Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Perez1989
Two Brothers Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 06:07:00 -
[31] - Quote
Raphael Celestine wrote:The problem with bots (and by extension this idea) is that they're either illegal or compulsory; there's essentially no middle ground between the two.
If you allow this kind of thing to be automated it would essentially destroy mining as a career; it's so simple and the entry-level skill requirements are so low that everyone would have a mining alt to leave running overnight or whenever they can't actively play. Because it takes so little time and effort, and because it's not cutting into their 'real' playtime, those players will be willing to sell their ore at significantly lower prices than someone who is actively mining would. The end result is that it becomes impossible to make any half-way decent money from mining unless you're using a bot to mine 23/7.
It's 'realistic', certainly - there are countless examples of RL jobs being totally taken over by machines once someone invents a way of automating them - but making entire styles of game-play obsolete for anyone who doesn't want to just run a bot to do it isn't going to be good for the game.
These are good points. Let me attempt to explain my idea to counter this effect.
Installing protocols in ships and sending them off to do your bidding would be on par with the futuristic nature of Eve, I think. This could of course be limited by a skill governing how many ships you can have out at once that are being controlled by AI.
What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals.
Another balancing effort could be to limit AI to tech 1 ships and items only. This would enforce the "player done way is better" that needs to be in place. What you think? |
Raphael Celestine
Galactic Trust Inc
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 06:31:00 -
[32] - Quote
Perez1989 wrote:Installing protocols in ships and sending them off to do your bidding would be on par with the futuristic nature of Eve, I think. This could of course be limited by a skill governing how many ships you can have out at once that are being controlled by AI. Wait, you were thinking of allowing a player to do this with multiple ships at once on one account?
Perez1989 wrote:What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals. This was what I was assuming you'd do anyway and it won't make much difference. There's no way to stop a player starting up the client, setting up the bot to do it's thing, and then just walking away and leaving it to run.
Perez1989 wrote:Another balancing effort could be to limit AI to tech 1 ships and items only. This would enforce the "player done way is better" that needs to be in place. What you think? I doubt that this would be enough. Even using T1 gear with low skills, a bot running for 15-20 hours a day would end up pulling out a lot of ore (or running a lot of missions, or whatever). If you're going to allow officially-sanctioned bots, you have to assume that most active accounts will be running them for the majority of the time that the player isn't actively doing something else. |
Perez1989
Two Brothers Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 07:37:00 -
[33] - Quote
Perez1989 wrote:What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals. This was what I was assuming you'd do anyway and it won't make much difference. There's no way to stop a player starting up the client, setting up the bot to do it's thing, and then just walking away and leaving it to run.
What if running AI Ships and showing "supervision" of the bots involved actively pinging them? Maybe a module that you must fit on your ship which interfaces with all active ships. Would this solve this AFK issue?
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
192
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 07:51:00 -
[34] - Quote
Perez1989 wrote:
What if running AI Ships and showing "supervision" of the bots involved actively pinging them? Maybe a module that you must fit on your ship which interfaces with all active ships. Would this solve this AFK issue?
So, make botter's jobs easier? -RubyPorto
IB4TS |
Raphael Celestine
Galactic Trust Inc
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 08:45:00 -
[35] - Quote
Perez1989 wrote:Quote:Perez1989 wrote:What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals. This was what I was assuming you'd do anyway and it won't make much difference. There's no way to stop a player starting up the client, setting up the bot to do it's thing, and then just walking away and leaving it to run. What if running AI Ships and showing "supervision" of the bots involved actively pinging them? Maybe a module that you must fit on your ship which interfaces with all active ships. Would this solve this AFK issue? Anything which will successfully keep the player active at the keyboard would defeat the purpose of automating the jobs in the first place.
At this point, it sounds like what you actually want is to be able to multibox without having more than one account. That's a totally different proposition from allowing the player to automate some of what they want their ship to do.
It wouldn't create the issues with officially-sanctioned botting that I've been talking about, but it would make it much, much easier for the people running illegitimate bots. I personally think the problems it causes would significantly out-weigh the benefits from doing this, but that's almost beside the point.
Many players run multiple accounts just so they can multibox like this; if this was implemented they could drop all but one of those accounts. Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen. |
Perez1989
Two Brothers Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 01:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
Raphael Celestine wrote:Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen.
That makes sense I suppose.
Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism.
AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think.
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 01:19:00 -
[37] - Quote
Perez1989 wrote:Raphael Celestine wrote:Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen. That makes sense I suppose. Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism. AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think.
1) You already can. They're called Drones (though fighters have people in them).
2) No, they would just encourage it.
3) Play the game you want to play and stop being lazy.
4) There is no four. -RubyPorto
IB4TS |
Perez1989
Two Brothers Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 01:35:00 -
[38] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Perez1989 wrote:Raphael Celestine wrote:Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen. That makes sense I suppose. Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism. AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think. 1) You already can. They're called Drones (though fighters have people in them). 2) No, they would just encourage it. 3) Play the game you want to play and stop being lazy. 4) There is no four.
Pipa Porto... Please stop posting on my thread. You haven't brought anything constructive or worthwhile to the discussion. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 02:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
Perez1989 wrote:
Pipa Porto... Please stop posting on my thread. You haven't brought anything constructive or worthwhile to the discussion.
1) Disagreement on the value of the premise is perfectly worthwhile. 2) It's not your thread once you post it. 3) What gameplay issue do you hope to solve? or What gameplay benefit do you think this suggestion will bring? -RubyPorto
IB4TS |
Raphael Celestine
Galactic Trust Inc
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 02:51:00 -
[40] - Quote
Perez1989 wrote:Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism.
AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think. Unfortunately neither 'I would really like to be able to do this' nor 'this is realistic' offer any guarantee that the change in question is balanced or good for the game long-term.
EVE was designed with a one character = one ship paradigm. The mechanics were designed with that in mind, the ships were balanced for that, and the metagame developed based on that. Change that and you end up totally rewriting every aspect of the game, with corresponding problems for getting the new balance right. Like they say, you should never try to switch horses mid-stream.
As for botting; the trouble is that bots are built to exploit the simplest aspects of the game. If it's impossible to order the ships in question to mine an asteroid until they fill their cargohold, then heaven help you if you try to use them for anything complicated. Unless the new ships are so complicated to run that they're unusable, what would end up happening is that each bot goes from running one mining ship at a time to running 5 or ten mining ships at a time. That's a bad thing.
Perez1989 wrote:Pipa Porto... Please stop posting on my thread. You haven't brought anything constructive or worthwhile to the discussion. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Pipa and I are making exactly the same arguments. She's just less patient than I am. |
|
Olodn
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 23:31:00 -
[41] - Quote
Great idea.
It would be realistic to have defender missiles automatically defend the ship. If hardeners are not on and the ship is taking damage it would make sense that they are automatically turned on.
if i get the OP correctly examples above could be done with the proposed in-game mechanic.
This is a great idea because people would use it to get a better player experience.
I can't see how this idea equals botting, since botting already exists and a better gameplay would encourage manual mining. |
Perez1989
Abrasive Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.04 01:10:00 -
[42] - Quote
Olodn wrote:Great idea.
It would be realistic to have defender missiles automatically defend the ship. If hardeners are not on and the ship is taking damage it would make sense that they are automatically turned on.
if i get the OP correctly examples above could be done with the proposed in-game mechanic.
This is a great idea because people would use it to get a better player experience.
I can't see how this idea equals botting, since botting already exists and a better gameplay would encourage manual mining.
While your interpretation of my OP is correct, I sort of went off on a tangent and introduced the prospect of being able to have "drone" ships that could actually carry out missions as long as you were actively controlling them with your ship via an onboard module and skills. Your skills would limit the amount of ships you could have active at once (much like drone skills work for drones).
|
Perez1989
Abrasive Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.04 01:49:00 -
[43] - Quote
wtf? my post disappeared... |
Kisogo Magellin
Parallax Shift The Periphery
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.04 05:32:00 -
[44] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:If (combat probes on scan) & (neutral in system) then dock up
up is not a valid parameter, should be: then dockUp() someone needs to brush up on their Lua (if it is Lua)
But yeah, this is a bad idea. 0x10c is that way kiddie. ._. |
Alec Programeiro
Quantum Consciousness industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 22:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
10/10 for this!
They have beaten me for It: I was going to put a topic on it myself.
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:In-game sanctioned botting? You don't say...
0/10
For those who don't like botting, think again...
The problem of "bots" is that:
- they use all the computational power of your machine to do stuff, giving an unfair advantage against those who don't.
- usually the script methods have information that normal people don't have access to. Another unfair advantage against humans.
- bots can be used to generate denial of service attacks
But, what if:
- the script engine were naturally slowed up?
- the script methods were not omniscient?
- the script methods were always foreground type?
Slowed up script engine Suppose a scripted method to open the market window, and that if the script were executed by the machine in full capacity, it would take 100 milliseconds to return the market orders, plus 20 milliseconds per check. That would make people do a market check in 500 milliseconds, an unfair advantage over the human players. But what if the script engine slowed this method up so that the market window would take one second and each market price took 200 milliseconds? Then the script engine wouldn't have all that advantage...
Scripts methods were not omniscient The problem with scripts I usually see is that they give access to information that a human player couldn't get. For example, a method like "list ships on solar system" would give the bot an unfair advantage, because human players can't fetch all this info.
Script methods were foreground An unfair advantage against human players is that if many scripts could be executed in background at the same time, allowing players to check stuff that a human player couldn't check all at once. To limit this up, only one script could be active at any time. This, in conjunction with the slow paced script, would also avoid the Denial of Service problem.
I can see the following benefits on allowing scripts in game:
- The scripts would make it easier for people with disabilities to play the game;
- A new market for scripts would emerge;
- Less need for mouse and keyboard operations, diminishing the chances for Lesions by Repetitive Effort.
- People who like to work in afk mode, while doing homework or in the office, wouldn't have to check
|
Alec Programeiro
Quantum Consciousness industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 22:53:00 -
[46] - Quote
Olodn wrote:Great idea.
It would be realistic to have defender missiles automatically defend the ship. If hardeners are not on and the ship is taking damage it would make sense that they are automatically turned on.
if i get the OP correctly examples above could be done with the proposed in-game mechanic.
This is a great idea because people would use it to get a better player experience.
I can't see how this idea equals botting, since botting already exists and a better gameplay would encourage manual mining.
Great idea, indeed!
This could be another type of script, a script that is part of an equipment. So the items could have scripts installed on it. It would basically allow for AI scripting of drones and other things.
Then, for example, drones and equipment could have "memory", and "processor speed". Special drones and equipment could be programmed. And the programs could be sold, as accessories. So for missiles, and even ship navigation controls. Maybe a special rig. |
Alec Programeiro
Quantum Consciousness industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 23:00:00 -
[47] - Quote
Another interesting point is that scripting could be roleplayed inside the game. There could be skillbooks that would allow players to install scripts on equipments. Skills like "computer science".
Also, special facilities could be needed to test scripts, a new task on laboratories. |
Alec Programeiro
Quantum Consciousness industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 23:12:00 -
[48] - Quote
Raphael Celestine wrote:The problem with bots (and by extension this idea) is that they're either illegal or compulsory; there's essentially no middle ground between the two.
If you allow this kind of thing to be automated it would essentially destroy mining as a career; it's so simple and the entry-level skill requirements are so low that everyone would have a mining alt to leave running overnight or whenever they can't actively play. Because it takes so little time and effort, and because it's not cutting into their 'real' playtime, those players will be willing to sell their ore at significantly lower prices than someone who is actively mining would. The end result is that it becomes impossible to make any half-way decent money from mining unless you're using a bot to mine 23/7.
It's 'realistic', certainly - there are countless examples of RL jobs being totally taken over by machines once someone invents a way of automating them - but making entire styles of game-play obsolete for anyone who doesn't want to just run a bot to do it isn't going to be good for the game.
If the script engine is well designed as what I told in my previous post , players couldn't leave the ship unnatended. It's like to say that you could place a ship on autopilot and leave the computer forever. That's not the case.
|
Alec Programeiro
Quantum Consciousness industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 23:26:00 -
[49] - Quote
Another interesting limitation to put on scripts to make it more efficient is to limit script in size. This way, a ship may have a limited mining script that can handle mining and docking, but not handle threats at the same time.
That is, if someone leave the ship totally unattended, and then a goon ship appear on the system, the bot wouldn't be capable to decide what to do, manual kicks in and if the player is totally afk he is screwed. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |