Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stonecrusher Mortlock
University of Caille Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 19:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
They have come to a conclusion that there is a acceptable ammout of botting needed to keep EvE working.
CCP Sreegs assured the CSM that botting/RMT'ing is still being handled with the same frequency as it has been in the past, and in fact there is no significant increase (or decrease) in the frequency of bots.
No decrease, that's like saying its a good the the **** rate has stayed the same. No decrease is a BAD thing.
and ONWARD to the next point.
The CSM questioned if dealing with certain types of bots should be given priority GÇô specifically nullsec ratting bots. The CSM argued that null-sec ratting bots greatly affect the state of null-sec PvP, as null-sec ratting is an important component in null-sec PvP. CCP Sreegs did not dismiss the notion of prioritization of one bot over another, but he and CCP Unifex cautioned that relying on anecdotal data was dangerous. To properly prioritize bot-hunting, they argued, it would be necessary to better quantify the effect of various bots.
What i'm getting from is if a bots creating content for the game it might not be removed AS soon as a bot that's not.
The CSM security portion left me feeling as if there only worried about the RMTers and not the people who bot for themselves.
ALL Bots are bad CCP you cant be picky.
and if
With this notion in mind, Sreegs explained how he plans to handle what he believes to be a pressing problem with Eve-related security - identity authentication, or IDAuth. IDAuth, simply put, is CCP knowing who owns an account within EVE. While two-factor identification would be effective, Sreegs noted that the EVE player base would be reluctant to give more information to CCP than required, and such his solution is simply e-mail verification.
SO what if someone is that freaked out about giving out info to prove there not cheating at EvE well there ether unhealthily paranoid or want to hide there cheating. |
Prince Kobol
181
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 19:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
With this notion in mind, Sreegs explained how he plans to handle what he believes to be a pressing problem with Eve-related security - identity authentication, or IDAuth. IDAuth, simply put, is CCP knowing who owns an account within EVE. While two-factor identification would be effective, Sreegs noted that the EVE player base would be reluctant to give more information to CCP than required, and such his solution is simply e-mail verification.
SO what if someone is that freaked out about giving out info to prove there not cheating at EvE well there ether unhealthily paranoid or want to hide there cheating.
My own view is that if you are prepared to purchase from the internet from such places like Amazon who will sell on your information to other companies, then I see no reason why you would not give less information to CCP.
It is a very weak argument and screams to me that CCP are not serious in attempting to combat RMT, but more then they do not want to rock the boat shall we say... |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
1325
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 19:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
As if a goon can be trusted.
Was that in iambic pentameter ? *lol* as IF a GOON can BE trustED.
Don't mind me, i'm trying to figure this out.
Today i've seen that my petition about bots in a belt finally got answered. It was ... i think ... two weeks old, if not even longer.
They were definitly bots, because the pods of ganked miners don't just warp station<->belt for fun and joy.
There is nothing that we can do, but hunt them down and force them to just leave the game ... forever. (that sounds right ... hm...) Nothing else we can do, Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Stonecrusher Mortlock
University of Caille Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 19:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
and such his solution is simply e-mail verification.
the more a reread that right there the more i want to go kick a puppy or stomp a baby.
LIKE THAT WILL WORK i alone have 23 trash Hotmail accounts filled out with fake information |
Opertone
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 20:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bots ruin EVE. |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
1325
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 20:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Opertone wrote:Bots ruin EVE.
It's not the bot that hurts the game... the man behind, he is to blame. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1173
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 20:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Opertone wrote:Bots ruin EVE.
So do the losers who buy ISK.
|
ILikeMarkets
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 20:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bots pay subscription and/or buy up PLEX from the market, keeping PLEX prices nice and high. CCP benefits from both.
Bots add to the total population of the game at all times, giving players a much more pleasant number to look at when logging into Transquility. This makes players happy, and CCP benefits from this.
Bots give roaming PvPers someone to kill when there otherwise would be none. This makes PvPers happy, and CCP benefits from not having to listen to us *****.
Bots make hulkaggedon valid and actually give us targets during that time. This makes non-miners happy, and CCP benefits from this.
So while bots may flood the market with minerals and run miners out of house and home, they offer enough perks that I can see why CCP would be hesitant to drop the banhammer on the whole lot of em. Protect highsec.-áWe are the 66%.
https://p.twimg.com/Ajc6KNBCQAAT9my.png (Source: https://twitter.com/ccp_diagoras ) |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
552
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 20:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
ILikeMarkets wrote:Bots pay subscription and/or buy up PLEX from the market, keeping PLEX prices nice and high. CCP benefits from both. ... Actually if bots increase PLEX prices, that is worse for CCP.
3 PLEX cost more than a 3 month sub (most popular sub choice).
Lower PLEX cost would mean more people using it instead of subbing through CC which would mean more money for CCP.
That is if bots lead to an increase in PLEX prices. I don't have data to comment on that bit. |
Richard Kyanka
Something More Awful
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 20:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Wasn't Paypal recently removed as an option to pay subscriptions? Wasn't that yet one more positive move to remove anonymity?
|
|
Prince Kobol
181
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 20:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
ILikeMarkets wrote:Bots pay subscription and/or buy up PLEX from the market, keeping PLEX prices nice and high. CCP benefits from both.
Bots add to the total population of the game at all times, giving players a much more pleasant number to look at when logging into Transquility. This makes players happy, and CCP benefits from this.
Bots give roaming PvPers someone to kill when there otherwise would be none. This makes PvPers happy, and CCP benefits from not having to listen to us *****.
Bots make hulkaggedon valid and actually give us targets during that time. This makes non-miners happy, and CCP benefits from this.
So while bots may flood the market with minerals and run miners out of house and home, they offer enough perks that I can see why CCP would be hesitant to drop the banhammer on the whole lot of em.
So your forgetting the fact that most RMT merchants use stolen credit card / fraudulent banking details to purchase PLEX which in turn means that CCP get zero income from them.
Also all those BPO's and Ships which are sold being sold for RL Money, that is also taking money from CCP pockets.
So yes, CCP do not ban bots because of the subs they pay
|
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 21:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
I'm opposed to RMT in any game but you have to actually blame the people that buy from them the most. If they didn't buy from them then there is no reason to RMT since there is no money in it. For all the anti-RMT rants in EVE-O forums I think its safe to say that the RMT market is still booming (sadly).
On the issue of bots I think, on their own without the RMT issue, I don't care at all about bots. the game already has mining drones and autopilot and lots of other things I don't have to personally direct for every motion. If somebody have a mining bot to get materials he needs then i give a hardy whatever. He can be out there with his 8 accounts, running 8 hulks or be out there with his 8 bot hulks. Don't actually care. I care even less when I hear how much people hate mining and missioning etc, but oh god don't you do it. So who cares? Even Mittens stated that the goon bots help pay for their sov and other programs that free up pilots to go and pvp poorly. Okay. I rarely ever agree with Mittens, but I do on this.
Heck, I even concidered a mining bot, but it wasn't worth messing with the EULA and any of the other hassles that do or might go along with it just to get more veldspar or whatever. If somebody else wants to do that though, I'm not going to care. I've only seen a few ships that I thought might have been bots, but then I don't go looking for them either. |
2bhammered
Perkone Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 21:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
this is like people who are against guns, people use bots, bots do not use people!! ban people, don't hurt the innocent bots. |
Stonecrusher Mortlock
University of Caille Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 22:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
2bhammered wrote:this is like people who are against guns, people use bots, bots do not use people!! ban people, don't hurt the innocent bots.
see here its breaking the law for CCP to release peoples info so i can go RL ban them.
but thats all the troll food your getting in here, so go away
|
Alara IonStorm
1513
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 22:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote: It's not the bot that hurts the game... the man behind, he is to blame.
If only their was a way to gank them.
|
Hainnz
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 22:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:ILikeMarkets wrote:Bots pay subscription and/or buy up PLEX from the market, keeping PLEX prices nice and high. CCP benefits from both. ... Actually if bots increase PLEX prices, that is worse for CCP. 3 PLEX cost more than a 3 month sub (most popular sub choice). Lower PLEX cost would mean more people using it instead of subbing through CC which would mean more money for CCP. That is if bots lead to an increase in PLEX prices. I don't have data to comment on that bit.
But PLEX enter the market because people want to sell them for ISK. I wouldn't buy a PLEX and sell one if they sold for 100m ISK. I would seriously think about it if they sold for 1b ISK.
|
Tore Vest
179
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 23:06:00 -
[17] - Quote
I was shure it was cause mittens told them not to...... Highsec carebear... and proud of it |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3042
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 23:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
I am not sure if you know this but there is a very wide spread and well understood argument that there is reasons why companies do not like bots at all and will squash them at any and every convience if they want to survive in the market.
Bottom Line customers vote with thier wallets, bots scare away customers, and bots follow the customers.
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
187
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 23:35:00 -
[19] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Solstice Project wrote: It's not the bot that hurts the game... the man behind, he is to blame.
If only their was a way to gank them.
I know, right?
Because you can't gank in hisec, after all...
Think of me as the Jester to your King Lear: Because annoying you is more fun than politicking with you. Because your predictable outrage makes you even more fun to play with. Because forum PvP = best PvP. Come to me, little puppet! |
Glarealot
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 01:34:00 -
[20] - Quote
Richard Kyanka wrote:Wasn't Paypal recently removed as an option to pay subscriptions? Wasn't that yet one more positive move to remove anonymity?
When recently? I used paypal in the past 5 days or so to pay for a character transfer and a few weeks ago to pay for a month or two on my sub |
|
Shukuzen Kiraa
47-Ronin Outer Ring Excavations Syndicate
59
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 03:14:00 -
[21] - Quote
Problem is people think CCP can just stop every bot ever from botting ever again. EVERY MMO has bot problems. |
Stonecrusher Mortlock
University of Caille Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 05:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:Problem is people think CCP can just stop every bot ever from botting ever again. EVERY MMO has bot problems.
yes but ever other mmo is like
OMFG WE ARE HATE BOTS RAWR!!!!!!
CCPs like
meh yea we deal with em if we have to.
|
xarjin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 07:23:00 -
[23] - Quote
IMO legitimate multiboxing is not botting if the player is in full control of multiple game clients.
There are several hundred multiboxer's that do enjoy playing eve online utilizing legitimate hands on multiboxing utilizing multiboxing software such as pwnboxer, isboxer or "ghetto boxing" by controlling multiple accounts hands on.
Please do keep that in mind when passing judgment against botters who use automation tools to run accounts unattended |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 07:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
xarjin wrote:IMO legitimate multiboxing is not botting if the player is in full control of multiple game clients. There are several hundred multiboxer's that do enjoy playing eve online utilizing legitimate hands on multiboxing utilizing multiboxing software such as pwnboxer, isboxer or "ghetto boxing" by controlling multiple accounts hands on. Yes, we all know the story of the person who runs incursions with his 18 Apocalyse, 5 Basilisk and 1 Drake team. By himself.
He joined one of the unending gatecamps, and it was hilarious. Pity nothing major came though. Our rifter fleet suddenly turned into half rifter, half battleship. |
xarjin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 07:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
Just wanted to add a link and quote for historical reference
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1291641
Quote:Senior GM Lelouch verified that software and hardware multiboxing is indeed legal in Eve in this forum reply to my eve-o thread:
Posted - 2010.04.23 15:51:00
Hello there,
To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.
Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).
An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!
Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.
I hope this clears up this matter.
Best regards, Senior GM Lelouch EVE Online Customer Support |
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 07:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
Preeeeetty sure Mittens is discussing how nullsec ratting bots hurt pvp since their ability to automatically warp to a safespot/PoS and log off when a hostile enters local makes them uncatchable without awoxing alts, preventing the PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets from even starting.
For once I can't entirely fault someone raised on a healthy diet of tinfoil from coming to the OP's conclusion, as even I did a double take and had to think about it when looking at that particular point. If you're not that familiar with MIttens' platform you wouldn't be able to figure out whether the CSM is arguing that nullsec bots should be left alone because they're somehow benefiting PVP or if they need extra attention to be banned because they're actively harming PVP. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 08:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
Zhade Lezte wrote:PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets Help, I am being tackled in the 4-2 belt by a Vagabond and Drake in HS-5F2 system.
I don't really know if homeland defense forms up to fight solo gankers hunting for cheap kills to improve their k/d ratio (an important statistic for all ~elite pvp~ comparisons).
|
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra Gallente Federation
90
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 08:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Zhade Lezte wrote:Preeeeetty sure Mittens is discussing how nullsec ratting bots hurt pvp since their ability to automatically warp to a safespot/PoS and log off when a hostile enters local makes them uncatchable without awoxing alts, preventing the PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets from even starting.
For once I can't entirely fault someone raised on a healthy diet of tinfoil from coming to the OP's conclusion, as even I did a double take and had to think about it when looking at that particular point. If you're not that familiar with MIttens' platform you wouldn't be able to figure out whether the CSM is arguing that nullsec bots should be left alone because they're somehow benefiting PVP or if they need extra attention to be banned because they're actively harming PVP.
Preeeety sure Mittens is working very hard to secure as much of a null sec monopoly as he can. Preeeety sure he doesn't give a rip about what it does to the game either. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1325
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 09:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
Hainnz wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:ILikeMarkets wrote:Bots pay subscription and/or buy up PLEX from the market, keeping PLEX prices nice and high. CCP benefits from both. ... Actually if bots increase PLEX prices, that is worse for CCP. 3 PLEX cost more than a 3 month sub (most popular sub choice). Lower PLEX cost would mean more people using it instead of subbing through CC which would mean more money for CCP. That is if bots lead to an increase in PLEX prices. I don't have data to comment on that bit. But PLEX enter the market because people want to sell them for ISK. I wouldn't buy a PLEX and sell one if they sold for 100m ISK. I would seriously think about it if they sold for 1b ISK.
true that is the side of seller..
former is an side of buyer..
thats how market works... If seller chose price too high ... buyer will not buy it.. therefore seller got nothing in return .. and buyers will have to go for subscription.
Just to add something... Players doing repetitive actions/ sitting infront of computer / clicking / again and again .. Learn to play = become bot, no thought included, you memorized everything you doing it automatically.. Include PvP. you know what to do at any encounter, you dont come up with some awesome tactics while in engamenet, you learn from loses, and afterwards you know exactly what to do .. YOU ARE BOT. WE ARE BOTS. |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
1326
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 09:55:00 -
[30] - Quote
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:Problem is people think CCP can just stop every bot ever from botting ever again. EVERY MMO has bot problems. yes but ever other mmo is like OMFG WE ARE HATE BOTS RAWR!!!!!! CCPs like meh yea we deal with em if we have to. Well, yes. That has an obvious reason too.
CCP is being more honest about it, while the others just say what people want to hear.
There is NO need to scream around "WE HATE BOTS" and whatever, because it doesn't change anything. Believing that screaming "WE HATE BOTS" changes anything towards the bots ... makes you a good target for every politician. :) Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
|
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 10:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Zhade Lezte wrote:PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets Help, I am being tackled in the 4-2 belt by a Vagabond and Drake in HS-5F2 system. I don't really know if homeland defense forms up to fight solo gankers hunting for cheap kills to improve their k/d ratio (an important statistic for all ~elite pvp~ comparisons).
I can't handle all this helpful detail in your intel report, did you mean to just say "Halp, I'm tackled in ~the belt~"?
Most people would just try to avoid a single solo ganker and deny them kills, especially if they're cloaky. But if you get more non-bots you get more gankable targets, which means more solo gankers or gankers in small groups in the area, which gives targets for small homeland defense gangs, which give targets for larger roaming gangs...which gives targets for larger homeland defense gangs...
You're right that nullsec pvp has almost entirely been large gangs forming up to face each other for ~gudfites~, and certainly that will continue in the future, but that has been in many ways due to how stagnant nullsec was (and sort of still is, since CCP wasn't able to implement all of what they wanted to do to improve nullsec in crucible), especially right after the anom nerf when there was pretty much no reason to be out there when you could just run missions in empire. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
379
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 15:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
Quote:CCP Sreegs assured the CSM that botting/RMT'ing is still being handled with the same frequency as it has been in the past, and in fact there is no significant increase (or decrease) in the frequency of bots.
Going to have to translate this for you guys since you're not quite on point with what is being indicated.
Translation: "We're able to regularly detect bots. Since we can distinguish between approved/non-approved bots we're able to control the frequency."
Quote: CCP Sreegs did not dismiss the notion of prioritization of one bot over another, but he and CCP Unifex cautioned that relying on anecdotal data was dangerous. To properly prioritize bot-hunting, they argued, it would be necessary to better quantify the effect of various bots.
Translation: "Absolutely we prioritize. If you're a bot in a big CCP approved null alliance then you have priority over everyone else. We can't rely on data from users indicating that someone is active 23/7 doing the same things all that time as proof since it doesn't distinguish between approved/non-approved bots. So, we need to quantify the amount of revenue a RMT cartel generates for CCP in order to determine if they should be hunted or not."
From Sreegs comments seem to indicate an "acceptable" relationship. I've embellished Sreegs comments with my "translations" but, can you really not see that those comments might indicate a profit motive between CCP and RMT'ers? Given the damage that illicit RMT has on GTC, Plex, Aurum, Character sales, etc, which vastly out compete subscriptions in profitability, why then is CCP indicating an acceptance of botting if it's not directly benefiting financially from RMT activity? I can't see any reason other than they are profiteering from it. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
916
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 15:55:00 -
[33] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Quote:CCP Sreegs assured the CSM that botting/Remitting is still being handled with the same frequency as it has been in the past, and in fact there is no significant increase (or decrease) in the frequency of bots. Going to have to translate this for you guys since you're not quite on point with what is being indicated. Translation: "We're able to regularly detect bots. Since we can distinguish between approved/non-approved bots we're able to control the frequency." Quote: CCP Sreegs did not dismiss the notion of prioritization of one bot over another, but he and CCP Unifex cautioned that relying on anecdotal data was dangerous. To properly prioritize bot-hunting, they argued, it would be necessary to better quantify the effect of various bots. Translation: "Absolutely we prioritize. If you're a bot in a big CCP approved null alliance then you have priority over everyone else. We can't rely on data from users indicating that someone is active 23/7 doing the same things all that time as proof since it doesn't distinguish between approved/non-approved bots. So, we need to quantify the amount of revenue a RMT cartel generates for CCP in order to determine if they should be hunted or not." From Sreegs comments seem to indicate an "acceptable" relationship. I've embellished Sreegs comments with my "translations" but, can you really not see that those comments might indicate a profit motive between CCP and RMT'ers? Given the damage that illicit RMT has on GTC, Plex, Aurum, Character sales, etc, which vastly out compete subscriptions in profitability, why then is CCP indicating an acceptance of botting if it's not directly benefiting financially from RMT activity? I can't see any reason other than they are profiteering from it.
Wow, quite a stretch.
Currently they do not prioritize one TYPE of bot over another, they hunt them equally as the tools to detect various bots (and new variations on existing bots) become available.
While they might consider prioritizing one type in the future, such a decision would have to be based on hard data that the bot prioritized is more prevalent/harmful than others are.
There are several varieties of bots available each for missions (courier and/or combat), mining, and ratting... and they operate (and are detectable) by a variety of different means.
All this means is that CCP is not going on an unholy rage crusade against one type of bot in preference to all others at this time, but won't rule out the possibility if the data shows that it is necessary. Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:01:00 -
[34] - Quote
Pavel Bidermann wrote:Preeeety sure Mittens is working very hard to secure as much of a null sec monopoly as he can. Preeeety sure he doesn't give a rip about what it does to the game either. There's used to be some big alliance or something that had something resembling a null sec hegemony.
Zhade Lezte wrote: I can't handle all this helpful detail in your intel report, did you mean to just say "Halp, I'm tackled in ~the belt~"?
Which belt?
Zhade Lezte wrote:You're right that nullsec pvp has almost entirely been large gangs forming up to face each other for ~gudfites~, and certainly that will continue in the future, but that has been in many ways due to how stagnant nullsec was (and sort of still is, since CCP wasn't able to implement all of what they wanted to do to improve nullsec in crucible), especially right after the anom nerf when there was pretty much no reason to be out there when you could just run missions in empire. Yeah, it gets annoying sometimes. It feels like roams can turn into roving gatecamps, usually one encounters a few people by surprise.
Seems most of the ~gudfites~ appear at POS shoots.
|
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:05:00 -
[35] - Quote
Once you have an opening to insert code, code will be inserted. If CCP didn't want code inserted, there wouldn't be an opening. Since there IS an opening, obviously CCP wants it there. Once it's there, controlling the KIND of code inserted is like shoveling smoke with a pitchfork in the wind. One can assume CCP isn't bothering, and won't bother with it.
Putting up warnings of Don't insert code for this (or that) purpose is designed to create the impression they are against certain types of code. However, if they were, they'd close the opening, something they'll never do. So, one can safely assume, for whatever reasons CCP will never admit to, CCP wants the code in there.
Their actions are so purely indicting on this subject, it's not really a Sherlock Holmes mystery to be unraveled, and will avail nothing if "proved" using deductive logic. We know. They know. Given CCP's penchant for creating false impressions to mollify those they deem "uncool" or "unsophisticated" in their thinking, it's hardly a surprise they'd claim an all out effort to stop botting, but all the while botting increases.
Introducing PLEX into the game sort of speaks for itself. Ultimately, it's going to be the kind of sandbox CCP wants it to be. They're not known for significantly changing their minds. Even with the last uproar, they didn't really roll much back - just ship spinning. All the rest was more "trust us"...which anyone with any sense understands to mean, "Trust us to not be worthy of trust." Which they aren't.
The only thing I trust CCP to do is deduct from my credit card account once a month. They seem to be quite effiicient at that.
Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold. |
Aquila Draco
107
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:12:00 -
[36] - Quote
look at old forum. there is on first page of GD thread about botting that was going on for months and months... and thats not only thread about that problem.
that all tell us that CCP dont give a **** about actual players... only about money. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
122
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP needs to make mining a valid afk way to make isk in eve and thus avoid the bots, kinda like the sitting semi afk in a badger with one mining laser while you are at work, only without the grey area of what afk is when doing such long slow tasks.
Im sure if mining was more automated so that one guy could run 10 accounts all day without hassle they would and not need to use illegal botting software etc.
Mining is super duper boring, its absolutly no supprise that in some cases players feel its okay to break the rules to do it.
Im one of the lucky ones who makes the isk i need to play wihtout having to do too much boring monotonous grinding, so naturally i dont care all too much about miners or mining - i did my time when i first started and id never consider doing it again, no matter HOW easy it was, even if it was extremly automated or even profitable for the time. |
Amber Katelo
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 17:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
Lyrrashae wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Solstice Project wrote: It's not the bot that hurts the game... the man behind, he is to blame.
If only their was a way to gank them. I know, right? Because you can't gank in hisec, after all... Ganking in realsec is generally frowned upon. |
Iskawa Zebrut
Smoke to Train - Train to Smoke
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:47:00 -
[39] - Quote
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:While two-factor identification would be effective, Sreegs noted that the EVE player base would be reluctant to give more information to CCP than required, and such his solution is simply e-mail verification. I'd be willing to provide CCP with a meaningful second factor, and I'm about the most ******* paranoid son of a ***** you'll find for miles. |
Alara IonStorm
1517
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:50:00 -
[40] - Quote
Amber Katelo wrote: Ganking in realsec is generally frowned upon.
Yes but Concord is not as fast at responding.
|
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1004
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 19:52:00 -
[41] - Quote
Read the title...skipped the post.
Answer to the title? Money
/thread EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Hainnz
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 21:01:00 -
[42] - Quote
Quote:With this notion in mind, Sreegs explained how he plans to handle what he believes to be a pressing problem with Eve-related security - identity authentication, or IDAuth. IDAuth, simply put, is CCP knowing who owns an account within EVE. While two-factor identification would be effective, Sreegs noted that the EVE player base would be reluctant to give more information to CCP than required, and such his solution is simply e-mail verification.
How do they figure that I wonder? They have my email, name, birthdate, credit card information at least. Pretty sure they have my home address and phone number too.
I would love to have a security token or smartphone app for 2factor authentication. |
Stonecrusher Mortlock
University of Caille Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 00:27:00 -
[43] - Quote
i kinda want to know how WOULD ccp go about identifying people that play eve, i mean how could CCP go about finding a way to make sure your not lieing about who you are when you make a new account?
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises Unprovoked Aggression
219
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 00:56:00 -
[44] - Quote
Option to Opt-In to give CCP my phone number so that if my password is ever changed, or my account accessed from outside of my regular ISP/country, that an automated phone call is required (similar in the way CraigsList did their phone confirmations)
Player-specified limit on monetary transactions. IE: I can specify 2b at most to be transfered in any one day. Any attempts on any of my characters to transfer more then 2b would require phone auth.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |