Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Henry Haphorn
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 23:00:00 -
[31]
/supported
However, may I add my own set of recommendations?
1. Make hi-sec grav sites accessible only through mission agents. In order to accept a mining mission from an agent, you should be required to enter a randomized "gotcha" code (distorted letters that computers can't understand on the screen). The grav site is then randomly generated for you.
2. In addition to moving ores from the common belts to the need-to-scan gravimetric sites, place a spawn timer on the grav site. Say about 3-4 hours before it DEspawns (with or without the ore being mined). If the ore is drained from the grav site before the despawn timer, the site will not regenerate on the same spot for you.
3. When you're done with the mission, you have to wait at least 6 hours to accept a new mining mission if you want to mine in the same system. If you go to another system, you can accept a new mining mission immediately.
4. You will only be allowed to complete "X" number of mining missions per day.
5. Only a limit of "X" number of grav sites can be generated per system so that mining missions for different players will lead different players to the same grav sites so as to promote competition among miners.
6. The grav site should have more ore than what the mission agents require so that the rest can be up for grabs.
7. Grav site restrictions and quantities would change according to the system's security status.
8. The higher the agent's mission level, the more dangerous the rats get. NOTE: Drone rats drop no ores. Other rats bring little or no bounties with them. You should only see bounties in PvE missions.
These limits will encourage miners to take more risks entering low-sec space for more precious ores while crippling the efforts of the bots.
|
Corina Jarr
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 04:46:00 -
[32]
Quote: . Make hi-sec grav sites accessible only through mission agents. In order to accept a mining mission from an agent, you should be required to enter a randomized "gotcha" code (distorted letters that computers can't understand on the screen). The grav site is then randomly generated for you.
NO!
At this point, computers can read those things better than real people.
|
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 07:13:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 14/01/2011 07:18:47 So what now all macro's are in mission hubs with a crap load of mission givers and just mine missions?
I'm a pro mission miner myself. It's mainly a good way to jetcan mine. Ya you get fliped from time to time. But it's not like it is in belts.
Secondly there are alot level 1-2 missions with massive belts in them.
Last but not least I am always a cat. I cant help myself I have to play with things and learn stuff so I have played with alot of differnt macro mining programs just free trial stuff. Some of them I realy dont think would be to heavly affected by scaning or capta. Just saying.
And EVE would not be the first game to get me to quite do to the use of capta. I cant stand the stuff. It's to much of a pain in my own ass. I dont think there is a single game todate that I would be willing to put of with capta inorder to play it.
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 09:13:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Henry Haphorn Make hi-sec grav sites accessible only through mission agents.
This proposal has several problems, but the biggest is that it will create a floor for the mineral value.
If the agent ask for 1 million unit of veldspater and he pay 5.000.000 isk the floor for veldspater become 5 isk/unit, if he pay 1.000.000 isk the floor become 1 isk/unit.
Similarly it give a floor for the return of x time units of mining. If you can complete the mission in 10 minutes and get 1.000.000, 1 hour of mining should make at least 6 millions and so on.
|
Biomass MeNOW
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:04:00 -
[35]
All CCP needs to do is employ a thread sniffer in the client, and maintain a rolling update of current bots in use (yes, meaning CCP will actually have to purchase them to prize out the base code and/or heuristic behavior).
When such a thread is detected, or a particular heuristic algorithm, it simply shuts down the client(s) active on that computer, no explanation provided, and sends a report to CCP concerning what macro was detected. This can be provided to the player during the petition process.
After X number of shut-downs the accounts are temporarily banned. If repeated shut-downs and bans continue the accounts are permanently banned.
|
Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:42:00 -
[36]
As long as the bloody bots are smarter and faster then real players (especially fat lazy ratters who are against removal of local and want to see cloakers and want to be safe on his own no matter what the other guys opinion is) any in-game solution will just **** off the legit players, and bots will find a way around them.
In this case, it'll take about a day for the bot programmers to reprogram the bot to use the scanner to find the grav sites. ---
Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser/Assembler: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ http://gemblog.nl/assembler/
Originally by: De'Veldrin Welcome to the ****ing sandbox
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:49:00 -
[37]
Quote: At this point, computers can read those things better than real people.
That's assuming that the captcha letters are not confusing enough and the person reading it is illiterate. I have seen plenty of captcha texts that can confuse the living daylights out of me. Coming from me, this is saying something as I use to work at a pharmacy having to read the chicken-scratch handwritting that doctors leave on the prescriptions. Imagine a computer having to deal with "a" that looks like "d" or a "E" that looks like a "B" or a "7" that looks like a "1" and vice versa. On top of that, the texts are all smooshed together like playdough with random lines and alternating colors and tones and/or blobs. I have even seen texts that are yellow in a white background.
Of course, the major downside to this level of security is that you'll have plenty of issues understanding the text if you're color blind, dislexic or the player is too illiterate.
In refer to the other player that mentioned about a price floor for the mineral market, I guess you made your point. But how do you propose fixing the issue of the bots then? I know ganking them is a good solution, but only if people keep hosting Hulkageddon more constantly. And if some of the players are correct, then the loss of a Hulk is nothing to these bot owners if they always have billions of ISK at their disposal. Of course, we could go out on an all out ganking of all Hulks for an entire year and see what happens. Doesn't hurt to try, except under pain of Concord. XD
|
Corina Jarr
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 01:14:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Henry Haphorn
Quote: At this point, computers can read those things better than real people.
That's assuming that the captcha letters are not confusing enough and the person reading it is illiterate. I have seen plenty of captcha texts that can confuse the living daylights out of me. Coming from me, this is saying something as I use to work at a pharmacy having to read the chicken-scratch handwritting that doctors leave on the prescriptions. Imagine a computer having to deal with "a" that looks like "d" or a "E" that looks like a "B" or a "7" that looks like a "1" and vice versa. On top of that, the texts are all smooshed together like playdough with random lines and alternating colors and tones and/or blobs. I have even seen texts that are yellow in a white background.
My father works with this kind of thing on a regular basis. Trust me there are hundreds of programs out there that can either read the captcha thing (even if no human can) or simply intercept the code being sent to the system to display the captcha. And to make it usable to the masses, such a thing would likely have the "give me a different one" or the "audio playback" for those who have trouble with captchas. Both of which would make it even easier for bots.
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 01:47:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Corina Jarr
Originally by: Henry Haphorn
Quote: At this point, computers can read those things better than real people.
That's assuming that the captcha letters are not confusing enough and the person reading it is illiterate. I have seen plenty of captcha texts that can confuse the living daylights out of me. Coming from me, this is saying something as I use to work at a pharmacy having to read the chicken-scratch handwritting that doctors leave on the prescriptions. Imagine a computer having to deal with "a" that looks like "d" or a "E" that looks like a "B" or a "7" that looks like a "1" and vice versa. On top of that, the texts are all smooshed together like playdough with random lines and alternating colors and tones and/or blobs. I have even seen texts that are yellow in a white background.
My father works with this kind of thing on a regular basis. Trust me there are hundreds of programs out there that can either read the captcha thing (even if no human can) or simply intercept the code being sent to the system to display the captcha. And to make it usable to the masses, such a thing would likely have the "give me a different one" or the "audio playback" for those who have trouble with captchas. Both of which would make it even easier for bots.
Do you have any idea what this means? It means you and I are back to square one. How to effectively battle the bots?
|
Intar Medris
Amarr EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 02:22:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Intar Medris on 15/01/2011 02:22:45 Unless it is ABC that will net 30 mil or more an hour I don't want to scan it down. Not supported
I Make Forums For Corps And Alliances. 50 Mil ISK See Example Forum To Get A Idea of What Your's Could Look Like Example Forum |
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 12:59:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Henry Haphorn
Do you have any idea what this means? It means you and I are back to square one. How to effectively battle the bots?
Exactly CCP problem. They need to fight the bots without annoying the playerbase too much. To your list of problems with the captcha you can add people with different screen resolutions from what CCP consider standard.
If you read the 2nd round of the minutes of the last CSM/CCP meetings and the comments, even if most of the stuff is covered by the NDA, it is clear that the discussion on detecting bots moved very fast to detecting RMT.
For CCP it is easier to detect RMT rings, 1 GM doing the investigation will close teens or hundred of accounts in one swoop and will help fighting hacking attempts.
While researching "simple" botters for personal use the same GM spending the same time would close very few accounts with noticeably lesser beneficial effects from the time spent.
so, unless a bot is too flagrant and easy to confirm, CCP will prefer to spend the manpower against RMT.
An interesting note is that CCP keep informed on the real money = isk exchange prices used by RMT. As they keep the relevant sites monitored I suspect they buy the botting programs and check them first for keyloggers and then for signature behaviour that can be detected serverside.
Sadly it is a problem of cost against efficiency.
It is the same reason why in RL the police stop chasing a criminal when the "cost" is higher than the damage he has done.
A cop will chase a guy shoplifting 2 apples in a market for some hundred meters but will not start a search hose for house if he lose him.
If the same person is part of a organized band that robs several shops every night the search for them will be constant and use a lot of resources.
Shoplifting do hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in a year but the single shoplifter is a small fry.
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 22:03:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Henry Haphorn
Do you have any idea what this means? It means you and I are back to square one. How to effectively battle the bots?
Exactly CCP problem. They need to fight the bots without annoying the playerbase too much. To your list of problems with the captcha you can add people with different screen resolutions from what CCP consider standard.
If you read the 2nd round of the minutes of the last CSM/CCP meetings and the comments, even if most of the stuff is covered by the NDA, it is clear that the discussion on detecting bots moved very fast to detecting RMT.
For CCP it is easier to detect RMT rings, 1 GM doing the investigation will close teens or hundred of accounts in one swoop and will help fighting hacking attempts.
While researching "simple" botters for personal use the same GM spending the same time would close very few accounts with noticeably lesser beneficial effects from the time spent.
so, unless a bot is too flagrant and easy to confirm, CCP will prefer to spend the manpower against RMT.
An interesting note is that CCP keep informed on the real money = isk exchange prices used by RMT. As they keep the relevant sites monitored I suspect they buy the botting programs and check them first for keyloggers and then for signature behaviour that can be detected serverside.
Sadly it is a problem of cost against efficiency.
It is the same reason why in RL the police stop chasing a criminal when the "cost" is higher than the damage he has done.
A cop will chase a guy shoplifting 2 apples in a market for some hundred meters but will not start a search hose for house if he lose him.
If the same person is part of a organized band that robs several shops every night the search for them will be constant and use a lot of resources.
Shoplifting do hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in a year but the single shoplifter is a small fry.
So it's generally left up to the players to do the hunting then. Sounds reasonable. After all, if CCP is better at catching RMT rings than individual bots, then that's their job. Time to setup my ganking ship.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 23:19:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Henry Haphorn
So it's generally left up to the players to do the hunting then. Sounds reasonable. After all, if CCP is better at catching RMT rings than individual bots, then that's their job. Time to setup my ganking ship.
Ok.
|
Taurin Herock
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 00:25:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Takashi X2 Dont take this the wrong way as i dont like people who bot but its a nessesary evil. There simply arent enough high sec miners to keep up with demand of low ends like trit and pyer with out them becomeing really expensive. Dont get me wrong everyone and thier mother would be mining toons if trit ever hit 5 or 6 isk a unit but do you have any idea what that would do to pvp?
Currently a maelstrom cost about 104ish mil to make. There 10m trit at about 2.2isk per. at 6 isk per this would add almost 35m to this battle ship. Imaging what that would do to caps. That doesnt even take into account pyer and mex which will also be greatly affected.
As for ratting bots.. ya they should burn in the deepest darket caverns of an std infested 500 pound prostitute.
I understand all this about supply and demand. I think that the two types of botting toons have opposing effects. Macro ratting causes inflation of prices, macro mining causes deflation of prices. It's hard to say what exactly the balance would work out to be if both were decreased at the same time. In any case if it turns out that 90% of all minerals are mined from bots, we would expect mineral prices to rise a bit and increase player mining activities increasing supply to some extent.
Also CCP has the ability to dial up or down the supply/demand of minerals throughout the game easily. They have in the past "rebalanced" the materials for T2 production, and it is not unreasonable to think they could "rebalance" the amount of trit and all the others required for a battleship BP if the market needed that.
So in effect the claim that the eve economy NEEDS botters to provide the minerals is a false claim. Eve needs botters like it needs increased lag.
|
Taurin Herock
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 00:42:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Venkul Mul If you read the 2nd round of the minutes of the last CSM/CCP meetings and the comments, even if most of the stuff is covered by the NDA, it is clear that the discussion on detecting bots moved very fast to detecting RMT.
For CCP it is easier to detect RMT rings, 1 GM doing the investigation will close teens or hundred of accounts in one swoop and will help fighting hacking attempts.
While researching "simple" botters for personal use the same GM spending the same time would close very few accounts with noticeably lesser beneficial effects from the time spent.
I agree that CCP is more focused on RMT for a variety of reasons. They are effectively "collecting" through plex from the small fry botter . These numerous small fry guys probably vastly outnumber the RMT guys and are probably producing a more serious effect on the game in aggregate than the RMT guys are doing but with substantially lower benefit to catching them and more work.
Thus CCP stopping those people is not reasonably achieved by using a system that requires GM intervention. They are probably better off making changes to the game interface, or gameplay system that makes botting for the small guy more difficult, and/or less profitable. I think that my proposal does both of those things without creating undue annoyance for the players (like capta).
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:37:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Taurin Herock
Originally by: Venkul Mul If you read the 2nd round of the minutes of the last CSM/CCP meetings and the comments, even if most of the stuff is covered by the NDA, it is clear that the discussion on detecting bots moved very fast to detecting RMT.
For CCP it is easier to detect RMT rings, 1 GM doing the investigation will close teens or hundred of accounts in one swoop and will help fighting hacking attempts.
While researching "simple" botters for personal use the same GM spending the same time would close very few accounts with noticeably lesser beneficial effects from the time spent.
I agree that CCP is more focused on RMT for a variety of reasons. They are effectively "collecting" through plex from the small fry botter . These numerous small fry guys probably vastly outnumber the RMT guys and are probably producing a more serious effect on the game in aggregate than the RMT guys are doing but with substantially lower benefit to catching them and more work.
Thus CCP stopping those people is not reasonably achieved by using a system that requires GM intervention. They are probably better off making changes to the game interface, or gameplay system that makes botting for the small guy more difficult, and/or less profitable. I think that my proposal does both of those things without creating undue annoyance for the players (like capta).
Post 25.
I still think that: making the probe skills mandatory for mining will damage a lot of new players, on the other hand if it was possible to find the mining sites with the use of the on board scanner would be easy for the bots to adapt.
The there is the PvP problem. If all miners and ratters move to locations that can be found only with probes finding targets become more difficult.
Any suggestion on how it will be possible to overcome those problems?
Or you think they will be an acceptable cost?
|
Severian Carnifex
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 18:40:00 -
[47]
something must be done.
+1
|
Greg Huff
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 19:36:00 -
[48]
100% for moving all belts, including ice, into exploration sites.
- Create a new classification of exploration site specific for these mining sites. This leaves actual grav sites in tact.
- These mining sites have a much stronger signature so they can be pinpointed fairly easily with low skills
- New probes & launchers specific for these mining sites. Both come in a "Civilian" flavor that require no skill and can fit on a Frigate.
- Belts should be reasonable size to reward corp mining without having to move every 10 minutes
- Enough ice to support multiple groups mining (probably a single chunk or 2 would do). These belts "melt" after 6 hours but instantly respawn in the same solar system.
|
Xituqtra
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 23:37:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Xituqtra on 21/01/2011 23:37:32 dingdingding got news for you bots can scan down sigs and even run complexes. atleast the more advanced ones
|
Magnus Orin
Minmatar United Systems Navy Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 00:23:00 -
[50]
Not to open a different can of worms here, but how many people bot in wormholes? None I bet.
Removing local in 0.0 systems would go a long way to fighting the macro ratting problem with is ever increasing.
It does not resolved the highsec macro miner problem though, and for that I support the move of warp-able belt rats, to and increase of scannable grav sites.
It all boils down to CCP fixing their ****ing code though. If other companies can manage to detect and stop bots in their games, CCP should too. Sarcasm - Because i'm too far away to strangle you. |
|
Taisuke Black
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 00:38:00 -
[51]
This is an interesting idea. I just posted my own idea to stop macro mining before I saw yours. People should check it out and decide which one they like better:
Making mining more fun for everyone
|
Zephris
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 05:53:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Zephris on 22/01/2011 05:57:24 Guys, if something can be done by a bot, a human should not be reasonably required to do it. Punishing players for no reason other then require them to put effort into arbitrary things and then punish them for getting around the punishment is the worst sort of game design possible.
Want people to mine ? Make it so that they don't have to stare at the same thing for 3 hours. This is a game, don't make it a job.
|
Cassus Temon
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 08:09:00 -
[53]
You've got some interesting idea's there; though I can't really say I agree with them in entirety. The idea of scanning down Roid belts isn't horrible; but, I think simply making a more dynamic system would be better.
Here's my thought, and perhap's it can work together with the other afforementioned thread idea:
1.) Rather than setting it up so you have to scan down Grav's; set it up so they auto-green when you hit your scanner, in the same way as Combat sites. This makes it simpler, while maintaining the dynamic value; and requiring a more Human element to be involved. It's already been said, that bots can likely scan as effectively as any one of us; so why not just maintain the dynamic nature, without making it to cumbersome.
2.) Let's extrapolate on the dynamic spawning of sites. Allow for sites to sites to spawn within belt regions; around Moons and planets, and at varying distances from the sun. Always within an orbital path; as would naturally occur. Eliminate the 'circumferance' effect of the belts; as they are always a crescent shape of unrealistic scale. Planets and moons are large, and have 10's of thousands of kilometer distance; across their respective orbital pathway's* diameter. 'Belts' should be relatively straight in physical appearance; with smaller asteroids intermixed, and being trapped by their larger cousins.
*Orbital pathway is rather a vague term, with no real equivalent in Science; but, for this purpose, we should consider it that distance from the planet, at which an eliptical orbit of 20 m/s can be achieved by large tumbling asteroids.
This adds to the flavour of exploration, and the vastness of space; while preventing site access, from becoming a tedious exploration. It also prevents standard mining belts; from interfering with Gravimetric site spawning. These should be two different entities.
Additionally, no more than 2-5 such belts; should exist in a system at any one time. Belt life, should be limited to 3 hours at most; unless an individual is continuously present at the site. The ability to 'lose' a belt, becomes possible; while not occuring randomly while a player is present. At most, a belt should contain no more than 80% of the current largest belt, in a given Security Status; and the composition of the belt, should be very similar, to what they are now. Allow for an exceptional asteroid to occur rarely; being one of the smallest in the belt, and limited in it's mineral wealth. Nothing near what you'd find; in it's lowsec or Null equivalent.
Add depleted asteroids to the mix, as the other 20% of a given belts asteroids; and prevent asteroids from despawning, when they have lost their mineral wealth, to a Mining Barge laser. Not really neccessary; but, it'll keep the miners guessing. It will also make Survey Scanners useful; for more than simply evaluated when an Asteroid is all but depleted.
3.) Allow for a more intelligent AI, in asteroid 'Rats'; and use of Warp Scrambling and Disruption, and Stasis Web's; as well, as re-evaluating targets, Remote Repping, and similar tactics. Allow the Rats; to function in Gangs. This will make things more interesting for players; while allowing for additonal income from such persuit's. It will be more complicated, than regular ratting; but will potentially, be more rewarding as well. Scale 'Rat' spawns, and usable effects/abilities; based on System Security, as usual. This shouldn't make mining impossible; just more difficult, and requiring of awareness.
Allow for concurrent spawns, and system security dependent; triggered waves of Rats, at a given belt being mined. Any given asteroid, upon being mined; may trigger one of these waves, or just a small gang. Create a general dependancy; between the two activities. Without a miner, ratting is very limited; and without combat support vessels, there can be little or no mining. Allow for waves and gangs to spawn at a distance; allowing an alert miner, to get out of there.
|
Avila Cracko
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 11:11:00 -
[54]
^^ I love to see constructive post written on this subject... :)
|
Memcoll
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 11:27:00 -
[55]
This is another suggestion that would simply mean reprograming the bots software or a little alteration to supervising the bots. You need to think of an idea that couldnt be affected by a bots software.
|
Wolodymyr
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 18:54:00 -
[56]
If the grav site was set to never scan out to 100% on 16 or 32 AU scans then your average haven running macro wouldn't be sophisticated enough to figure out the little scanning mini game.
And all miners would have to do is scan at 16 or 32, then scan at 8 over all the little red dots that show up. It wouldn't take too much time for most people. The real question is whether or not a 14 day free trial noob can figure out scanning long enough to get some Veldspar.
I guess in theory a bot could be programmed to blanket space with 8 AU scans in a grid pattern across the solar system. You could always kick down the minimum scan radius for grav sites down to 4 or 2. If you were blanketing a system in a grid of scans then each reduction in size increases the total amount of scans by roughly 8x from the previous level. So a 32 AU scan area is 8 16 AU bubbles and 64 8 AU bubbles and 512 4 AU bubbles
|
PC l0adletter
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:20:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Memcoll You need to think of an idea that couldnt be affected by a bots software.
(emphasis supplied)
No.
These threads are ridiculous.
CCP is the one receiving subscription dollars, and they are the ones who need to solve this problem.
|
Elanor Vega
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 20:28:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Elanor Vega on 23/01/2011 20:28:43 +1
this could be nice base for solving the problem.
|
Alemana Hockeystick
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 04:56:00 -
[59]
I like the idea of making mining and ratting more dynamic. It could make the job more interesting, but it's not going to solve macro problem.
A more effective (and perhaps radical) way to solve the problem is to allow mining barges to run autonomously. Then players can directly compete with botters and drive them out of business.
This way, most botters will quit, players will have all of mining, and they will be saved from drudgery of mining. At the same time, dynamic mining OP suggests should be implemented so that mining outcome depends on player skill.
Too many people mining, you say? The market will take care of it. People will stop mining if it's not profitable enough.
Mining as a profession will be different, but the root cause of today's problem is the boring nature of the mining profession.
|
Selena Dualle
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 11:54:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Selena Dualle on 26/01/2011 12:05:45 After looking at some various threads regarding bots, it seems that there is a general consesus that bots will prevail regardless of what is done. As Whitehound put it "They are a plague." and in the same way they will adapt to any countermeasures as long as there is $$ or just isk to be made. Ratting and mining can be made different, but neither will be bot proof.
But if we have to live with the bots (we do so already anyway), perhaps its time to exploit them back. An account could recieve a number of hours every month (week or day is too short of a time I think, weekends and vactions considered), that can be used on isk harvesting business like mining or ratting. This could be like 8-12 hours per day or so on average (so 240-360 hours per month). A normal player would have to play crazy much to fill this quota, I don't think its humanly possible to fill it, not even for someone between jobs. When this alotted time is up mining cycles would no longer give any ore, and rats don't give bounties nor do they drop loot. (Edit: Time spent docked should be subtracted for this, the idea is to manage the effective game time not just time spent logged into the game) The obvious way around it is to get more accounts, and thats the idea. People who bot will have to use 2-3 different accounts to get a full 24/7 farming operation running.
This doesn't solve the bot problem (which is unsolvable) and ingame PLEX prices will probably rise. But it has two positive effects, CCPs earns a bit more and the macroers earn a bit less. Hurting the botters financially is the only way to go, its the only thing they care about and the only thing they can't solve with clever coding. Players would only be hurt if they play so much that its clearly unhealthy and possibly dangerous to them. It could potentially spur a development for market trading bots, but since the economic damage done by this measure is moderate at best it will probably be better for them to stick with what they already got and just use more accounts. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |