per se, whereas combat links are different.