EVE Search - Multiple Character Usage

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Multiple Character Usage

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Deornoth Drake Vandeo 53	Posted - 2016.01.17 16:45:29 - [1] - Quote Similar to Multiple Character Training please introduce Multiple Character Usage (MCU). See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5146036#post5146036 and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4094235#post4094235 Current situation: 1 PLEX (or subscrption) activates an account (including the first training queue and single character usage) for 30 days 1 PLEX for Multiple Character Training adds another training queue to the account above. Proposed idea: Variation A - 30 days flat usage 1 PLEX for Multiple Character Usage (MCU) adds 30 days of usage for a another character. Adding the first PLEX to MCU, grants the permission to have two characters of your account online simultaneously for the next 30 days. Adding the second PLEX to MCU, grants the permission to have all characters of your account online simultaneously for the next 30 days. The MCU expires after 30 days Variation B - 30d days effective usage 1 PLEX for Multiple Character Usage (MCU) adds 30 days of simultaneous usage. You could spend those 30 days by having at most two characters online simultaneously or by having all characters of your account online for 15 days or any combination of two or three characters online simultaneously. The MCU does not expire. Variation C - combination of A & B MCU expires after 30 days as variation A, but you may use three characters as in variation B. The time with three characters online is substracted from the time of MCU expiry. E.g. upon spending a PLEX on MCU the 30 days timer starts (similar to Multiple Character Training) Having at most two characters online is included within the 30 days timer. Each minute with three characters online reduces the 30 days timer accordingly. I.e. having three accounts online for 10 hours reduces the timer by 10 hours. Hence MCU will end after 29 days and 14 hours (and sooner if you spend more time online with three characters). With MCU you could decide to have one active training queue but be able to use up three characters of your account simultaneously. What would that mean in terms of income to CCP? Single account usage: Single-character usage and the first training queue is included within the account subscription. Additional training queues on the same account require an additional PLEX. Multiple Character Usage requires an additional PLEX. Multiple account usage: Each account (single-character usage and the first training queue) cost a PLEX. This leads to the following situations: single character usage - one PLEX in both cases two character usage with two training queues - 2 PLEX for multiple account usage (each with a training queue), 3 PLEX for single account usage two character usage with one training queue - 2 PLEX for multiple account usage (each with a training queue), 2 PLEX for single account usage three character usage with three training queues - 3 PLEX for multiple account usage (each with a training queue), 5 PLEX for single account usage (depending on variation) three character usage with two training queues - 3 PLEX for multiple account usage (each with a training queue), 4 PLEX for single account usage (depending on variation) three character usage with one training queue - 3 PLEX for multiple account usage (each with a training queue), 3 PLEX for single account usage (depending on variation) So compared to multiple account usage you would have to spend either more PLEX for the same amount of training queues or you would spend the same amount of PLEX but have less training queues. Because of that I would vote for variation B or C. Though I wouldn't say no to having Multiple Character Usage includes within Multiple Character Training.
Iain Cariaba 2352	Posted - 2016.01.17 17:14:37 - [2] - Quote Would likely require extensive re-write of the way the client syncs with the server, AKA the reason we can't log out to character selection screen, so -1 there. Not to mention it's utterly pointless. FYI, paying for a month of subscription time is actually cheaper than paying RL money for a PLEX, and if you're using ISK to buy the PLEX, there's no benefit to using this over a second account. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1541	Posted - 2016.01.17 17:20:25 - [3] - Quote -1. We need less **** that encourages alt-play, not more. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Iain Cariaba 2352	Posted - 2016.01.17 17:38:22 - [4] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: -1. We need less **** that encourages alt-play, not more. Actually, this doesn't encourage alt-play. As someone who maintains 3 accounts, with a 4th on the side when I need it, I understand what it takes to keep them all active. OP's suggestion would actually cost more in the long run to keep 3 characters going than having seperate accounts does. Only newbies would be scammed into using it, as no one who knew better would touch it. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Deornoth Drake Vandeo 53	Posted - 2016.01.17 17:57:07 - [5] - Quote You could have your characters on one account. If you need to use two or even three at the same time, multiple character usage would make that possible. As long as you need just one of your three characters, you are fine with a single account. So the benefit is, that you always have the three characters available, and could access them at the same time when required. When not required you don't have to keep 3 accounts active to have access to your characters. And as mentioned I would also enjoy having multiple character usage included in multiple character training. About the coding problem: I don't know what keeps the client from returning to the character selection. Maybe there is a difference between returning to the character selection with the same client or starting two clients.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.17 18:18:37 - [6] - Quote Why have the surcharge? Let 3 characters be online at the same time as part of a regular subscription. Multiboxing is part of the game, but is currently quite inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Deornoth Drake Vandeo 53	Posted - 2016.01.17 19:27:06 - [7] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Why have the surcharge? Let 3 characters be online at the same time as part of a regular subscription. Multiboxing is part of the game, but is currently quite inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward. As mentioned, I would be fine with "multiple character usage" being included within "multiple character training"
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 185	Posted - 2016.01.17 19:41:51 - [8] - Quote I have pondered on a idea like this for a long while - specially seeing as CCP markets for the "Alt" community. It would take some major re-coding I don't think the price should be that high 15 for account - 1 queue 1 logged in character Then 10 for addition queue and 5 for extra character log in. This would allow Plex to say - make in account active - give 45 days of MCT - or 60 days for extra log ins. Over all - it would be a lot of work - but I due believe CCP needs to work on methods that allow some multi tasking between characters with out logging - I.e: industry window, skill queues, contracts and inventory management. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.17 20:17:50 - [9] - Quote Deornorth Yepp, that would be consistent. A professional multiboxer would still opt for the two to four extra characters multiple accounts give (on tranquility number of accounts scale infinitely until a player runs out of real life time to manage enough income to pay for the accounts), but sacrificing optimization for convenience is a valid choice. So stick with a plex (or subscription equivalent) allowing both training and simultaneous online capability. CCP would have to add some bell-whistle functionality convenience (a automated split screen thingy or something) for single account multiboxing to enhance the convenience of it all. But yah, why not? There are only revenue upsides (people who do not multibox or train extra characters might start). Edit It also would give a better surface for player to player interaction. Two characters online gives more room for meetings. Not as opposed to multiboxers having more contact surface often, but in addition to. +1 " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Iain Cariaba 2354	Posted - 2016.01.17 21:16:20 - [10] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Why have the surcharge? Let 3 characters be online at the same time as part of a regular subscription. Multiboxing is part of the game, but is currently quite inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward. Because then CCP loses money when they lose a third of their subs. I pay CCP at least US$40 a month for my three main accounts, provided I don't mis-spend and hose my budget, then it's more. Of the 9 character slots those accounts have, 3 are everyday use, one jjita market alt, the rest gank/cyno alts. I can actually live without all the gank/cyno alts, and can easily train one of the everyday use alts for the occasional market duties. If CCP were to implement the ability to log on all three character slots with no additional fees, I simply wouldn't pay for three accounts anymore, and I'm sure a lot of people in EvE would do the same. Multiboxing is neither inaccessible, cumbersome, or awkward. It just takes a little practice. Since I discovered the Eve-O-Preview program (for those of you using Whinedoze OS with the aero preview pane) it's gotten even easier. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 00:35:57 - [11] - Quote I have to say that I found your description of how you would compensate to be quite compelling. With 3 everyday characters, I rather suspect you would keep your EvE budget at about the same as what you are paying now, though channel payment into training all three accounts. Multiboxing is a force multiplier. Suggesting CCP depends on the revenue and that it would be lost (players would not adapt by spending the same money on other things) argues that EvE is a pay to win game. Which no one wants. But I am fine with linking training to single account multiboxing. So that it costs an isk/month (or the subscription equivalent). Multiboxing is inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward in its current incarnation. Just think of it as a "bring us your little little things" point. Its part of the game and should be way more accessible and convenient. That is just game design sense (rationing a game feature by making it inconvenient is not good). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Iain Cariaba 2354	Posted - 2016.01.18 05:09:36 - [12] - Quote Jerghul wrote: I have to say that I found your description of how you would compensate to be quite compelling. With 3 everyday characters, I rather suspect you would keep your EvE budget at about the same as what you are paying now, though channel payment into training all three accounts. If it costs the same to have 3 characters active on one account as it does to have 3 accounts, why even implement this? There are more advantages to having 3 accounts, exactly 6 advantages actually. Jerghul wrote: Multiboxing is a force multiplier. Suggesting CCP depends on the revenue and that it would be lost (players would not adapt by spending the same money on other things) argues that EvE is a pay to win game. Which no one wants. Multiboxing isn't the force multiplier you think it is, and has diminishing returns. A player with 6 accounts logged on is not automatically 6x better than a single player with one account. Of course there are a few exceptions to this, mostly in the low intensity areas of gameplay, but generally when a multiboxer meets up with a similar number of accounts fielded by a single player each, the multiboxer usually loses. Jerghul wrote: But I am fine with linking training to single account multiboxing. So that it costs an isk/month (or the subscription equivalent). Again, why bother? You're better off, in every instance, running 3 accounts than in having 3 available characters logged in on a single account. Jerghul wrote: Multiboxing is inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward in its current incarnation. Just think of it as a "bring us your little little things" point. Its part of the game and should be way more accessible and convenient. That is just game design sense (rationing a game feature by making it inconvenient is not good). Ever stopped and thought that making multiboxing harder is intentional? Go find and read the thread from when CCP decidedmto ban input broadcasting, thus making it harder to multibox. It's a simple fact that CCP wants the advantage to go to multiple players over a single player with multiple accounts. Besides, nothing in this thread would do anything to make multiboxing more accessible or convient. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Deornoth Drake Vandeo 53	Posted - 2016.01.18 05:41:53 - [13] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Jerghul wrote: But I am fine with linking training to single account multiboxing. So that it costs an isk/month (or the subscription equivalent). Again, why bother? You're better off, in every instance, running 3 accounts than in having 3 available characters logged in on a single account. At the highest time I had 4 accounts with 3 mains and several alts. Then RL happend. So I decided to reduce to one account with the 3 mains. This way I could spend one PLEX but I would still have access to all 3 characters, opposed to each main on its own account and having to spend a PLEX to access each. After a break of one year I returned. Obviously, it would be great to do some multiboxing from time to time (mining, scouting through low sec, trading between characters, and so on). It would be great to have the ability to multibox the characters within the same account. If that goes along with Multiple Character Training I'm fine. However, I would also be fine with the variations suggested above (mostly variation B).
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1028	Posted - 2016.01.18 07:31:37 - [14] - Quote Jerghul wrote: ....Multiboxing is part of the game.... I don't think it is. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Iain Cariaba 2355	Posted - 2016.01.18 09:01:38 - [15] - Quote Deornoth Drake wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Jerghul wrote: But I am fine with linking training to single account multiboxing. So that it costs an isk/month (or the subscription equivalent). Again, why bother? You're better off, in every instance, running 3 accounts than in having 3 available characters logged in on a single account. At the highest time I had 4 accounts with 3 mains and several alts. Then RL happend. So I decided to reduce to one account with the 3 mains. This way I could spend one PLEX but I would still have access to all 3 characters, opposed to each main on its own account and having to spend a PLEX to access each. After a break of one year I returned. Obviously, it would be great to do some multiboxing from time to time (mining, scouting through low sec, trading between characters, and so on). It would be great to have the ability to multibox the characters within the same account. If that goes along with Multiple Character Training I'm fine. However, I would also be fine with the variations suggested above (mostly variation B). So you made a decision long ago to consolidate your mains onto a single account, rather than just let the accounts lapse but still be there. Now, you're dealing with the consequences of those actions. You somehow think that you're special because you a poor decision before you took a year break. News flash, you're not the only one that makes poor decisions, nor are you the only one that takes breaks from EvE. Go re-activate your old accounts, they're still there you know, and transfer your characters back to them. CCP doesn't need to rewrite the way the client syncs with the server just because you out all your eggs in one basket. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 09:17:59 - [16] - Quote Elita Alas, it is. But it should perhaps be more explicit. Ian A lot of players go for convenience instead of optimization. n+1 suggests multiboxing is exactly the force multiplier I think it is. The plex variant is of no concern to those into heavily optimized multiboxing. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2219	Posted - 2016.01.18 09:34:21 - [17] - Quote Then you think wrong. Putting 3 characters in a fleet is not the same as having three individual players in the fleet. You can easily lose your boosts because they get scanned while you try to manage your ceptor to tackle a target and while you do that, your DPS can't shoot or stops shooting because it runs out of ammo. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 11:06:27 - [18] - Quote Rivr Putting 3 additional characters in fleet is more than putting 1 character in fleet. n+1 dictates multiboxing is a force multiplier. Though I would argue the Borg mentality inherent to multiboxing counterbalances a lot of the technical issues that might arise from flying multiple ships at the same time. A player can coordinate the pilots he is multiboxing very efficiently. Force multipliers are not bad things. Its just important to recognize them. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Iain Cariaba 2358	Posted - 2016.01.18 14:49:52 - [19] - Quote Jerghul wrote: n+1 dictates... Yes, if each n is a seperate player. When dealing with multiboxing you get diminishing returns. While you're alt-tabbed to your booster alt trying to avoid the combat probes hunting you down, your other alts are sitting there doing zilch. By time you realize you've got a hostile on grid with your other alts, it's allready got you pointed and started firing. He's already orbiting at optimal with transversal up whike you have to start activating modules. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 729	Posted - 2016.01.18 15:29:00 - [20] - Quote Deornoth Drake wrote: You could have your characters on one account. If you need to use two or even three at the same time, multiple character usage would make that possible. As long as you need just one of your three characters, you are fine with a single account. So the benefit is, that you always have the three characters available, and could access them at the same time when required. When not required you don't have to keep 3 accounts active to have access to your characters. And as mentioned I would also enjoy having multiple character usage included in multiple character training. You have not stated this but what I sense here is that you want a short term (say a few days, maybe a week) activation possibility on this and that gets a no way from me, if you want a character active then pay the full month sub. Current multi-character training cost the same or possibly even more real money per month than having two accounts. If it costs the same to have your option what are the benefits? Currently you can have as many accounts as you want and sub them on an as needed basis, unless you are going to propose a shorter than one month subscription option how does your proposal change the situation versus multiple accounts? The time delay in paying your subscription to activate a second or third character on your one account idea would be the same as the current process so again I ask what advantages does your proposal have over the current multiple accounts? Oh and that multiple character training thingy has always been possible, you simply train one character on each account and the beauty is that is costs the same or possibly less than the current multiple character training.
Iain Cariaba 2359	Posted - 2016.01.18 16:08:45 - [21] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Oh and that multiple character training thingy has always been possible, you simply train one character on each account and the beauty is that is costs the same or possibly less than the current multiple character training. Multiple accounts is cheaper than MCT. MCT can only be activated with PLEX or token that costs the same as PLEX. PLEX is more expensive than monthly sub. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 16:28:54 - [22] - Quote Donna I think you are misunderstanding the thread author when you suggested he wanted a fractional plex payment plan for short term character multiboxing activation. To me he is aiming for increased multibox convenience with the cost of being less optimal than holding multiple accounts. In order to make the practice generally more accessible to EvE players. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Deornoth Drake Vandeo 53	Posted - 2016.01.18 17:08:18 - [23] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: ... So you made a decision long ago to consolidate your mains onto a single account, rather than just let the accounts lapse but still be there. Now, you're dealing with the consequences of those actions. You somehow think that you're special because you a poor decision before you took a year break. News flash, you're not the only one that makes poor decisions, nor are you the only one that takes breaks from EvE. Go re-activate your old accounts, they're still there you know, and transfer your characters back to them. CCP doesn't need to rewrite the way the client syncs with the server just because you out all your eggs in one basket. Does it matter if I'm special or not? Does it matter if the decision was a poor one or not? CCP offers training queues and logins. There was a time when both were tied together, i.e. one account, one login one training queue. Nowadays, you may add additional training queues to your account, i.e. one account, one login, up to 3 training queue. Hence, why not ask for additional logins as well. Re-activating the accounts would be a solution but right now, I'm not urged to do so.
Deornoth Drake Vandeo 53	Posted - 2016.01.18 17:10:55 - [24] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Deornoth Drake wrote: You could have your characters on one account. If you need to use two or even three at the same time, multiple character usage would make that possible. As long as you need just one of your three characters, you are fine with a single account. So the benefit is, that you always have the three characters available, and could access them at the same time when required. When not required you don't have to keep 3 accounts active to have access to your characters. And as mentioned I would also enjoy having multiple character usage included in multiple character training. You have not stated this but what I sense here is that you want a short term (say a few days, maybe a week) activation possibility on this and that gets a no way from me, if you want a character active then pay the full month sub. Current multi-character training cost the same or possibly even more real money per month than having two accounts. If it costs the same to have your option what are the benefits? Currently you can have as many accounts as you want and sub them on an as needed basis, unless you are going to propose a shorter than one month subscription option how does your proposal change the situation versus multiple accounts? The time delay in paying your subscription to activate a second or third character on your one account idea would be the same as the current process so again I ask what advantages does your proposal have over the current multiple accounts? Oh and that multiple character training thingy has always been possible, you simply train one character on each account and the beauty is that is costs the same or possibly less than the current multiple character training. Pay the full month ... that would match to variation A and partly C.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4411	Posted - 2016.01.18 18:09:02 - [25] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Jerghul wrote: n+1 dictates... Yes, if each n is a seperate player. When dealing with multiboxing you get diminishing returns. While you're alt-tabbed to your booster alt trying to avoid the combat probes hunting you down, your other alts are sitting there doing zilch. By time you realize you've got a hostile on grid with your other alts, it's allready got you pointed and started firing. He's already orbiting at optimal with transversal up whike you have to start activating modules. Heh, exactly. Something like this was pointed out about 240 years ago by a man named Adam Smith. He was describing pin manufacturing, and like writers of that era it is a long drawn out paragraph, but the point is that by having 1 worker working on 2-3 steps in the pin making process their human capital is always productive meaning that all of the people in the factory are far more productive. That is, 20 people splitting up the task of making pins produce dramatically more pins than 20 people each engage in the entire pin making process individually. In EVE terms it is the same thing. The guy controlling the boosting ship will be engaged in watching for probes and keeping himself safe to give his fleet the advantage of the boosts. The FC can focus on his job, the logi FC will focus on doing his job. Logi pilots will focus on their jobs (for example setting their broadcast setting correctly) etc. One guy trying to manage all that simultaneously will be swamped pretty quick. This concept is so widely accepted that it is called the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns by many. That is, it ranks right up there with the Law of Gravity. Basically, it is why you cannot grow the world's food supply and a flower pot. Same thing applies to EVE. 30 individual players each doing their job will be, generally speaking, better than 10 players each trying to control 3 accounts. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Iain Cariaba 2366	Posted - 2016.01.18 19:00:58 - [26] - Quote Deornoth Drake wrote: Hence, why not ask for additional logins as well. Because the way the client syncs with the server in this, or any, game says no. Not exagerating, I've played hundreds of various online games in the last 20 years, and not a single one of them allowed multiple connections from the same account simultaneously. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 19:15:10 - [27] - Quote Teckos More than one character is better than one character. Also according to Adam Smith and even the Chicago school of Freakonomic disaster capitalism. Though what Ayn Rand might say, I would not know. But I am sure you are tempted to inform us. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 13600	Posted - 2016.01.18 19:44:18 - [28] - Quote Dude, how many times, it's a technical wall not a design decision. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4414	Posted - 2016.01.18 19:56:21 - [29] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Teckos More than one character is better than one character. Also according to Adam Smith and even the Chicago school of Freakonomic disaster capitalism. Though what Ayn Rand might say, I would not know. But I am sure you are tempted to inform us. Strawman much Jerghul? I never said that 2 < 1 character. I can only chalk that conclusion up to lack of reading ability. What I, and others, have said is the following: 2 characters controlled by 1 player < 2 characters controlled by 2 players. And that in the general case, N characters controlled by 1 player < N characters controlled by N players, The difference in the inequality is growing. That is, N\|1 - N\|N is increasing in N. Where N\|1 is N characters controlled by 1 player and N\|N is N characters controlled by N players. So, is multi-boxing a force multiplier? Yes. Is it better than simply adding more players? No. And are you seriously trying to argue that the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns is wrong because of your political view point? Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 20:49:44 - [30] - Quote Jergul: "Putting 3 additional characters in fleet is more than putting 1 character in fleet. n+1 dictates multiboxing is a force multiplier. Though I would argue the Borg mentality inherent to multiboxing counterbalances a lot of the technical issues that might arise from flying multiple ships at the same time. A player can coordinate the pilots he is multiboxing very efficiently. Force multipliers are not bad things. Its just important to recognize them." Lets just pretend you misunderstood what I was saying. You are incidentally trying to cite the advantages of the specialization of labour. Which is H. Ford. Diminishing returns are incompatible with n+1. Though valid with the new citadel mechanics. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Iain Cariaba 2369	Posted - 2016.01.18 21:03:20 - [31] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Jergul: "Putting 3 additional characters in fleet is more than putting 1 character in fleet. n+1 dictates multiboxing is a force multiplier. Though I would argue the Borg mentality inherent to multiboxing counterbalances a lot of the technical issues that might arise from flying multiple ships at the same time. A player can coordinate the pilots he is multiboxing very efficiently. Force multipliers are not bad things. Its just important to recognize them." Lets just pretend you misunderstood what I was saying. You are incidentally trying to cite the advantages of the specialization of labour. Which is H. Ford. Diminishing returns are incompatible with n+1. Though valid with the new citadel mechanics. Are you arguing with yourself here? it sure looks like it. Perhaps you should learn how to use quote boxes. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 21:22:42 - [32] - Quote Ian. Nah. Old-school suits me fine. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 13603	Posted - 2016.01.18 22:21:24 - [33] - Quote Evidently not. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4418	Posted - 2016.01.19 03:15:26 - [34] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Jerghul wrote: Jergul: "Putting 3 additional characters in fleet is more than putting 1 character in fleet. n+1 dictates multiboxing is a force multiplier. Though I would argue the Borg mentality inherent to multiboxing counterbalances a lot of the technical issues that might arise from flying multiple ships at the same time. A player can coordinate the pilots he is multiboxing very efficiently. Force multipliers are not bad things. Its just important to recognize them." Lets just pretend you misunderstood what I was saying. You are incidentally trying to cite the advantages of the specialization of labour. Which is H. Ford. Diminishing returns are incompatible with n+1. Though valid with the new citadel mechanics. Are you arguing with yourself here? it sure looks like it. Perhaps you should learn how to use quote boxes. Well we are dealing with Jerghul so WTFK. Frankly, this topic should be locked. Arguing over things like the law of diminishing marginal returns is like arguing over the effects of gravity. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.19 04:28:55 - [35] - Quote Or someone should be given a stern talking to by the moderators. You have been adhoming a lot Teckos. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Iain Cariaba 2378	Posted - 2016.01.19 05:19:12 - [36] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Or someone should be given a stern talking to by the moderators. You have been adhoming a lot Teckos. Ahem... Definition of ad hominem wrote: Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning. The fact that you're stubbornly refusing to acknkowledge the fact that your entire supposition as to the power of multiboxing is incorrect, it brings your credibility into question, thus making ad hominem applicible in this instance. In this case, your assumption that n+1 applies equally across the board is incorrect. A single person controlling n+1 characters has to work n+1 times harder. They must split their attention n+1times, and therefore have n+1 times more possibility of making a critical error. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.20 23:12:16 - [37] - Quote Ian It is quite correct thank you, though the lengths people go to mask certain inherent advantages always astounds me. Mulltiboxing is a force multiplier that allows a player to bring more than 1 character to any and all engagements. It is powerful to the point of being OP because of n+1. It does however have redeeming features which I have mentioned. So should of course be convenient and accessible unless you are a firm believer of EvE being a pay to win game. (edit: now that the rules of this thread have been clarified): So you can take your adhom comment and shove into any convenient dark corner of your eve wormhole space. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.