Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 10:30:26 -
[211] - Quote
The game is full of diminishing returns mechanics, most notably:
* Higher skill levels need much more time than each lower level * Most modules and rigs that affect ship stats experience stacking penalties * Research times on blueprint originals
Diminishing returns are good to make players think about effective alternatives, and they effectively limit "I-Win-Button" - strategies that would otherwise become overpowered quickly if they would scale proportionally, instead of reverse exponentially. And they still leave players the choice: You can still fit five magnetic field stabilizers if you want, so it does not forcibly prevent you from doing what you think to be good.
Likewise, diminishing returns on PvE activities would encourage, but not force, players to look for alternative activities. They can still rat for 14 hours a day if they want (*shudder*). |
Navy Jackal
University of Caille Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 10:37:47 -
[212] - Quote
Null Infinity wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:I dare everyone to ignore this an allow it to gracefully fall to the bottom of the forums. I think this post has gathered most likes in the whole unfortunate thread for a reason. Please stop feeding him, would we? Just ignore it.
Just let this thread die, whould we? Bad idea, most of us agreed on this. Point. |
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 11:08:14 -
[213] - Quote
Navy Jackal wrote:Just let this thread die, whould we? Bad idea, most of us agreed on this. Point. Menor pars, sanior pars
Seriously, I think arguments weigh more than "stop it because I/we do not like it" and "Point." (Incidentally, the correct English term you might be looking for would probably be "Fullstop.") Where was I? Ah, yes: arguments. Right.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
313
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 14:14:39 -
[214] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:Diminishing returns are good to make players think about effective alternatives, and they effectively limit "I-Win-Button" I agree that diminishing returns are good IF we were discussing ship fittings, but we are not.
If bots are the problem then deal with the bots directly, don't try to do it by introducing a ridiculous idea that affects everyone in the game at some point.
But the real question really is this. If a person wants to spend 15 or 20 hours a day mining or whatever how does that affect you?
The OP idea carefully crafted to only affect a small portion of those involved in PvE activities, but not everyone equally and for this reason alone it is a terrible idea.
So this begs the question how and why are these specific areas left un-affected by this? Is it because they are the favored play styles of the OP? Did the OP carefully craft this so it only affects the play styles he does not approve of?
If you want anyone to even give this idea a serious look, much less support it go back to the very beginning and re-work the entire concept so it affects all non-PvP (insert traditional shoot other players ships definition here) equally. Otherwise this is simply an idea to restrict a game play style the OP does not agree with so it will always get a no from me. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1338
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 14:16:45 -
[215] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:re-work the entire concept so it affects all non-PvP
Keeping in mind that it is all but impossible to NOT PvP with ANY activity in this game. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2975
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 15:21:21 -
[216] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Trading is still a zero sum (PvP) activity. Whatever one player gains is paid by the another. If two players trade the sum of their wealth stays the same. On the other hand if they rat, the sum of their wealth grows.
Which is the problem with "you can rat/mine 80 hours a week too, make an effort scrub" comments. If everyone would go multibox-nolifer, then everyone would have 10 titans and the game would be quite boring.
No, it is negative sum due to taxes and fees (aka transactions costs). Also, trade is mutually beneficial, so to call it PvP is...kinda odd. If I buy something you are selling that strongly implies I want it enough I'm willing to pay at least the price you are asking or even more and that you don't want it at that price or an even lower one (see the concepts of consumer and producer surpluses).
Further, while trade reduces overall wealth due to taxes and fees and at the same time it changes the distribution of wealth. This is not insignificant either. If the wealth goes from the guy who was ratting to the trader it also moves on from there as well. The trader will want new stock so he'll go to the guys building that stock (builders and inventors and explorers and even in some cases ratters). The inventors and builders will likely go and buy minerals and other inputs as well.
The in-game economy is really a web of activities and the isk flows through this web.
As for the guy ratting 80 hours a week...I'll say it again, I'm sure CCP is aware of those "players" and there is considerable scrutiny of them as 80 hours a week is ratting 11.5 hours a day (on average)...that is alot if the player is doing it day-in-and-day-out.
As for the growth of "wealth" you mention what you really mean is the money supply which is different. ISK does not have any innate value. In fact, ISK is an awesome example of fiat money (money that has value because we are told it has value). Most modern currencies are fiat money in that the innate value of the money is very low or even zero, but people believe it has value therefore it has value and can be used as a medium of exchange. Interestingly, when that belief is challenged is when you have a currency crisis which can lead to things like hyperinflation. Having positive growth of the money supply is not inherently a bad thing; what can be a bad thing is if the money supply grows too fast then you can have inflation and that can be bad. And CCP is aware of the money supply and monitors it. The issue here, if there is one, could be solved via a mechanism suggested here, but it can be managed in other ways as well. For example, reducing rat bounties, reducing anomaly spawn rates, or even more subtle changes such as changes to mechanics that make it easier to hunt and kill ratters.
As I also noted, if CCP felt that ISBoxer and other similar programs were really a serious problem there is a much, much more elegant solution: ban those programs.
Why you feel the need to punish the person who rats a few hours a day (at most) and has an extra account or two is beyond me.
Oh...and one last thing...mining does not increase the money supply either....so its kind of like trading.
Maybe you should think a bit more before posting.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2975
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 15:23:15 -
[217] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:The game is full of diminishing returns mechanics, most notably:
* Higher skill levels need much more time than each lower level * Most modules and rigs that affect ship stats experience stacking penalties * Research times on blueprint originals
Diminishing returns are good to make players think about effective alternatives, and they effectively limit "I-Win-Button" - strategies that would otherwise become overpowered quickly if they would scale proportionally, instead of reverse exponentially. And they still leave players the choice: You can still fit five magnetic field stabilizers if you want, so it does not forcibly prevent you from doing what you think to be good.
Likewise, diminishing returns on PvE activities would encourage, but not force, players to look for alternative activities. They can still rat for 14 hours a day if they want (*shudder*).
Diminishing returns on mechanics is one thing...diminishing returns on actually playing the game is entirely another thing.
That you cannot see a difference indicates you just are not thinking this through clearly.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
306
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 15:31:28 -
[218] - Quote
El Creepo wrote:1bil for a -ú10 item is an EXTREEEEEEEMLY good deal. If I could cash out all my isk at 1bil per -ú10 cash I would be doing that all over the place. People need to stop crying at plex prices.
its a good deal for the buyer of the plex that's using his RL money to acquire it to sell, not so much for the people trying to live off of the plex by spending isk on it, which can be any number of reasons.
Trading should have fatigue to since it is PVP going from system to system is quite carebearish or else gankers would be ganking them.
so what after an hour when guns no longer work I would do what, float around, sit at my apartment board as can be?
Lets also not for get while people make billions in incursions, you can hardly get rid of 1 in an hour of play when you render a whole fleet worthless so incursions would end up staying for their full duration forcing people to move out of the region because they don't want to sit there for a week un able to do anything, and also not all incs last their week, most only last a few days, some less then that.
thank before you go and make a lot of play styles obsolete, while I agree and I want to see the army of alts die a horrible fiery death by being slowly dragged into a star (even ccp has a thing about it not advised to run multiple accounts) it isn't going to happen
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2976
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 15:43:50 -
[219] - Quote
Gevlon is simply confused and rather ignorant, IMO.
He seems to confuse wealth and ISK. Wealth is often considered having an abundance of valuable/productive resources. ISK is not a productive resource. It can let you acquire valuable and productive resources in game, but in and of itself it has little innate value and is not at all productive (it is even less productive than real life currency which might have some minor and limited uses).
For example, yes a ratter will see his isk increase if he rats, but not necessarily his wealth. He can use his increased ISK to buy things that would increase his wealth, but that is not quite what Gevlon was writing.
So, if the issue is increasing one's wallet/ISK, both the trader and the ratter can do this. So his post about that looks confused and ill-thought out. In fact, I'd argue the trader is always increasing his wealth (valuable and productive assets) more so than the ratter. So, if increasing wealth is "bad" then we need to nerf Gevlon's game.
Or was it ISK that Gevlon was talking about? Well okay, but then why is he bitching endlessly about mining? Mining does not increase the amount of ISK in the game. Mining does increase one's wealth...so, maybe it is wealth after all, but then again that leads us back to nerfing Gevlon's game as well because apparently acquiring too much wealth is some how BadGäó.
But note that Gevlon has exempted his preferred activity from being nerfed.
In the end, I suggest that Gevlon is simply butthurt, for some inexplicable reason, that some players log in for long periods of time and do stuff he personally finds problematic. This however, is in absolutely no way provides justification for modifying the game. We all have our personal biases about various activities in the game and they should not be considered, by themselves, valid reasons for nerfing parts of the game.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Alexis Nightwish
226
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 18:43:02 -
[220] - Quote
Something I find fascinating, at least from a sociological viewpoint is that if anyone else had posted this idea it would have received about a page of "This is bad, you're bad, and should feel bad" type responses and then dropped into the void. But because GG posted it, it's run 11 pages and shows no sign of stopping. It's like he has some sort of Bizzaro World cult of personality.
Fascinating.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1346
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 18:46:20 -
[221] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Something I find fascinating, at least from a sociological viewpoint is that if anyone else had posted this idea it would have received about a page of "This is bad, you're bad, and should feel bad" type responses and then dropped into the void. But because GG posted it, it's run 11 pages and shows no sign of stopping. It's like he has some sort of Bizzaro World cult of personality.
Fascinating.
No, we tried to have it stomped out for the trolling it was, repeatedly. But were told off because he cried to mom.
But you're right, anyone else wouldn't have been given the time of day and nor would it have been unlocked several times. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
314
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 02:17:51 -
[222] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Donnachadh wrote:re-work the entire concept so it affects all non-PvP Keeping in mind that it is all but impossible to NOT PvP with ANY activity in this game. So typical of you to snip out a very small segment of a post and flat out ignore the most important part.
Donnachadh wrote: non-PvP (insert traditional shoot other players ships definition here) Yea you know the part where I explicitly defined my use of the term PvP. See quote above. |
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 08:26:31 -
[223] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Diminishing returns on mechanics is one thing...diminishing returns on actually playing the game is entirely another thing.
That you cannot see a difference indicates you just are not thinking this through clearly. When two things are different, there may be reason to treat them differently - but it is not compelling, of course. If the principle is good for either, then of course it is okay to apply it to either. Demanding to treat differently just because of being two different things (or rather, finding one differentiating trait, which is probably always possible if you only look for it hard enough) shows that it was not me who has not thought it through clearly.
I am of the opinion that diminshing returns are good for many activities - mining, ratting, setting/changing market orders, ... partly, because it encourages (but not forces) looking for alternatives, and mostly because that will hurt bots automatically without the need to find, scrutinize, evaluate, and ban bots manually. CCP would free up a lot of workforce for other things if game mechanics would hurt long-running bots automatically.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1352
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 09:08:45 -
[224] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:afkalt wrote:Donnachadh wrote:re-work the entire concept so it affects all non-PvP Keeping in mind that it is all but impossible to NOT PvP with ANY activity in this game. So typical of you to snip out a very small segment of a post and flat out ignore the most important part. Donnachadh wrote: non-PvP (insert traditional shoot other players ships definition here) Yea you know the part where I explicitly defined my use of the term PvP. See quote above.
I wasn't having a pop at you, chill out. I was laying down the point that the OP attitude of "don't hurt my bit of the game because it's PvP" is bullcrap. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2982
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 00:09:12 -
[225] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Diminishing returns on mechanics is one thing...diminishing returns on actually playing the game is entirely another thing.
That you cannot see a difference indicates you just are not thinking this through clearly. When two things are different, there may be reason to treat them differently - but it is not compelling, of course. If the principle is good for either, then of course it is okay to apply it to either. Demanding to treat differently just because of being two different things (or rather, finding one differentiating trait, which is probably always possible if you only look for it hard enough) shows that it was not me who has not thought it through clearly. I am of the opinion that diminshing returns are good for many activities - mining, ratting, setting/changing market orders, ... partly, because it encourages (but not forces) looking for alternatives, and mostly because that will hurt bots automatically without the need to find, scrutinize, evaluate, and ban bots manually. CCP would free up a lot of workforce for other things if game mechanics would hurt long-running bots automatically.
I am of the opinion that you are an idiot. Does that make you an idiot? No, really? Simply stating something is insufficient for making that statement true.
Gevlon is all over the place confusing ISK with wealth, mining with ratting and their implications for the economy and what not. And here you are thinking he's come up with some sort of shining jewel of an idea. Granted a broken clock and blind chicken thing is possible, but merely saying, "Yeah me too!" is not sufficient.
And as has been pointed out a policy to hurt bots that hurts non-bots is just bad. Embarrassingly bad. And people who log in for long periods of time and who make ISK consistently over that period of time...I'm pretty sure that CCP has their eye on them already. It should be the first step in even the most simple algorithms to find bot's and people who are using disallowed third party software. Think of it this way, suppose CCP found that a player with the first name Felix was botting. So then they want to ban this player, but they can't because they don't know the rest of his name. Solution...ban all players with the first name Felix. Good idea? Probably not.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
423
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 04:24:54 -
[226] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:And as has been pointed out a policy to hurt bots that hurts non-bots is just bad. Embarrassingly bad. James 315 came up with a good name for such people: "bot-aspirants". Someone who does a trivial, repeatable activity for several hours every day is both hurting the other players with his excess ISK and hurting himself with his lack of priorities. Both should be saved.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
Engineering Without Permits
226
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 05:56:30 -
[227] - Quote
How in the hell did this thread go 12 pages???
Am on on punked? Where's Ashton? I know you're here!!! |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1203
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 11:24:51 -
[228] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:And as has been pointed out a policy to hurt bots that hurts non-bots is just bad. Embarrassingly bad. James 315 came up with a good name for such people: "bot-aspirants". Someone who does a trivial, repeatable activity for several hours every day is both hurting the other players with his excess ISK and hurting himself with his lack of priorities. Both should be saved.
Well if you don't like these players doing what they enjoy I suggest the CODE path of removing their safety to do so, with anti-matter. This is a game and should not force players to carry out careers they do not wish to. If all they do is perform such 'bot-aspirant' tasks and generate ISK for themselves who cares? If they aren't using the ISK for anything else then it has no effect, if they use it to fund other activities such as PvP they provide targets. If they use the ISK for manufacturing/trade etc then they are providing a service.
The best solution for any bottable activity is to give an alternative where an active pilot will make more than an AFK one. So the comet mining idea for instance would reward an active pilot with more ISK generating products than an AFK miner would get (even with boosts).
This way the active pilots will provide content and gain better gameplay whilst the bots would simply take up the slack.
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
423
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 05:10:57 -
[229] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:The best solution for any bottable activity is to give an alternative where an active pilot will make more than an AFK one. So the comet mining idea for instance would reward an active pilot with more ISK generating products than an AFK miner would get (even with boosts). The problem is that bots aren't AFK. They are giving out orders to their ships constantly. They target new crosses/rocks, they dock, safe up. Anything that an EVE PvE player can do, a few lines of script can do too, maybe with a lower efficiency.
It's true, that it would be great if PvE would be so complex that bots wouldn't stand a chance, and players would be needed to solve them, but that's a dream never comes. We have to live with the reality.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1212
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 09:42:01 -
[230] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:The best solution for any bottable activity is to give an alternative where an active pilot will make more than an AFK one. So the comet mining idea for instance would reward an active pilot with more ISK generating products than an AFK miner would get (even with boosts). The problem is that bots aren't AFK. They are giving out orders to their ships constantly. They target new crosses/rocks, they dock, safe up. Anything that an EVE PvE player can do, a few lines of script can do too, maybe with a lower efficiency. It's true, that it would be great if PvE would be so complex that bots wouldn't stand a chance, and players would be needed to solve them, but that's a dream never comes. We have to live with the reality.
My point is that you don't change the game mechanisms to combat bots in ways that are detrimental to non-bots. Remember that those you consider to have no life and play EvE for a long time each day may well do so because it is their entertainment. It is their choice to do so and the game mechanics should not discriminate against them for such.
Dev effort would be better spent in determining potential bot activity and pointing GM's towards those characters with their location. They can then be interacted with in game to asses whether they are a bot or not. Botting is a bannable offense as far as I'm aware and an active player would happily respond to repeated attempts to hail them.
Irrespective of your OP I would prefer their to be more active versions of the less active style careers that would reward an active player more. An active player should always have the advantage in the game. For instance in missions where a player can AFK rat maybe improve the AI slightly so that if NPC's are being killed in droves before getting anywhere near the player ship they fly the other way until they can warp to 0 on the player instead. I'm sure there are a multitude of simple changes that could be made in many areas and I feel this would improve the game overall rather than limit some areas in an arbitrary manner. |
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
423
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 05:00:10 -
[231] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:My point is that you don't change the game mechanisms to combat bots in ways that are detrimental to non-bots. Remember that those you consider to have no life and play EvE for a long time each day may well do so because it is their entertainment. It is their choice to do so and the game mechanics should not discriminate against them My point is that I consider no-lifers not much different from bots and a normal player can't tell the difference. They are both active for very-long time, doing some repeatable activity without interacting with other players. Bots and no-lifers alike are detrimental to normal players and should be stopped.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3692
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 05:16:47 -
[232] - Quote
I want to see the data that shows PLEX prices are related to alts, and not something else, like the sheer amount of DPS in high-sec.
Oh god.
|
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 16:12:24 -
[233] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: James 315 came up with a good name for such people: "bot-aspirants". Someone who does a trivial, repeatable activity for several hours every day is both hurting the other players with his excess ISK and hurting himself with his lack of priorities. Both should be saved.
Doing trivial, repeatable activities for hours every day....like ganking miners who can't fight back?
CODE, the biggest carebear alliance in EVE |
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
427
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 03:55:27 -
[234] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:Doing trivial, repeatable activities for hours every day....like ganking miners who can't fight back?
CODE, the biggest carebear alliance in EVE This is PvP and CODE wins. The miners could fight back, if they were at the keyboard. They choose to leave their avatar floating in space without lead, because they get bored.
Maybe if their hours were limited, they would actually spend it playing.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
407
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 04:00:31 -
[235] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I want to see the data that shows PLEX prices are related to alts, and not something else, like the sheer amount of DPS in high-sec.
Well.... since incursions were introduced, Plex have pretty much done nothing but go up in price.... rather steeply.... I cannot link you a spreadsheet but I pretty clearly remember when they were thought a big deal at breaking 300m.... when Level 4's were the 'go to' for making isk.
The Law is a point of View
|
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:06:18 -
[236] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Riot Girl wrote:I want to see the data that shows PLEX prices are related to alts, and not something else, like the sheer amount of DPS in high-sec. Well.... since incursions were introduced, Plex have pretty much done nothing but go up in price.... rather steeply.... I cannot link you a spreadsheet but I pretty clearly remember when they were thought a big deal at breaking 300m.... when Level 4's were the 'go to' for making isk. Incursionists do make ISK, but they mostly make LP. They must convert LP to ISK by selling those items. So the total ISK-income from incursions depends on the prevalence of ISK in the game. Obviously, this in turn is dependent upon the availability of ISK via botting and bot-likle playing. In other words, incursions' impact on PLEX prices is dependent on ISK amount from other sources still. The main point of this thread still is that bots can generate wealth by not playing, and that is easily counterable with diminishing returns on hour-long repetetive behaviour. It also is an automatic counter that needs no manual surveillance at all from the anti-botting crew from CCP. They can concentrate on the harder-to-spot cases. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1355
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:34:24 -
[237] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:My point is that you don't change the game mechanisms to combat bots in ways that are detrimental to non-bots. Remember that those you consider to have no life and play EvE for a long time each day may well do so because it is their entertainment. It is their choice to do so and the game mechanics should not discriminate against them My point is that I consider no-lifers not much different from bots and a normal player can't tell the difference. They are both active for very-long time, doing some repeatable activity without interacting with other players. Bots and no-lifers alike are detrimental to normal players and should be stopped.
Again with the term no-lifers. Who are you to tell someone how little or how much they can play a game? It is after all just that, a game. If they have their fun doing what they do then they are a happy customer for CCP. CCP would be better tracking and booting out bots rather than changing gameplay to limit what people can do. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1609
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:42:00 -
[238] - Quote
Oh look, it's the "delayed response because everyone is ignoring my thread" bump. Again.
Quit feeding the troll for the love of all that is good and right. |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
183
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:54:15 -
[239] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: This is PvP and CODE wins. The miners could fight back, if they were at the keyboard. They choose to leave their avatar floating in space without lead, because they get bored.
Maybe if their hours were limited, they would actually spend it playing.
You seemed to have not read what I wrote.
"Someone who does a trivial, repeatable activity for several hours every day"
Is a perfect way to describe someone who mindlessly blows up ships they know can't fight back.
CODE, biggest bear alliance in EVE. |
James Baboli
Novablasters
969
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:31:58 -
[240] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:Kenrailae wrote:Riot Girl wrote:I want to see the data that shows PLEX prices are related to alts, and not something else, like the sheer amount of DPS in high-sec. Well.... since incursions were introduced, Plex have pretty much done nothing but go up in price.... rather steeply.... I cannot link you a spreadsheet but I pretty clearly remember when they were thought a big deal at breaking 300m.... when Level 4's were the 'go to' for making isk. Incursionists do make ISK, but they mostly make LP. They must convert LP to ISK by selling those items. So the total ISK-income from incursions depends on the prevalence of ISK in the game. Obviously, this in turn is dependent upon the availability of ISK via botting and bot-likle playing. In other words, incursions' impact on PLEX prices is dependent on ISK amount from other sources still. The main point of this thread still is that bots can generate wealth by not playing, and that is easily counterable with diminishing returns on hour-long repetetive behaviour. It also is an automatic counter that needs no manual surveillance at all from the anti-botting crew from CCP. They can concentrate on the harder-to-spot cases. Hqs pay out 31.5m isk per site. They pay out 7k lp, for which the going rate is about 1.1k per lp
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |