Bot mining is extremely common because it is more than possible to mine enough income in highsec to plex the account using a simple computer program that can run the mining operation.

Solution: Make highsec mining not profitable enough to sustain an account all by itself.

Economic reaction: Nearly all highsec bot mining operations will disappear; the majority of remaining highsec bot miners will be characters that are used for other things as well. The only remaining characters devoted entirely to botting will have operators who run other passive income sources as well to suplement their income.

How to accomplish this: Reduce the demand for highsec minerals. Dramatically increase the prevalence of minerals tritanium, pyerite, mexallon, and isogen.

If normal players could mine in highsec enough for their own ships in their off time, then highsec mineral income would plummet. The economy could not sustain lots of bot miners because there simply wouldn't be enough demand for those minerals. A lot of manufacturers would refuse to pay large amounts of ISK for their minerals when they could just go mine them in a short amount of time.

In my opinion, a player that is active at the keyboard while mining should be able to pull more ore than one that starts the process and goes and reads a book.

What about a NPC mining "negotiator" that shows up in the belt (not every time of course, but once every so often)?

The "trick" would be to use a random UI (elements and questions) for these negotiations, making it difficult to program a macro.

If you are a player, you simply agree to the terms of the negotiations and they'll go away.

If you're a bot which would have difficulties responding, the ships' strip miners are infected with a lock down virus, until negotiations have concluded. At this time negotiations will have to be continued in a system station, where a station negotiator can be called upon.

A player would be given plenty of opportunity to respond, since a bot don't care about time so much anyways. If a player happens to get their strips disabled, simple enter a station and complete negotiations.

A bot on the other hand would be forced to continue with the strip miners not functioning, amk.

Mining Minigame on par with hacking.
Mining fixed.

Keep on defending botting, bro.

Most botting happens in null sec. Apply your idea there.

Most bottling happens where there are most people. I win the Internets!

Even when i respond they still assume im using a program to mine while just "monitoring" my computer.

CCP is taking measures to decrease botting even more, but they are also aware that a very substantial amount of EVE's minerals come from bots mining, and that totally getting rid of them in one fell swoop would cause serious economic backlash.

Are you sure? No one would buy a Frigate that costs 20M to produce.

True, no choice. So we all go back to Frigs, as in 2003. Because Cruiser, BC, Caps prices multiplied with a factor of 40 (I assumed an average of 500k/frig) are very unlikely to be used in actual combat. See your Mineral dreams fade away.

Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.

I base it on experience. What do you base your assumptions on?

That point is flawed, because of the points in my response after yours.

No, I mean that point:

You are glossing over the context these "expensive" ships are being used under.

A titan is a big ship. CCP claimed surprise when the cost of these was not the bigger limit to their existence that they expected it to be.

That being said, most players still don't own one.
Most players cannot afford to buy them, even assuming they were willing to sacrifice the year in training it also needed.

I doubt very much we want subcaps to become less common.
If the price escalates above what the typical player can afford, then they will either not buy them, or only use them when convinced they do so without risk of loss.

Players will risk what they feel comfortable risking.

Pricing sets that comfort level, effectively.

The example you used has nothing to do with a person's ability to afford a loss. In the case of your example it has to do with a coalition's ability to afford a loss. All this example is a testament to is the change in relative wealth of Alliances and Coalitions with respect to individuals.

A player's ability to afford a loss is not based on the arbitrary and fluctuating value of the current monetary system. It is based on the time require to mitigate the loss. As a loss requires more and more time to recover from they will be less and less willing to take that risk.


For the inevitable "what about supers and titans if coalitions are so rich" arguement.

Supers and especially Titans require not only Isk to replace, but very large quantities of time. And coalitions cannot acquire a wealth of time. This makes them even more risk than their isk value. Which is why you only see them in extremely 1 sided fights or just once or twice a year in max numbers.