| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
6800
   |
Posted - 2013.01.02 16:46:00 -
[61] - Quote
Abu Tarynnia wrote:Dave stark wrote:my post had nothing to do with bots. it had everything to do with your downright absurd claim that miners would "have to" learn scanning if everything was moved to grav sites.
i've had longer afternoon naps than it'd take to train the relevant prerequisites to scan down grav sites. Sure .. but non the less I would have to train a Skill I do not want to have ... and further .. moving around systems just for mining with a profit less then any other profession produces .. why in hell should anybody do that then anymore .. and also actually pay for that ?! Where is the fun ?
Why do you think your profession pays less than anyone else's? Is it because mining is too difficult or because there's not enough ore>
MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
MadMuppet
A Better Corp Name
715
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 16:49:00 -
[62] - Quote
Abu Tarynnia wrote:Come on. Botting is a problem .. easiest way would be to scan the IP-adress and kill every client with same adress. He he .. would make ganking also a bit more difficult 
So would you be scanning for the same local address (10.0.0.2 or 192.168.0.2) which would wipe out everybody? Or you you scan for their home ISP address and disconnect all them them which could wipe out an apartment building or internet cafe? How about going by MAC addresses since those never get spoofed  . You solution is not easy. No, I take that back, it is easy, it is just wrong and will kick perfectly valid players because it is a simple-mind half-assembled concept.
November 6th, 2012 "With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now." --á CCP Ytterbium from:-áhttp://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530 |
Polly Oxford
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 16:53:00 -
[63] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg
Just gonna leave this here.
Please notice that there still is a scroll bar, so there are more than just the ones shown on the overview. |
Keno Skir
Vectis Covert Solutions
343
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 16:57:00 -
[64] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Sounds like someone is defending the behavior utterly.
I find both botting and multiboxing abhorent.
They achieve the same destructive ends.
Also, an accusation is not a determination.
He's not defending anything. You are posting rubbish again and sound like a 10 year old. You're name makes you sound like an ice miner and therefor you are likely quite prejudiced.
Abu Tarynnia wrote:Come on. Botting is a problem .. easiest way would be to scan the IP-adress and kill every client with same adress. He he .. would make ganking also a bit more difficult
Ganking isn't against the rules nor should it be. You should fit a tank like you're supposed to. Your IP idea doesn't work either, go back to school.
If you have any further thoughts on something i've posted, or want to ask an unrelated question feel free to contact me by EvE Mail or by private conversation if 'm online.
BUDDY TRIALS AVAILABLE - 21days plus big ISK bonus and starting assistance |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
1050
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 17:00:00 -
[65] - Quote
If true (wow, one event every two years, whodathunkit!), good riddance.
They'll just open new accounts, add to CCP's bottom-line marketing campaign to flaunt "active accounts" number, and everything will continue normally. Status quo. Nothing to see here, move along.
Edit: and you guys do realize that with virtual machine capability in almost every current generation of computers, the overhead for these guys (and the large null sec alliances) is virtually nil, yeah? 
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |
Dave stark
1440
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 17:08:00 -
[66] - Quote
Abu Tarynnia wrote:Dave stark wrote:my post had nothing to do with bots. it had everything to do with your downright absurd claim that miners would "have to" learn scanning if everything was moved to grav sites.
i've had longer afternoon naps than it'd take to train the relevant prerequisites to scan down grav sites. Sure .. but non the less I would have to train a Skill I do not want to have ... and further .. moving around systems just for mining with a profit less then any other profession produces .. why in hell should anybody do that then anymore .. and also actually pay for that ?! Where is the fun ?
i don't have the patience to write a reply to this beyond calling it drivel.
"100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3141
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 17:09:00 -
[67] - Quote
Polly Oxford wrote:http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg
Just gonna leave this here.
Please notice that there still is a scroll bar, so there are more than just the ones shown on the overview.
Highsec, best sec.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd
Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Flurk Hellbron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
273
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 17:24:00 -
[68] - Quote
Move all belts to low/null/WH
|
Dave stark
1441
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 17:28:00 -
[69] - Quote
Flurk Hellbron wrote:Move all belts to low/null/WH
aside from removing the only remaining viable source of low end minerals, what will that achieve?
"100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 18:10:00 -
[70] - Quote
There seems to be a lot of confusion betwen botting and multiboxing in this thread.
Botting is against the rules of the game.
Multiboxing is not. In my humble opinion multiboxing friendly is one of the best features of Eve. If you see a bunch of accounts owned by the same person please do not automatically assume botting. Feel free to report it if you are concerned, but realize the behavior could be only multiboxing and do not be surprised when no action is taken.
In other words please do not confuse multiboxing with botting. They are not the same.
Thanks :) |
|
|
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
255
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:00:00 -
[71] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Flurk Hellbron wrote:Move all belts to low/null/WH aside from removing the only remaining viable source of low end minerals, what will that achieve?
Well a massive amount tears would be achived too. But nothing really usefull. We might drown a country... |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:09:00 -
[72] - Quote
for more bots look >>> Honey Botter Coalition |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
2798
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:28:00 -
[73] - Quote
Andski wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:I noticed a few months ago they did one of those mass bot bans. The system where I mine ice would normally have close to 100 people in it, not all mining ice of course, but anyway, the next day, the system had about 60 people in it on average, and only about a third of the ice miners. Was like that for a while, but now the numbers were creeping back up again. Will have to check to see if there are fewer in there now. Really cool when you see it happen. wow 40 in one system? I thought the eve-o forum alt pubbie consensus was that all bots were in nullsec
You have it all wrong friend. The bots mains are in null sec. Do try and keep up.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jaangel
Cloak and Badgers
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:30:00 -
[74] - Quote
Eve is all about multiboxing.
if you dont multibox your doing it wrong.
if you dont like multiboxing go play wow.
please don't confuse botting and multiboxing.
botting causes damage to market and game multiboxing makes the game and is one of it draws |
Sentamon
607
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:30:00 -
[75] - Quote
There really should be some limits on multiboxing.
When you run 50 accounts in one place and call them 1 of x, 2 of x, 3 of x. It just looks bad. 
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Polly Oxford
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:32:00 -
[76] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg
Gonna post that again. Also that corp is blue to Goonswarm! Coincidence? I think not! |
Sentamon
607
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:35:00 -
[77] - Quote
Polly Oxford wrote:http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg
Gonna post that again. Also that corp is blue to Goonswarm! Coincidence? I think not!
Are you mad he's not playing you rent in null?
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
The Unthinkables
2382
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 19:38:00 -
[78] - Quote
heroic multiboxer driving down the pos maintenance bills for nullsecers everywhere |
Mire Stoude
Antelope with Night Vision Goggles
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:09:00 -
[79] - Quote
This thread started so innocently. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:26:00 -
[80] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:There really should be some limits on multiboxing. When you run 50 accounts in one place and call them 1 of x, 2 of x, 3 of x. It just looks bad.
You are entitled to your opinion but I would disagree. I consider EvE Online an MMO-RTS and would be very disappointed if they limited multiboxing.
Just my humble opinion :) |
|
|
Shootmenot dammit
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:40:00 -
[81] - Quote
Andski wrote: I thought the eve-o forum alt pubbie consensus was that all bots were in nullsec
Nah, bots are everywhere, but it looks like high sec bots running Lvl4 missions are all the rage now.
At least, that's what your CEO says.
http://nosygamer.blogspot.com.es/2011/06/generalstab-logs-mittani-on-rmt.html
So yes, bots like botting undisturbed, and High sec Lvl 4 mission hubs are perfect for this.
Or a lot of space among tens of thousands of blues, of course
Quote:
Re: Re: o/
From: Rebnok
Sent: 2012.09.08 18:46
To: Triget,
I was looking at possible aquiing a couple systems for a alt corp, Maybe the old MC constellation as I was told you where holding that for us, or wherever as long as we had at least one system with .9 or better and abc rocks in the belts
|
Casirio
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Exhale.
320
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:43:00 -
[82] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:There seems to be a lot of confusion betwen botting and multiboxing in this thread.
Botting is against the rules of the game.
Multiboxing is not. In my humble opinion multiboxing friendly is one of the best features of Eve. If you see a bunch of accounts owned by the same person please do not automatically assume botting. Feel free to report it if you are concerned, but realize the behavior could be only multiboxing and do not be surprised when no action is taken.
In other words please do not confuse multiboxing with botting. They are not the same.
Thanks :)
MULTIBOTTING |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3142
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 20:52:00 -
[83] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Sentamon wrote:There really should be some limits on multiboxing. When you run 50 accounts in one place and call them 1 of x, 2 of x, 3 of x. It just looks bad. You are entitled to your opinion but I would disagree. I consider EvE Online an MMO-RTS and would be very disappointed if they limited multiboxing. Just my humble opinion :)
Personally it's hilarious, the numbers go all the way to 97, what...
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd
Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
316
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:07:00 -
[84] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:even without multiboxing, ice mining on 40 accounts wouldn't be particularly difficult.
open 1 client, ctrl + click, f1, f2.
repeat 39 times. Even passively mining, you'd need a BEASTLY box to run 40 clients.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |
Eric Ryan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:15:00 -
[85] - Quote
Guy mentioned in the OP was not banned. He's well and on-line playing right now...I will not bother posting his name to have people rushing to the system to have a look because it's not in my best interest.
The other guy mentioned in this thread with screenshot showing 70 or so macks is The Wis. He's the guy Mittani resigned from CSM because of. He's blue to Goonswarm after Mittani granted him immunity from goons after the inccident.
PS: Having 40 accounts is fun. You're welcome
|
Polly Oxford
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:25:00 -
[86] - Quote
Hey, stop ruining the fun. I was waiting for Krixtal to come and call it our bot farm :( |
Medea Dested
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:25:00 -
[87] - Quote
How about we work on anti-botting measures on the REFINING side, and not on the mining side?
Here's what I'm thinking:
1) When you get back to the starbase with your raw asteroid ore, you have a choice:
a) play a mini-game where you can find better ore than you expected in all that slag if you do it right.
b) opt for an automated process with no such benefits that will take time
2) The automated process would go through a number of refining slots on any starbase, with a limited amount of ore such a slot could take per some unit of time (up to X m^3).
Then it doesn't matter how many bots you run, because one person or one station will never be able to process that much ore to make it useful.
1) It's more realistic - in RL, refining is not instantaneous - it requires a boat-load of energy to melt down the slag, and extract what you need.
2) Should be more fun, depending on the minigame.
3) It will add value to processed ore through the somewhat manual process of refining (or the inherent value of slots)
4) If it's a legit corp, or a small miner, people in the corp will actually get to use their refining skill. (right now, only one person needs it in the entire corp).
5) If it's a botter, there will be a limit to the number of auto-refining slots, rendering a lot of their fleet unusable, and the minigame should be too complex for the bot to play it. |
Soook Yu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:26:00 -
[88] - Quote
leoplusma wrote:
last night, home system infested by 40 retrievers
their pilot names were : "Replicant_****_01"
all way to "Replicant_****_40". they were behaving
in mining the ice belt like... bots. lol.
petitioned it. i guess many of us did.
no response yet.
today i realise that those users dont even exist
anymore in eve database! along with them, some
other Replicants too (i think Replicant Dew or something)
are too missing.
soooo i guess ccp kicked them out of the game.
any chance for an official validation of my assumptions?
thanks ccp
leo
The Replicant fleet has been on the Misnededn Ice Belt for the past 4 hours or so. They all warp in and out at the same time. All 40 of them. They don't answer in local which is his right I guess but he isn't doing himself any favours.
That's Misneden IV - Ice Field 1
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
305
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:49:00 -
[89] - Quote
I rembember reading a blog with bot users tears after a ban wave, it was a great read :)
If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Soook Yu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 21:58:00 -
[90] - Quote
Yeh lol. Thing is it's a little frustrating. The goons and James thingymajiggery all spout their sh1te time after time and here's a real target. A likely bot fleet, a better target than the supposed afk miners they use as an excuse and the 40 boat bot fleet is left to continue. Needless to say there seems to be a representative of one of the very very very large alliances hanging around in system looking after them. He certainly is not ganking them. Or pvping. Or missioning. Just floooooooooooooaaaaaaating arooooooooound, la de daaaaaaaaaaaa.........
Just sayin right ;)
Pooooooopcorn! Geeeeeet yer popcorn! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |