Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Blog Banter #9: Training for all my men!

From CrazyKinux's newest Blog Banter:
Welcome to the ninth installment of the EVE Blog Banter and its first contest, the monthly EVE Online blogging extravaganza created by CrazyKinux. The EVE Blog Banter involves an enthusiastic group of gaming bloggers, a common topic within the realm of EVE Online, and a week to post articles pertaining to the said topic. The resulting articles can either be short or quite extensive, either funny or dead serious, but are always a great fun to read! Any questions about the EVE Blog Banter should be directed here. Check out other EVE Blog Banter articles at the bottom of this post!

"Last month Ga'len asked us which game mechanic we would most like to see added to EVE. This month Keith "WebMandrill" Nielson proposes to reverse the question and ask what may be a controversial question: Which game mechanic would you most like to see
removed completely from EVE and why? I can see this getting quite heated so lets keep it civil eh?"
They give you the ability to have up to three characters per account, but currently you can only train one at a time. Most serious EVE players seem to have multiple accounts so they can train an alt in a different skill set.

Training one character for combat is time consuming. And training another for manufacturing and invention is also very time consuming.

CCP obviously doesn't mind people having and training up alts, but they just about force you to have multiple accounts to do it efficiently.

Keep the number of characters per account at three or even lower it to two, but allow each character to train one skill at a time.

This would allow people to skill up an alt without the need to spend extra money every month to do it.

CCP would still get money from those people who wish to dual box and thus would be required to have multiple accounts. And I'd bet there are a lot of people who would still do this.

I don't believe that this would be unbalancing as there would still be the limitation of one skill at a time per character and players would be able to be a little more productive without having to spend as much money.

List of Participants:
  1. Diary of a Space Jockey, Blog Banter: BE GONE!
  2. EVE Newb, (EVE) Remove You
  3. Miner With Fangs, Blog Banter - It's the Scotch
  4. The Eden Explorer, Blog Banter: The Map! The Map!
  5. The Wandering Druid of Tranquility, "Beacons, beacons, beacons, beacons, beacons, mushroom, MUSHROOM!!!"
  6. Inner Sanctum of the Ninveah, Kill the Rats
  7. Mercspector @ EVE, Scotty
  8. EVE's Weekend Warrior, EVE Blog Banter #9
  9. A Merry Life and a Short One, Eve Blog Banter #9: Why Won't You Die?
  10. Into the unknown with gun and camera, Blog Banter – The Hokey Cokey
  11. The Flightless Geek, EVE Blog Banter #9: Remove a Game Mechanic
  12. Sweet Little Bad Girl, Blog Banter 9: Who is Nibbling at My House?
  13. One Man and His Spaceship, Blog Banter 9: What could you do without?
  14. Life in Low Sec, EVE Blog Banter #9: Stop Tarnishing My Halo
  15. Cle Demaari: Citizen, Blog Banter #9: Training for all my men!
  16. A Mule in EVE, He who giveth, also taketh away?
  17. Dense Veldspar, Blog Banter 9
  18. Morphisat’s Blog, Blog Banter #9 – Randomness Be Gone !
  19. Facepalm's Blog, EVE Blog Banter #9: What a new pilot could do without
  20. Memoires of New Eden, You're Fired
  21. Kyle Langdon's Journeys in EVE, EVE Blog Banter #9 Titans? What's a Titan?
  22. Achernar, The gates! The gates are down!
  23. Speed Fairy, EVE Blog Banter #9: Down with Downtime!
  24. I am Keith Neilson, EVE Blog Banter #9-F**K Da Police
  25. Ripe Lacunae, The UI… Where do I begin… (Eve Blog Banter #9)
  26. Clown Punchers, EvE Blogs: What game mechanic would you get rid of?
  27. Estel Arador Corp Services, You've got mail
  28. Epic Slant, Let Mom and Pop Play: EVE Blog Banter #9
  29. Deaf Plasma's EVE Musings, Blog Banter #9 - Removal of Anchoring Delay of POS modules
  30. Podded Once Again, Blog Banter #9 - Do we really need to go AFK?
  31. Postcards from EVE, 2009.07.02.00.29.06
  32. Harbinger Zero, Blog Banter #9 – War Declarations & Sec Status
  33. Warp Scrammed, Blog Banter 9 – Never Too Fast
  34. Ecaf Ersa (EVE Mag), Can a Tractor Tractor a Can?
  35. Thoughts from an Accidental Minmatar Revolutionary, EVE Blog Banter #9 - Aggression timers, WTs and Stargates
  36. Mike Azariah, I don't put much stock in it...
  37. Rettic's Log, Blog Banter: Overview Overload
  38. A Sebiestor Scholar, [OOC] EVE Blog Banter #9: Slaves
  39. Diary of a pod pilot, [OOC] EVE blog banter #9: Because of Falcon
  40. Roc's Ramblings, Blog Banter #9 – Taking Things Slow
  41. The Gaming-Griefer, EVE Sucks, But I Love It: The Memoir of a Masochist
  42. Letrange's EVE Blog, Blog Banter #9: Bye Bye Learning Skills
  43. Lyietfinvar, Remove that monopoly
  44. Sceadugenga, Blog Banter #9
  45. Industrialist with Teeth, EVE Blog Banter #9

4 comments:

  1. It would be awesome, but I've given up on Vikings...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whilst it would be lovely, I'm not seeing the incentive for CCP. The current system has very many people with more than one account. Your idea has most of those accounts never opened in the first place. That's a lot of monthly subs that CCP will then lose.

    They are a business, and it is their job to make money. This would reduce their profitability, and so I can't see it happening.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unless you are referring to the balancing of CCP's bank account, this I would be 99.9% sure will never happen. to allow us to train two characters on the same account at the same time...it would cut CCP's income drastically.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @gunandcamera and Selina

    That's my point exactly. What ingame purpose does this serve? Or is it purely just a way for CCP to increase income?

    I think they'd lose some income, but not all of the people that have multiple characters, since there a quite a few people that like to run multiple clients at once and that would need separate accounts.

    But you're right, it will probably never be changed.

    ReplyDelete