Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 13:55:00 -
[241] - 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.
I know this but bots seldom go about their business without accomplices either actively helping them turning a blind eye.
You know as well as I do that most of Shadow's titans were either built using minerals from bots or used to "white wash" RMT ISK and you know as well as I do that every dead-end system in Deklein was botted to hell for a long time (some still are) and that the money isn't just locked up in wallets. It negatively affects the game and corps and alliances DO benefit from this because they can have essentially unlimited resources.
The idea behind that suggestion isn't to hold players responsible for the actions of other players so much as holding accomplices responsible. Punshing a corp or alliance is not punishing individual players, it's simply taking back some of the isk that was generated by botting (probably with their knowledge and/or help).
Maybe it isn't a good idea, but the underlying intention of doing something not only about botters but the "fruits" of botting is valid, I believe.
T- |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2286
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 14:08:00 -
[242] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum 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.
I know this but bots seldom go about their business without accomplices either actively helping them turning a blind eye. You know as well as I do that most of Shadow's titans were either built using minerals from bots or used to "white wash" RMT ISK and you know as well as I do that every dead-end system in Deklein was botted to hell for a long time (some still are) and that the money isn't just locked up in wallets. It negatively affects the game and corps and alliances DO benefit from this because they can have essentially unlimited resources. The idea behind that suggestion isn't to hold players responsible for the actions of other players so much as holding accomplices responsible. Punshing a corp or alliance is not punishing individual players, it's simply taking back some of the isk that was generated by botting (probably with their knowledge and/or help).
The idea behind your suggestion is to place an undue burden on alliance/corp leadership. CCP Sreegs and his security team have the tools and expertise to enforce the rules - alliance directors do not. You're pretending to understand 0.0 politics (Shadow's titans? What?) and you seem to think that there is a cabal of botters in every alliance that includes alliance leadership for some reason. Guess what, our alliance doesn't come close to being funded by rat bounties - it's funded by moons.
Tinu Moorhsum wrote: I did notice that all three of the people who objected to this idea were Goons. That's not a big surprise to me, tbh.
T-
The responsibility to enforce CCP's rules tends to come with a paycheck, not a bill. I realize this is a difficult concept to understand. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 14:53:00 -
[243] - Quote
Andski wrote: The responsibility to enforce CCP's rules tends to come with a paycheck, not a bill. I realize this is a difficult concept to understand.
I understand that just fine. What i don't like, and the point I'm trying make is that botting affects everyone, not just the person doing it, and I believe (actually, I'm sure) that alliance leaders have a pretty good idea of who is botting on a large scale.
I would be willing to bet that most of the renters in places like Spire are there to bot and that not only do Shadow leaders know about it, they probably openly negotiate with botters to put them in systems that suit their needs. The botters bot away and Shadow gets, what is it these days? about 15-20bil isk per month per system out there.... which they subsequently use to do nice things like hire PL to fight for them.
And yes, a lot of isk is generated by tech moons. But it isn't the only source of large amounts of isk. Renting is HUGE and provides alliances with pretty much unlimited isk for zero effort.
That isn't to say that all renters are there to bot but you're very naive to think that it doesn't happen on a large scale and that alliances don't know what their renters are up to,
.... and, repeating the point again .... since alliances use that "dirty" isk for game changing play (ie. steamrolling) then why shouldn't they be held responsible? At the moment, they just laugh at CCP and every honest player in this game has to deal with the consequences.
I dont think that's right.
T- |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 15:17:00 -
[244] - Quote
While I'm at it, I would also like to submit that not all bots are bad for EVE.
When it's bad is when botting for RMT allows players who can afford it to buy expensive items with real $$$. That disadvantages everyone who can't.
It's also bad (as explained above) when alliances use botting (whether doing themselves or delegating it via renters) for game changing play.
However, some bots actually help the game. Players macro-mining in high-sec, for example, produce HUGE amounts of minerals and ensure an oversupply, which keeps the prices of minerals down. Those bots generate isk for their owners but much of that isk just stays locked up in a wallet and isn't used for RMT or for financing fuly reimbursable titan blobs.
There is no renting in high-sec and therefore the problem remains limited because the isk generated will remain, for the most part, locked up in the wallets of a few players. So if CCP succeeds in eliminating all high-sec macro miners then it *will* hurt the game by creating inflation in the mineral market and therefore everything will become more expensive.
In fact, weeding out high-sec macro-miners will have another nasty side effect, which is will be to hand control of the mineral markets over to the drone Russians, who (at least if they're smart) will start to act like OPEC and decide for us how much we will pay for Tritanium.... at least until the price of minerals gets so high that people stop running incursions in high-sec to go mining.
T- |
Aquila Draco
131
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 15:23:00 -
[245] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:While I'm at it, I would also like to submit that not all bots are bad for EVE.
When it's bad is when botting for RMT allows players who can afford it to buy expensive items with real $$$. That disadvantages everyone who can't.
It's also bad (as explained above) when alliances use botting (whether doing themselves or delegating it via renters) for game changing play.
However, some bots actually help the game. Players macro-mining in high-sec, for example, produce HUGE amounts of minerals and ensure an oversupply, which keeps the prices of minerals down. Those bots generate isk for their owners but much of that isk just stays locked up in a wallet and isn't used for RMT or for financing fuly reimbursable titan blobs.
There is no renting in high-sec and therefore the problem remains limited because the isk generated will remain, for the most part, locked up in the wallets of a few players. So if CCP succeeds in eliminating all high-sec macro miners then it *will* hurt the game by creating inflation in the mineral market and therefore everything will become more expensive.
In fact, weeding out high-sec macro-miners will have another nasty side effect, which is will be to hand control of the mineral markets over to the drone Russians, who (at least if they're smart) will start to act like OPEC and decide for us how much we will pay for Tritanium.... at least until the price of minerals gets so high that people stop running incursions in high-sec to go mining.
T-
Just shut up and **** off with your "botts are good for EVE" smalltalk. There is indy players in EVE who dont need you to tell them that making their time worthless is good for them. |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:05:00 -
[246] - Quote
Aquila Draco wrote:
Just shut up and **** off with your "botts are good for EVE" smalltalk. There is indy players in EVE who dont need you to tell them that making their time worthless is good for them.
I guess it depends on your point of view. Someone who mines and thinks only about their own needs will think that higher mineral prices are a good thing. On the whole, however, I believe that lower mineral prices are better for the stability of the economy in the big picture.
and just to be clear, I'm not saying bots are good for eve. What's really behind it is saying that an oversupply of minerals is good for eve. This could be achieved in several ways but with the small and inefficient mining ships we have right now many miners (especially in high sec) can't make much money at it. Macro mining or multi-boxing (in high sec) sort of closes the gap but the problem really is, from a player perspective, that we need more efficient mining ships. If we had that, the macros wouldn't be necessary.
T- |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
831
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:48:00 -
[247] - Quote
Raivi wrote:Just gonna leave this here. Props to Aurora and his anonymous tipster for the forum ****. http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?5791-pre-fanfest-macro-purgeMy favourite: Quote:yeah it does suck when u pile money into a game and the makers can take it away just like that, replace CCP with bankers and u got the current world situation atm, they basically own everything and can do what the **** they want! CCP is literally Goldman Sachs itt
Houlala CCP you own me a new pair of Jeans (Diesel only, I don't use gay stuff)
Jesus, just jeezed my pants |
Valei Khurelem
395
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:52:00 -
[248] - Quote
Quote:
Houlala CCP you own me a new pair of Jeans (Diesel only, I don't use gay stuff)
Jesus, just jeezed my pants
Looks like you'll need to shell out $1000 for a new pair herp derpa derp! :p
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
831
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:53:00 -
[249] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Aquila Draco wrote:
Just shut up and **** off with your "botts are good for EVE" smalltalk. There is indy players in EVE who dont need you to tell them that making their time worthless is good for them.
I guess it depends on your point of view. Someone who mines and thinks only about their own needs will think that higher mineral prices are a good thing. On the whole, however, I believe that lower mineral prices are better for the stability of the economy in the big picture. and just to be clear, I'm not saying bots are good for eve. What's really behind it is saying that an oversupply of minerals is good for eve. This could be achieved in several ways but with the small and inefficient mining ships we have right now many miners (especially in high sec) can't make much money at it. Macro mining or multi-boxing (in high sec) sort of closes the gap but the problem really is, from a player perspective, that we need more efficient mining ships. If we had that, the macros wouldn't be necessary. T-
Malcanis law:
Moon goo?
Poco's?
Minerals?
The list can continue but as long as Malcanis law can be applied you should know where to look at if something goes wrong. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2286
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:23:00 -
[250] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Andski wrote: The responsibility to enforce CCP's rules tends to come with a paycheck, not a bill. I realize this is a difficult concept to understand.
I understand that just fine. What i don't like, and the point I'm trying make is that botting affects everyone, not just the person doing it, and I believe (actually, I'm sure) that alliance leaders have a pretty good idea of who is botting on a large scale. I would be willing to bet that most of the renters in places like Spire are there to bot and that not only do Shadow leaders know about it, they probably openly negotiate with botters to put them in systems that suit their needs. The botters bot away and Shadow gets, what is it these days? about 15-20bil isk per month per system out there.... which they subsequently use to do nice things like hire PL to fight for them. And yes, a lot of isk is generated by tech moons. But it isn't the only source of large amounts of isk. Renting is HUGE and provides alliances with pretty much unlimited isk for zero effort. That isn't to say that all renters are there to bot but you're very naive to think that it doesn't happen on a large scale and that alliances don't know what their renters are up to, .... and, repeating the point again .... since alliances use that "dirty" isk for game changing play (ie. steamrolling) then why shouldn't they be held responsible? At the moment, they just laugh at CCP and every honest player in this game has to deal with the consequences. I dont think that's right. T-
You understand that Shadow of Death ARE renters, right? Don't back up your dumb ideas with the terrible assumptions you make from looking at sov maps. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:24:00 -
[251] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Aquila Draco wrote:
Just shut up and **** off with your "botts are good for EVE" smalltalk. There is indy players in EVE who dont need you to tell them that making their time worthless is good for them.
I guess it depends on your point of view. Someone who mines and thinks only about their own needs will think that higher mineral prices are a good thing. On the whole, however, I believe that lower mineral prices are better for the stability of the economy in the big picture. and just to be clear, I'm not saying bots are good for eve. What's really behind it is saying that an oversupply of minerals is good for eve. This could be achieved in several ways but with the small and inefficient mining ships we have right now many miners (especially in high sec) can't make much money at it. Macro mining or multi-boxing (in high sec) sort of closes the gap but the problem really is, from a player perspective, that we need more efficient mining ships. If we had that, the macros wouldn't be necessary. T-
No. As a professional miner myself, I challenge that notion. Bots were never good for Eve and never will be. This is not based on personal opinion but rather on an economic fact. Let me elaborate.
- When mining bots are allowed to flourish, the mineral flood the market and prices go down.
- As mineral prices drop, the mining profession becomes less profitable and therefore the bots need to mine more to compensate.
- When more minerals flood the market as a result of such compensation, the mineral prices drop even further. At this point, the mining profession becomes not just less profitable but also becomes a profession in which miners are regarded as less than dirt.
- In response, some miners such as myself have taken a stand by watching, analyzing, reporting, and punishing bot users whichever way we can. At the same time, bots have encouraged players to take even more drastic measures by attacking any miner they see in their system or region of space regardless if the miner is a bot or not.
Therefore, bots are responsible for all of the mayhem that legitimate miners had to suffer. Not only have our profits suffered, but so have our assets in terms of ship loses and hazing. And don't me that 'prices-will-go-out-of-control' crap because there is an economic reason in which that will never happen. It's all based on the laws of economics.
- If bots are completely wiped out (or at least subjugated as much as possible), the mineral prices will climb.
- As mineral prices climb, those who have kept stock piles of minerals in their hangars will dump them into the market to cash in on the price spike.
- As more ships are destroyed during wardecs, null-sec battles, suicide gankings, incursion griefings, etc. then the high demand for minerals remain.
- As the mineral prices rise again after the initial dump of minerals runs out, the mining profession begins to look more profitable and favorable to players.
- As more players flock to mine for the favorable profit, the mineral market will re-stabilize as the prices go down once again due to the new influx of minerals into the market.
Even if the price of tritanium were to rise to 5 ISK/unit, which it already has, then the profits in ISK/hr could be comparable to the hourly profits found in L2 missions. If the price of tritanium were to hit 10 ISK/unit, then mining will effectively compete with L4 missions on a ISK/hr basis. Of course, this will be short lived as missioners begin to flock to mining for the profit and re-flood the mineral market.
As you can see, bots are not needed. Eve needing bots is only a fallacy setup by the RMT masterminds and bot developers who are just looking for real-world profit (your cash). Only a fool would fail to understand this. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:30:00 -
[252] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote: .... and, repeating the point again .... since alliances use that "dirty" isk for game changing play (ie. steamrolling) then why shouldn't they be held responsible? At the moment, they just laugh at CCP and every honest player in this game has to deal with the consequences.
I dont think that's right.
T-
Hmm, someone who spent a couple years in an ex-IAC corp is bitter about steamrolling by large Russian alliances, I wonder what's up with that.
|
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:36:00 -
[253] - Quote
Johnny Marzetti wrote: Hmm, someone who spent a couple years in an ex-IAC corp is bitter about steamrolling by large Russian alliances, I wonder what's up with that.
LOL. Dude that was years ago. I've been blue to everyone and red to everyone in this game at some point in time.
As I said before, what I object to is alliances consciously using dirty isk for finance game play (like steamrolling that wouldn't be possible otherwise. It's bad for the game and I believe that CCP should intervene. I'm glad you've stopped trying to ridicule me for holding that opinion.
I've also been trying to point out that I believe CCP should employ in-game measures to deal with that. Alliances that do this are looking for in-game rewards and therefore I think an in-game punishment/measure is appropriate. Perhaps you have another suggestion? You're going to run out of ad hominems soon so maybe now is a good time to address the issue....
T-
|
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:46:00 -
[254] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:
If bots are completely wiped out (or at least subjugated as much as possible), the mineral prices will climb.
Yes, I agree that this will happen. But we don't agree about whether or not this is good or bad. i believe that climbing mineral prices are bad.
What I would like to see are highly efficient mining ships. Miners will mine a LOT more minerals, the prices will drop but if properly balanced we can get a win/win if prices drop (for example) by 50% but you are able to mine 3x as much of it. Miners make more money and the market stay stable.
Quote:
As mineral prices climb, those who have kept stock piles of minerals in their hangars will dump them into the market to cash in on the price spike. Cashing in on liquidating stock is not a structure solution.
Quote:
As more ships are destroyed during wardecs, null-sec battles, suicide gankings, incursion griefings, etc. then the high demand for minerals remain. As the mineral prices rise again after the initial dump of minerals runs out, the mining profession begins to look more profitable and favorable to players. As more players flock to mine for the favorable profit, the mineral market will re-stabilize as the prices go down once again due to the new influx of minerals into the market.
Yes, you're describing a change from trends to cycles. i agree that this will happen but only if the mineral supply outstrips demand by quite a lot. I think you don't understand now many bots CCP banned. What I predict is that supply will no longer meet demand and by banning bots we're going to see inflation. I'm not looking forward to that, especially since I don't clearly see that honest miners have the capacity to fill the gap.
T- |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2286
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:55:00 -
[255] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Perhaps you have another suggestion?
Yes, ban the botters and leave their alliance mates out of it. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:00:00 -
[256] - Quote
Andski wrote:Yes, ban the botters and leave their alliance mates out of it.
Just a thought - if CCP were to take a very heavy handed approach with a "guilt by association" route, would you feel members of an alliance would be prone to police their members instead of turning a potential blind eye to their fellow alliance mates' actions? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2287
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:16:00 -
[257] - Quote
Guttripper wrote:Andski wrote:Yes, ban the botters and leave their alliance mates out of it. Just a thought - if CCP were to take a very heavy handed approach with a "guilt by association" route, would you feel members of an alliance would be prone to police their members instead of turning a potential blind eye to their fellow alliance mates' actions?
The guilt by association route is absolutely idiotic because it places an undue burden on other players. I am not willing to go around Deklein, Venal and Branch looking for botters. We have lives outside of EVE. We subscribe to this game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's policies. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5198
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:27:00 -
[258] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Yes, you're describing a change from trends to cycles. i agree that this will happen but only if the mineral supply outstrips demand by quite a lot. I think you don't understand now many bots CCP banned. What I predict is that supply will no longer meet demand and by banning bots we're going to see inflation. I'm not looking forward to that, especially since I don't clearly see that honest miners have the capacity to fill the gap. They do. It has happened before and the effects wereGǪ less than spectacular. Yes, there will be swings; no most of it will be speculation; and yes, EVE most definitely have the player capacity to fill the gaps. The overproduction capacity in this game is huge, and all that is needed to activate it is an incentive (e.g. a sudden decrease in available supply leading to a jump in prices).
Also, remember that demand is just as flexible as supply. In the thoroughly unlikely event that the miners couldn't keep up with demand, demand would go down as ships became more expensive to lose and people got more careful about what they field. The more likely scenario, though, is that the high-volume builders (alliances needing fleets of caps and supercaps) will suddenly dust off that old idea of the mining opGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:48:00 -
[259] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Perhaps you have another suggestion? Yes, ban the botters and leave their alliance mates out of it.
Ok. I understand the confusion. You seem to be thinking that my proposal is to punish alliance mates if someone gets caught botting. That's not fair, obviously and it wasn't what I was trying to suggest.
A big part of the reason I suggested in-game measures against alliances comes down to this:
I'm highly skeptical with respect to CCP's ability/willingness to really deal with bots on the long term. They've promised action before and they've banned bots from time to time before as well but every time the bots come back and at least for the last couple of years they would appear to have done nothing about it. I believe the current actions are :
1) an act of desperation on CCP's part because they can see that (especially) the null sec game is suffering from the rediculous amounts of isk being generated by bots. To me this seems to point to a tacit admission that they don't know what to do about the supercapital blobs and they're looking for a way to slow the bleeding.
2) a feel-good move before fanfest
With all due respect to CCP, it's going to take more than just this last spat of banning to convince me that they're serious about sticking it out.
*IF* (and that's a big IF) they really are serious about rooting out bots AND they show signs of it being an on-going and serious endeavour then you would be right. It would be enough to just ban the bots and leave it at that.
As an aside, what it would take for me to become convinced would be to have some transparency. I would like to see numbers. How many player reports? how many "suspected" cases determined by software? How many investigated? How many 1st strike, 2nd strike and perm-bans handed out? Put it on a graph and show us the trends. If we see fewer reports and fewer "suspected" over time then we can see the CCP is doing something about it on an ongoing basis and that it's working.
T- |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2290
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:51:00 -
[260] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote: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.
"i swear this isn't about punishing their alliance mates" "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
206
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:53:00 -
[261] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The more likely scenario, though, is that the high-volume builders (alliances needing fleets of caps and supercaps) will suddenly dust off that old idea of the mining opGǪ
Let's hope it doesn't come down to that. The living will envy the dead.
|
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:59:00 -
[262] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote: As I said before, what I object to is alliances consciously using dirty isk for finance game play (like steamrolling that wouldn't be possible otherwise. It's bad for the game and I believe that CCP should intervene. I'm glad you've stopped trying to ridicule me for holding that opinion.
I've also been trying to point out that I believe CCP should employ in-game measures to deal with that. Alliances that do this are looking for in-game rewards and therefore I think an in-game punishment/measure is appropriate. Perhaps you have another suggestion? You're going to run out of ad hominems soon so maybe now is a good time to address the issue....
My "ridicule" contained a long list of points you failed to address regarding enforceability and appropriateness of your proposal.
An in-game punishment makes it an in-game mechanic and subject to in-game manipulation. For example, you could take down an alliance by infiltrating it and then botting repeatedly with those accounts. |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 20:27:00 -
[263] - Quote
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
An in-game punishment makes it an in-game mechanic and subject to in-game manipulation. For example, you could take down an alliance by infiltrating it and then botting repeatedly with those accounts.
That honestly never occurred to me. I guess it takes a Goon to have a good feeling for how game mechanics can be manipulated to do evil ;) LOL
Ok. Time for me to back off. I think I put the idea out there as well as I could I think you were right to begin with when you said that the best way to stop botting is to ban botters.
When I typed that last post it became clear to me that I was making it too complicated and the the main issue is that I don't believe in my heart that CCP can or wil stop botting. If I had that trust I wouldn't have been looking for another solution.
We will see.
T- |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5203
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 21:11:00 -
[264] - Quote
GǪalso, for the record, the effect of this mass banning is:
Monday: -4,320 PCU compared to the week before (roughly a 10% drop). Tuesday: -888 PCU compared to two weeks before (API did not provide any data for the previous week). Wednesday: +1,227 PCU compared to two weeks before (API did not provide any data for the previous week). Thursday: -487 PCU compared to the week before. Friday: -509 PCU compared to the week before. Saturday: +133 PCU compared to the week before. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
832
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 21:41:00 -
[265] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪalso, for the record, the effect of this mass banning is:
Monday: -4,320 PCU compared to the week before (roughly a 10% drop). Tuesday: -888 PCU compared to two weeks before (API did not provide any data for the previous week). Wednesday: +1,227 PCU compared to two weeks before (API did not provide any data for the previous week). Thursday: -487 PCU compared to the week before. Friday: -509 PCU compared to the week before. Saturday: +133 PCU compared to the week before.
We disagree quite often on many points of eve maybe because of some words or whatsoever, but on this I fully agree that bots are bad and the number of those caught/banned earlier is a good for the game. Game economics will be hit by this and that's good for the game, stop dumping minerals in supers/titans and put those in affordable stuff. Loose titans or supers will mean something instead of the joke that is now.
I don't think those guys will stop doing it definitively, they will just wait for the new bot v2.1 whatsoever and restart, but for now this is an important victory for CCP and all players in the game that like the sandbox.
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 23:11:00 -
[266] - Quote
Tinu, I understand your concern regarding the spike in prices on minerals. However, the laws of economics, both macro and micro still stand and therefore the economy of New Eden will recover on its own if all bots were banned or at least punished enough. No matter how you see it, it will find ways to recover. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
594
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 23:35:00 -
[267] - Quote
On a related note, dev blog mentioned that accounts with a bot warning/ban will not be sellable in the character bazaar. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 01:09:00 -
[268] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:On a related note, dev blog mentioned that accounts with a bot warning/ban will not be sellable in the character bazaar.
That's what I loved about the dev blog. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Johan Civire
Dirty Curse inc.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 02:42:00 -
[269] - Quote
this again |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 08:46:00 -
[270] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:While I'm at it, I would also like to submit that not all bots are bad for EVE.
When it's bad is when botting for RMT allows players who can afford it to buy expensive items with real $$$. That disadvantages everyone who can't.
It's also bad (as explained above) when alliances use botting (whether doing themselves or delegating it via renters) for game changing play.
However, some bots actually help the game. Players macro-mining in high-sec, for example, produce HUGE amounts of minerals and ensure an oversupply, which keeps the prices of minerals down. Those bots generate isk for their owners but much of that isk just stays locked up in a wallet and isn't used for RMT or for financing fuly reimbursable titan blobs.
There is no renting in high-sec and therefore the problem remains limited because the isk generated will remain, for the most part, locked up in the wallets of a few players. So if CCP succeeds in eliminating all high-sec macro miners then it *will* hurt the game by creating inflation in the mineral market and therefore everything will become more expensive.
In fact, weeding out high-sec macro-miners will have another nasty side effect, which is will be to hand control of the mineral markets over to the drone Russians, who (at least if they're smart) will start to act like OPEC and decide for us how much we will pay for Tritanium.... at least until the price of minerals gets so high that people stop running incursions in high-sec to go mining.
T-
This is wrong on so many levels.
Bots are A L W A Y S bad.
They steal the honest players chance to play the game (miners) and then steal the profits from the honest traders. Minerals are much more liquid than ISK in this game (wallets are segregated) the minerals inflation is opposite but as bad as ISK inflation is.
All the "savings" you get when buying your next boat go into the dirty hands of a RL sweatshop owner.
"Oh, it's cool that Chinese children must work with toxic paint and cancer inducing manufacturing waste, so I can buy my next iPad for $30 less!"
As for giving the minerals market in the Russians hands, CCP announced they are going to nerf it AND in any case it's a FAIR IN GAME EULA ALLOWED rule to be able to conquer a drone region and use it at advantage.
Or are you saying moon goo you find elsewhere is less profitable? Or that moon goo owners don't try raise its price?
If what you say was minimally true, we'd see massive coalitions rushing to conquer the Drone Regions Klondike.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |