Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Ptraci
StoneWall Metals Productions Bloodbound.
372
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 05:54:00 -
[211] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Over the past year I have seen one hulk in dek and it died.
Then you should pettition the decay rate for the industry levels over there then, cos they sure aren't decaying all that fast in systems like 5S-KXA and a whole bunch of other Industry 4, 3 and 2 systems that I won't bother mentioning. You need what, 12 million m3/24h to prevent an indy 5 from decaying, and 6 million m3 for an indy 4? Twice that amount for ice.
Yah, no miners in goon space. Your fart stinks. |
Jita Alt666
941
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 06:24:00 -
[212] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Over the past year I have seen one hulk in dek and it died.
Then you should pettition the decay rate for the industry levels over there then, cos they sure aren't decaying all that fast in systems like 5S-KXA and a whole bunch of other Industry 4, 3 and 2 systems that I won't bother mentioning. You need what, 12 million m3/24h to prevent an indy 5 from decaying, and 6 million m3 for an indy 4? Twice that amount for ice. Yah, no miners in goon space. Your fart stinks.
I think you may be both right. Don't goons mine in rifters?
|
Solinuas
Beyond Evil and Good
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 06:56:00 -
[213] - Quote
No, they fly to moons in specially modified titans, right click, and then scoop the moon to cargohold |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 07:40:00 -
[214] - Quote
Do PI and moon mining count for industry? We do a lot of those. Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1662
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:13:00 -
[215] - Quote
More reason to make supercaps industrial ships!!!111 (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:44:00 -
[216] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Over the past year I have seen one hulk in dek and it died.
Then you should pettition the decay rate for the industry levels over there then, cos they sure aren't decaying all that fast in systems like 5S-KXA and a whole bunch of other Industry 4, 3 and 2 systems that I won't bother mentioning. You need what, 12 million m3/24h to prevent an indy 5 from decaying, and 6 million m3 for an indy 4? Twice that amount for ice. Yah, no miners in goon space. Your fart stinks.
Sweet, I'm gonna fly over there and find out who I can ridicule mercilessly. Also now maybe I'll have a use for that Tormentor BPO I bought accidentally (don't shop drunk, kids).
EDIT: Oh, you didn't say it was a WIDOT system. :cripes: Nobody cares what WIDOT does. Thanks for wasting my time. |
Tarikan
Fusion Death Inc. Eternal Evocations
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:04:00 -
[217] - Quote
Happy days! bots are gone!
the tears and cry outs of how they plan to bring CCP down through legal actions is hilarious. Ekids Etears are everywhere. |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:48:00 -
[218] - Quote
Johnny Marzetti wrote:Ptraci wrote:[quote=baltec1]
Over the past year I have seen one hulk in dek and it died. .
I'm late joining this thread but I would like to add teh following:
1) If I click on systems in DotLan (especially deep in null-sec where they don't get reported by players) that have about 3000 kills per day and are not on the main routes through a given region then I'm still seeing a lot of "square wave" pattern to ratting (only pauses at DT) although few or no jumps in or out of the system are made in a 24 hour period. So yeah, maybe some bots have been eliminated but I personally still don't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet. Maybe the work has begun--maybe it's even a good start--but it's only a start. I've been playing long enough to know that I should only applaud "anti botting" initiatives once I see *real* proof of a lasting effect.... and I don't see it yet.
2) banning bots once in a while like cleaning your house once a year. It feels good the day you did it but the rest of the year it's still a mess. What is needed is software to identify "suspected" bots and flag them for review so someone at CCP can follow up on it. It needs to be an ongoing process and the only thing that's going to help in the long term is *continuous* and "concerted* effort on the part of CCP to be proactive and stay ahead of the curve. The reactive method of responding to reported bots (not sure if this is changing) is naive and utterly ineffective. You simply can't keep your house clean by sweeping the floor once a year and even more so when you lay back and wait for other people to point out that it's dirty.
3) I believe that CCP can do a LOT to put alliances under pressure to fight botting at the player level too. It might seem unfair to make some players responsible for the actions of other players but botting affects everyone and often times bots can go about their business with the knowledge (and even support) of "accomplices" who *do* share some of the responsibility and who are not held responsible for their actions (or lack thereof).
This has to end. As far as I know CCP still uses the "three strike" method for banning bots.... well this has to include people who support the bot by ignoring/supporting it. After strike 1 If a bot is identified then corp leaders of the affected corp need to be informed about the bot and the names of all in-corp characters associated to the bot. At this point there are no consequences for corp but corp is made "owner" of the problem to some extent.
At strike 2 if corp has done nothing to take ownership of "their" problem they are "fined" a given amount of isk (maybe what the bot makes in a day, which is often +/- 4-6 billion isk) and at strike 3 all corp assets are seized and the character (and alts) are forcefully removed from corp. Remember, corp leaders had 3 chances to follow up on this and did nothing before we get to this point.
Same can hold true for alliances. At strike 1 alliance leaders are informed of the name of the corp who had their bot banned. At strike 2 the alliance is fined (maybe 5x what the bot makes in a day (ie. +/- 30 billion isk) and at strike 3 the system where the bot was active is forcefully stripped of sov. The TCU and IHUB are simply deleted and any sov dependent production in process in that system will simply stop.
4) I believe some retroactive action is needed. I submit that at least 1/2 of the titans and God knows how many super-caps in the game were built and/or financed with the help of bots. And just like in RL terrorist networks have their money streams analysed and disrupted, I believe that in cases where corps/alliances can be *proven* to have used bots to build their supercapital fleet need to get a visit from CCP and be asked to pay *again* for the cost of that ship. If they can't (or won't) then the ship gets deleted.
As an "honest" player in this game it only seems reasonable to me that not only botting but the "fruits of botting" are banned.
T- |
Lady Spink
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:48:00 -
[219] - Quote
it seems everybody is very positive about the Bot removals.
There are some downsides:
-- No more ez ganking (from now on, only non botters will be killed. they will cry and quit) -- toons that can not be transferred within the CCP environment will now be sold on the black market. ccp will loose money -- when the 1500 detected bots are gone. CCP has to fire about 4 people if Eve doesn't get more players. -- There will be less Capital fights (costs will go up like crazy) And huge battles is what CCP use for eve marketing. -- Most fun kills are the haulers with botted stuff. Pirates will loose interest because they will only see each others instead of those fully loaded freighters.
If I was CCP i would do this only if the server population is too high. If you would need more hardware, costs might rise.
However if CCP could measure the positive effect of banning botters (more subscriptions) all is fine of course. That is something that has to be taken into consideration. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:54:00 -
[220] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Over the past year I have seen one hulk in dek and it died.
Then you should pettition the decay rate for the industry levels over there then, cos they sure aren't decaying all that fast in systems like 5S-KXA and a whole bunch of other Industry 4, 3 and 2 systems that I won't bother mentioning. You need what, 12 million m3/24h to prevent an indy 5 from decaying, and 6 million m3 for an indy 4? Twice that amount for ice. Yah, no miners in goon space. Your fart stinks.
our miners are just a few multiboxers
we do not have alliance mining ops "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:24:00 -
[221] - Quote
Lady Spink wrote:it seems everybody is very positive about the Bot removals.
There are some downsides:
-- No more ez ganking (from now on, only non botters will be killed. they will cry and quit) -- toons that can not be transferred within the CCP environment will now be sold on the black market. ccp will loose money -- when the 1500 detected bots are gone. CCP has to fire about 4 people if Eve doesn't get more players. -- There will be less Capital fights (costs will go up like crazy) And huge battles is what CCP use for eve marketing. -- Most fun kills are the haulers with botted stuff. Pirates will loose interest because they will only see each others instead of those fully loaded freighters.
If I was CCP i would do this only if the server population is too high. If you would need more hardware, costs might rise.
However if CCP could measure the positive effect of banning botters (more subscriptions) all is fine of course. That is something that has to be taken into consideration.
Worst Poast Award. |
Aquila Draco
130
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:35:00 -
[222] - Quote
Lady Spink wrote:it seems everybody is very positive about the Bot removals.
There are some downsides:
-- No more ez ganking (from now on, only non botters will be killed. they will cry and quit) -- toons that can not be transferred within the CCP environment will now be sold on the black market. ccp will loose money -- when the 1500 detected bots are gone. CCP has to fire about 4 people if Eve doesn't get more players. -- There will be less Capital fights (costs will go up like crazy) And huge battles is what CCP use for eve marketing. -- Most fun kills are the haulers with botted stuff. Pirates will loose interest because they will only see each others instead of those fully loaded freighters.
If I was CCP i would do this only if the server population is too high. If you would need more hardware, costs might rise.
However if CCP could measure the positive effect of banning botters (more subscriptions) all is fine of course. That is something that has to be taken into consideration.
Some ppl are just mentally challenged and wants make excuse why are theirs botts good thing for EVE and everybody. |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1689
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:38:00 -
[223] - Quote
Patortechiic (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
201
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:03:00 -
[224] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote: 3) I believe that CCP can do a LOT to put alliances under pressure to fight botting at the player level too. It might seem unfair to make some players responsible for the actions of other players but botting affects everyone and often times bots can go about their business with the knowledge (and even support) of "accomplices" who *do* share some of the responsibility and who are not held responsible for their actions (or lack thereof).
This has to end. As far as I know CCP still uses the "three strike" method for banning bots.... well this has to include people who support the bot by ignoring/supporting it. After strike 1 If a bot is identified then corp leaders of the affected corp need to be informed about the bot and the names of all in-corp characters associated to the bot. At this point there are no consequences for corp but corp is made "owner" of the problem to some extent.
At strike 2 if corp has done nothing to take ownership of "their" problem they are "fined" a given amount of isk (maybe what the bot makes in a day, which is often +/- 4-6 billion isk) and at strike 3 all corp assets are seized and the character (and alts) are forcefully removed from corp. Remember, corp leaders had 3 chances to follow up on this and did nothing before we get to this point.
Same can hold true for alliances. At strike 1 alliance leaders are informed of the name of the corp who had their bot banned. At strike 2 the alliance is fined (maybe 5x what the bot makes in a day (ie. +/- 30 billion isk) and at strike 3 the system where the bot was active is forcefully stripped of sov. The TCU and IHUB are simply deleted and any sov dependent production in process in that system will simply stop.
Are you trolling or are you actually this dumb? I can't tell anymore. |
Killstealing
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
453
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:08:00 -
[225] - Quote
its eve-o so anyones guess really |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 19:38:00 -
[226] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:3) I believe that CCP can do a LOT to put alliances under pressure to fight botting at the player level too. It might seem unfair to make some players responsible for the actions of other players but botting affects everyone and often times bots can go about their business with the knowledge (and even support) of "accomplices" who *do* share some of the responsibility and who are not held responsible for their actions (or lack thereof).
This has to end. As far as I know CCP still uses the "three strike" method for banning bots.... well this has to include people who support the bot by ignoring/supporting it. After strike 1 If a bot is identified then corp leaders of the affected corp need to be informed about the bot and the names of all in-corp characters associated to the bot. At this point there are no consequences for corp but corp is made "owner" of the problem to some extent.
At strike 2 if corp has done nothing to take ownership of "their" problem they are "fined" a given amount of isk (maybe what the bot makes in a day, which is often +/- 4-6 billion isk) and at strike 3 all corp assets are seized and the character (and alts) are forcefully removed from corp. Remember, corp leaders had 3 chances to follow up on this and did nothing before we get to this point.
Same can hold true for alliances. At strike 1 alliance leaders are informed of the name of the corp who had their bot banned. At strike 2 the alliance is fined (maybe 5x what the bot makes in a day (ie. +/- 30 billion isk) and at strike 3 the system where the bot was active is forcefully stripped of sov. The TCU and IHUB are simply deleted and any sov dependent production in process in that system will simply stop.
People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1394
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:08:00 -
[227] - Quote
Andski wrote:People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.
Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:12:00 -
[228] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Andski wrote:People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else. Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules.
I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:12:00 -
[229] - Quote
Andski wrote: People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.
Also, the corp will just kick those members out on the first strike, and if the corp is actually complicit in the botting it'll let them rejoin with alts and feign ignorance, and even if it's not complicit, they could still rejoin with alts easily enough in a large and/or actively recruiting corp.
Also, what are CEOs supposed to do about botting? CEOs can't (and shouldn't have to) observe the behavior of corp members all the time. And even if they were aware of it, what would they do besides kick the botters, in which case see the above.
Also, it's pretty stupid to assume every corp with botters knows they have botters. There are corporations with thousands of members, and given the prevalence of botting in Eve, any corp larger than a couple hundred probably has at least a few botters despite the corp's absolute best intentions.
The best way to get rid of botters is to ban botters. The best way to get rid of botting is to get rid of repetitive activities that generate isk. Neither of these is the problem of the playerbase.
|
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1394
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:18:00 -
[230] - Quote
Andski wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Andski wrote:People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules. I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay.
I have no idea why you're actually too dumb to understand that people exist who enjoy enforcing the rules of any authority, just to **** other people over.
Like ... for example ... policemen in the US. Or the TSA. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:21:00 -
[231] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Andski wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Andski wrote:People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules. I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay. I have no idea why you're actually too dumb to understand that people exist who enjoy enforcing the rules of any authority, just to **** other people over. Like ... for example ... policemen in the US. Or the TSA.
The difference is that policemen and TSA agents don't pay for the privilege - that transaction goes the other way, moron. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:23:00 -
[232] - Quote
Elanor Vega wrote:Shandir wrote:MadMuppet wrote: From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account.
So if someone got their account banned last year they can still transfer their characters? As bad as bots are, it's not a good precedent for CCP to change their terms and then retroactively apply punishments based on them, so yes, any botters who got caught once before, have not yet transferred their characters, and have not been caught again - should be allowed to transfer their characters. If they're bad again, they'll get caught and punished like everyone else. LOL... XD You know... if someone killed person before you cant judge him untill he kills again... Funny little botters that now have locked toons and cant sell them.
They should not make the ban in transfer retroactive because the retroactive activation will hurt people who innocently bought a previously banned or warned pilot and will suffer. Forward looking is great but someone who had extra iskies and bought a botted pilot should not be punished in the same manner botters themselves are punished. Sure some bot accounts can transfer but that pool will now start evaporating.
|
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1394
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:23:00 -
[233] - Quote
Andski wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Andski wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Andski wrote:People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules. I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay. I have no idea why you're actually too dumb to understand that people exist who enjoy enforcing the rules of any authority, just to **** other people over. Like ... for example ... policemen in the US. Or the TSA. The difference is that policemen and TSA agents don't pay for the privilege - that transaction goes the other way, moron.
That's like saying that nobody would ever pay for a game where he has the legal opportunity to grief others. Very smart argument there... Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:23:00 -
[234] - Quote
oh and you didn't bother reading the post I quoted to put it into context
solstice project ladies and gentlemen "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:27:00 -
[235] - Quote
Buruk Utama wrote:They should not make the ban in transfer retroactive because the retroactive activation will hurt people who innocently bought a previously banned or warned pilot and will suffer. Forward looking is great but someone who had extra iskies and bought a botted pilot should not be punished in the same manner botters themselves are punished. Sure some bot accounts can transfer but that pool will now start evaporating.
Warnings follow accounts, not characters. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1394
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:28:00 -
[236] - Quote
Andski wrote:oh and you didn't bother reading the post I quoted to put it into context
solstice project ladies and gentlemen
Yeah, i didn't. :D I just picked that line because it was the easiest to respond to. :D
That and ... there's nothing else to do right now. :D
Will you stop responding now? :( Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:29:00 -
[237] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Yeah, i didn't. :D I just picked that line because it was the easiest to respond to. :D
That and ... there's nothing else to do right now. :D
Will you stop responding now? :(
the folly of the typical eve-o poster "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 22:00:00 -
[238] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Over the past year I have seen one hulk in dek and it died.
Then you should pettition the decay rate for the industry levels over there then, cos they sure aren't decaying all that fast in systems like 5S-KXA and a whole bunch of other Industry 4, 3 and 2 systems that I won't bother mentioning. You need what, 12 million m3/24h to prevent an indy 5 from decaying, and 6 million m3 for an indy 4? Twice that amount for ice. Yah, no miners in goon space. Your fart stinks.
Okay, so I got home and logged in to Eve (I know, I know, but it's too late, I already did) and guess what "a whole bunch of industry 4, 3, and 2 systems" in Deklein means to this ******** pubbie?
It means one industry 4, two industry 3s, and three industry 2s. Out of 68 systems in Deklein. All the rest are 0. No wonder he wouldn't "bother" mentioning them.
My fart is like a mountain breeze.
|
You're Mum
1st. Pariah Malefactor corp.
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 01:19:00 -
[239] - Quote
Lady Spink wrote:it seems everybody is very positive about the Bot removals.
There are some downsides:
-- No more ez ganking (from now on, only non botters will be killed. they will cry and quit) -- toons that can not be transferred within the CCP environment will now be sold on the black market. ccp will loose money -- when the 1500 detected bots are gone. CCP has to fire about 4 people if Eve doesn't get more players. -- There will be less Capital fights (costs will go up like crazy) And huge battles is what CCP use for eve marketing. -- Most fun kills are the haulers with botted stuff. Pirates will loose interest because they will only see each others instead of those fully loaded freighters.
If I was CCP i would do this only if the server population is too high. If you would need more hardware, costs might rise.
However if CCP could measure the positive effect of banning botters (more subscriptions) all is fine of course. That is something that has to be taken into consideration.
how do you down vote on this stupid web site? Please read what you have just written and go away and think about what you have said.... your a mong |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 01:50:00 -
[240] - Quote
Andski wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Andski wrote:People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else. Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules. I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay.
Dude, he's talking about gankers. Career gankers. The sort of gankers who have resources to butt **** anyone they think is violating the rules of the game day in and day out. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |