Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1121
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 01:15:00 -
[121] - Quote
A Covetor can have a mining laser cycling every 20-30 seconds give or take. You want them to have to play a minigame EVERY SINGLE TIME IT CYCLES! Seriously? One Minigame per Asteroid they start mining 'might' be valid. And only if it only increases yield but doesn't decrease it relative to currently. Even then that would be a lot of minigames. You have to consider things sucj as RSI, how many clicks will said minigame take. how many times will a miner have to play it in a given area of space per hour. How much does this limit their ability to do other things.
For instance things active miners already do, actively scan all asteroids looking for the most efficient to mine based on ore remaining. Check they aren't depleting a belt of a type of ore which hurts respawning ore for tomorrow. Time the cycles on their strip miners to not waste time sucking a dry roid till end of cycle. Cap manage (Because mining lasers use cap at the start of the cycle so stopping them early increases cap useage. Piloting to ensure a ready supply of fresh asteroids. Deep Scan, watch local. Even in high sec smart miners do this because they have flagged known gankers as hostile.
You are attempting to 'solve' a problem that doesn't exist. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
994
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 04:02:00 -
[122] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Game mechanics defeating a majority of bots is a myth. The reason being bots aren't static. If one doesn't work after a change either they will update it or change to one tha It hasn't been a myth since Turing devised his test. Ever since then, people will work for years and years and spend tremendous amounts of resources to build computers that can beat humans at various tasks selected for their AI difficulty--and every time a computer is made to beat a task, the task is updated quickly or a new one is swiftly devised by a single person that once again defeats the machine.
There's no practical limit to what things an AI can do, but crafting one to best a human at the things humans do best is extremely difficult to accomplish yet all too easy to topple. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1027
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 04:15:00 -
[123] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Game mechanics defeating a majority of bots is a myth. The reason being bots aren't static. If one doesn't work after a change either they will update it or change to one tha It hasn't been a myth since Turing devised his test. Ever since then, people will work for years and years and spend tremendous amounts of resources to build computers that can beat humans at various tasks selected for their AI difficulty--and every time a computer is made to beat a task, the task is updated quickly or a new one is swiftly devised by a single person that once again defeats the machine. There's no practical limit to what things an AI can do, but crafting one to best a human at the things humans do best is extremely difficult to accomplish yet all too easy to topple. At last check, chess wasn't updated to beat deep blue.
Edit: But ok, lets think out this arms race. Thousands of humans with human reaction times vs a single capable bot creator developing a piece of software with much higher limits. What did you do that made the bot's adaptation something exceptionally difficult that didn't do the same to the miners. Furthermore, after the bot catches up, do we do it again? How long will the human miners put up with not understanding mining after each expansion, and how many unique iterations of mining should CCP make only to wind up right back where they were? Actually, considering the level of PvE mechanics in eve, what are the chances that mining could be the next chess, and what are the chances most humans will ever reach that level? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
994
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 08:40:00 -
[124] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:At last check, chess wasn't updated to beat deep blue. http://arimaa.com/arimaa/ Sure it was. Of course, since Traditional Chess leans so strongly in favor of the AI, the rules had to be changed so dramatically that you wouldn't call it Chess. But it can be played with the same board and pieces.
Chess is a terrible example because of all human games, Chess is one of the ones that AI can beat humans at most easily. It is a game in which in many situations, only a handful of millions of possible outcomes can result in victory, and the setup is easy for a computer to understand. Pick almost any other game and a computer has a harder time beating humans at it.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:how many unique iterations of mining should CCP make One. Like with probes and the new hacking mechanic. I don't know how well the new hacking mechanic will stand up against bots but I do know there aren't any good probe bots, and the reason for that is that they don't have the spacial reasoning to contemplate the symbols the server sends, and even if they were integrated well enough into the client to read the probe map as it is rendered, they still would only be able to scan down sites that had already reached a yellow signal strength. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1027
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 08:55:00 -
[125] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:At last check, chess wasn't updated to beat deep blue. http://arimaa.com/arimaa/Sure it was. Of course, since Traditional Chess leans so strongly in favor of the AI, the rules had to be changed so dramatically that you wouldn't call it Chess. But it can be played with the same board and pieces. Chess is a terrible example because of all human games, Chess is one of the ones that AI can beat humans at most easily. It is a game in which in many situations, only a handful of millions of possible outcomes can result in victory, and the setup is easy for a computer to understand. Pick almost any other game and a computer has a harder time beating humans at it. Tyberius Franklin wrote:how many unique iterations of mining should CCP make One. Like with probes and the new hacking mechanic. I don't know how well the new hacking mechanic will stand up against bots but I do know there aren't any good probe bots, and the reason for that is that they don't have the spacial reasoning to contemplate the symbols the server sends, and even if they were integrated well enough into the client to read the probe map as it is rendered, they still would only be able to scan down sites that had already reached a yellow signal strength. To your first point, yeah, that's not chess, but you raise a point in that by raising the bar of possible moves you do create an obstacle for a bot, but that's going to be a level beyond what we will likely see in eve and even then is just a matter of time and effort to create an AI that can handle.
To the second, have we really seen any real attempts at scanning bots? I'm can't disagree with your point since I haven't seen any other than to say that bots have tended to target steady income sources like mining or ratting, not sporadic, luck based activities like exploration. Creating such a game in one of those constant income streams, which seems to be one of the ideas mentioned, may well provide that motivation. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
268
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 09:10:00 -
[126] - Quote
Why not simply add a Window every time you Start mining where you have to choose a ore vein by clicking (which position apears random on the window) or something, nothing special just to make mining hardly Botable. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
994
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 09:23:00 -
[127] - Quote
Defeating bots isn't about raising the number of moves, it's about making the moves fluid. Bots work better with static moves. Chess is static and easy for a modern computer yet difficult for a human. It is very easy to make a game that is the reverse, such as Poker. The static components of Poker are very easy for a human to grasp, yet the fluid and dynamic components of gameplay take a lot of practice to do well, and are phenomenally difficult to program into an AI. If you wanted to compute Poker into a number of possible moves, it might be like comparing the number of possible moves in Chess vs. a game with a number of possible moves in which the exponent is the number of possible moves in Chess. I don't know if you have any idea of the scale of that, but it doesn't matter how advanced a computer is, for the quanta that make up the matter the computer is made from are not small enough for such a computer to be capable of playing a perfect Poker game as quickly as a human due merely to the limitation of the speed of light on internal processing.
The only way to make a bot that can play Poker with humans as well as a human can is to make a bot that thinks like a human. Now that's difficult. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
268
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 09:32:00 -
[128] - Quote
"Aktiv" Mining was already suggested many times befor, and the infamous Hacking Game did show that most miners dont want go in that kind of direction, so we simply need another solution. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
994
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 09:50:00 -
[129] - Quote
what about less time spent mining for the same amount of minerals? Less demand for bots, easier to get what you need without em. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Voxinian
30
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 10:01:00 -
[130] - Quote
Only allow 1 active login from 1 IP adress. Problem solved. No more mutli acccounting, more fair play. Oh wait, CCP encourages mutli accounting... |
|
Juan Thang
Old American Syndicate Silent Infinity
25
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 13:54:00 -
[131] - Quote
So basically your saying that if you make mining worthless no one will do it. Congratulations
Solution: Make highsec mining not profitable enough to sustain an account all by itself.
Oh so now my 1 account makes me unable to play. not all of us have 5 alts you know. |
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
241
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 14:23:00 -
[132] - Quote
Voxinian wrote:Only allow 1 active login from 1 IP adress. Problem solved. No more mutli acccounting, more fair play. Oh wait, CCP encourages mutli accounting...
Anyone behind a NAT of any kind, and anyone behind a shared private/public router would be sharing their IP with others.
Did you think that through or just spew it out of a random orifice? |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
272
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 14:23:00 -
[133] - Quote
Introduce a Anti-Cheat Engine which gives automatically killrights to James315. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
249
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 14:38:00 -
[134] - Quote
Voxinian wrote:Only allow 1 active login from 1 IP adress. Problem solved. No more mutli acccounting, more fair play. Oh wait, CCP encourages mutli accounting...
What about the people who use several accounts at the same time for a wide variety of things, including boosters for fleets, scouts for fleets, market PVP, industrial stuff excluding mining, Plex/Ano/Mission running? This idea has been suggested in a separate topic already and it was utterly demolished there. For the exact same reasons. Any more nice ideas on how to not solve issues?
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
273
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 14:48:00 -
[135] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Voxinian wrote:Only allow 1 active login from 1 IP adress. Problem solved. No more mutli acccounting, more fair play. Oh wait, CCP encourages mutli accounting... What about the people who use several accounts at the same time for a wide variety of things, including boosters for fleets, scouts for fleets, market PVP, industrial stuff excluding mining, Plex/Ano/Mission running? This idea has been suggested in a separate topic already and it was utterly demolished there. For the exact same reasons. Any more nice ideas on how to not solve issues?
To be fair, other Games fill this roles with other humans, i dont like Boxer or even Alts but yes we should accept it that its simply a common Part of Eve Online. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
256
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 14:56:00 -
[136] - Quote
As discussed in other threads multi-boxing and alts are valid game tools that present their own challenges. I have no real problem with them either way as long as a one char player with 2 alts can conceivably plex on their own by smart play/use of industry. As long as that takes some skill and knowledge then its fair either way. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1148
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 15:00:00 -
[137] - Quote
Voxinian wrote:Only allow 1 active login from 1 IP adress. Problem solved. No more mutli acccounting, more fair play. Oh wait, CCP encourages mutli accounting...
facepalm EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
251
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 15:12:00 -
[138] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote: To be fair, other Games fill this roles with other humans, i dont like Boxer or even Alts but yes we should accept it that its simply a common Part of Eve Online.
When it comes to being a booster character, good luck finding one, who wants to sit on a safe, watching for probes and not getting on any kills. You now are going to say that ongrid boosters should be used, which is indeed a viable option, until you realize that, on the one hand, you still cannot get on kills, because your utility slots and weapon slots are full with required boosters for the fleet, or, in the other hand, you get killed early in fights and thus doom your fleet.
When it comes to intel of scouts for a fleet I can only say that other humans are stupid, they have high latency when you need accurate information quickly and the accuracy is lackluster as well. This means in turn that relying on other humans for work that, to a certain degree, can be done more efficiently and accurately by yourself, puts your fleet in danger and your operation at risk. There are of course limits to how much one person can do alone and after some threshold you must use other humans. Other humans also can be trained to be better than worse scouts and many entities also try to do that, but not everyone is capable of functioning efficiently under pressure (just think of the recent Aeon kill where the Aeon pilot said the enemies "left", but instead just warped off the grid or something) and if you have to rely on these people to give you accurate information on what's on the other side of the gate or in a system you want to bridge to, it can have catastrophic results.
|
Voxinian
31
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 16:08:00 -
[139] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Voxinian wrote:Only allow 1 active login from 1 IP adress. Problem solved. No more mutli acccounting, more fair play. Oh wait, CCP encourages mutli accounting... What about the people who use several accounts at the same time for a wide variety of things, including boosters for fleets, scouts for fleets, market PVP, industrial stuff excluding mining, Plex/Ano/Mission running? This idea has been suggested in a separate topic already and it was utterly demolished there. For the exact same reasons. Any more nice ideas on how to not solve issues?
I am aware htat people use alts for lots of reasons. For cyno and stuff you have a corp with other players, mining only needs 1 account, market only needs 1 account, mission running needs 1 account. And if you can't do those things with 1 account then do it with other players (hence the existance of corporations).
Personally I would love to see only single accounts, that would even the odds quite a bit in EVE.
And I am also aware that it will never happen cos then all the multi account vets will start rage quiting :) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
257
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 16:14:00 -
[140] - Quote
Voxinian wrote:
Personally I would love to see only single accounts, that would even the odds quite a bit in EVE.
And I am also aware that it will never happen cos then all the multi account vets will start rage quiting :)
Nah, they'd have a RageBot do it for them... |
|
Sister of Pain
Ze DoucheWaffe
12
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 17:58:00 -
[141] - Quote
Ok, we'll take a minigame to start a mining laser, but the gankers have to play a minigame before they can fire weapons. Gotta keep the sandbox balanced for everyone.
Theres no need to change the ingame mining mechanic at all. Adding minigames, captchas, and so forth is just stupid and would break the game much worse than anything it would accomplish. A real world fix would have to come directly from CCP's code monkeys in the form of a better detection script that gets loaded into our computers as part of the game files. Bot programs are mostly created to be sold, and can be found as such searching the web for them. So find them, create a counter measure that can detect it, and put it out in a login patch on the launcher. (We're already used to seeing those patches almost everyday anyway.)
People need to stop suggesting nerfs/buffs. Crying nerf this/buff that is just bad news for everyone. Just about every time something is nerfed, other things get balanced out as well. I'm sure that most everyone can agree that they have had a part of the game they like get screwed over because a different part of the game got nerfed/buffed. Pain is inevitable, but the suffering is optional.
This is possibly one of the worst threads in the history of these forums.-á Locked. - CCP Falcon |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
995
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 19:05:00 -
[142] - Quote
Why does it need to be a mini-game for mining? Why not a full-blown game that's actually fun to play for long periods of time?
There are lots of styles it could take on but one possibility (for the sake of argument) is a miniature RTS on the asteroid. The miner's view zooms in on the asteroid to build a tiny fast-moving drone civilization that eats away at the asteroid. Now some of these would be already inhabited by rogue drones. The larger the asteroid, the faster you can eat it but the more likely you'll have to fight your way through. The goal is to just transfer as much ore as possible to the sendoff station which throws it all into space in a stream via the mining laser on your ship. Another goal is defend the pickup station, otherwise you lose your asteroid colony and have to find a new landing spot to start over.
And lastly, another player could intentionally make a colony on the same asteroid and try to stop you from mining it. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
263
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 19:10:00 -
[143] - Quote
Mining was as far as I can tell always meant to be a relatively passive career. Introducing these kind of changes simply makes it more difficult for legitimate miners. |
Dave stark
4459
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 19:36:00 -
[144] - Quote
I say we go back to my original proposal; just ban the bots. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
3985
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 20:15:00 -
[145] - Quote
I really tried to read most of the thread, but at a certain point it did occur to me we have effectively a three point proposal. If you try to shift this equation in order to neutralize botting, which is time insensitive, I would suggest doing so in a manner that does not penalize actual players.
Number of hours played to earn a PLEX Number of hours played to earn the ISK needed to buy (ship for use in example) Amount of ore needed to manufacture (ship for use in example)
These are interconnected. Similar to a trigonometric equation, if you set any two of those points, you effectively have dictated the remaining point by default, as the details of the other two by necessity determine it.
Unlike real life, this works here because the amount of ore needed for manufacture is not based on anything but the dev's arbitrary choice. That said, I believe it is made to be as realistic as possible, while still allowing for balanced game play.
I do not believe a system focused around captcha is the right answer here. Bot designers are, in my opinion, more likely to be overwhelmed trying to anticipate a more interactive play requirement, than simply identifying characters in a screwed up font. Conversely, players are, (again in my opinion), more likely to be overwhelmed trying to get the screwy letters and numbers right, than playing a more immersive game which ultimately we are paying to play. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
995
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 20:36:00 -
[146] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Number of hours played to earn a PLEX Number of hours played to earn the ISK needed to buy (ship for use in example) Amount of ore needed to manufacture (ship for use in example) I hope you're not suggesting that decreasing ISK yield from mining will increase the amount of time it takes to earn a PLEX.
My suggestion was to dramatically reduce the ISK yield from mining, such that nobody even considers it a profession but rather just a side skill you do every now and then when minerals get low. At that point, the hauling is probably the bigger bottleneck. There will still be lots of ways for people to earn their PLEX.
Also I should point out that I'm not trying to gain support for my proposal. I made it to point out that defeating bots wouldn't actually be that difficult. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
3986
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 20:51:00 -
[147] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Number of hours played to earn a PLEX Number of hours played to earn the ISK needed to buy (ship for use in example) Amount of ore needed to manufacture (ship for use in example) Q1: I hope you're not suggesting that decreasing ISK yield from mining will increase the amount of time it takes to earn a PLEX. My suggestion was to dramatically reduce the ISK yield from mining, such that nobody even considers it a profession but rather just a side skill you do every now and then when minerals get low. At that point, the hauling is probably the bigger bottleneck. There will still be lots of ways for people to earn their PLEX. Also I should point out that I'm not trying to gain support for my proposal. I made it to point out that defeating bots wouldn't actually be that difficult. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. A1: If PLEX prices remain constant, then reduced income would result in it taking longer. Should players diversify to other income methods, or PLEX pricing drop, then the effect may be balanced out.
It sounds to me, like you are reducing mining to insignificance. At least, compared to current standings.
To me, the real question is in three parts.
How to eliminate bots / Players still being able to earn PLEX / Retaining mining as a desirable play style.
If I understand you correctly, you would eliminate mining as a play style, at least in high sec, in order to achieve this bot removal. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
281
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 20:56:00 -
[148] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:My suggestion was to dramatically reduce the ISK yield from mining, such that nobody even considers it a profession but rather just a side skill you do every now and then when minerals get low. At that point, the hauling is probably the bigger bottleneck. There will still be lots of ways for people to earn their PLEX. Why would you want to ruin the playstyle of thousands of players? What purpose could it serve in the long run? Bots will exist so long as Eve is played on computers.
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Also I should point out that I'm not trying to gain support for my proposal. I made it to point out that defeating bots wouldn't actually be that difficult. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. I really don't believe you have. You keep saying it will work, but seem to be basing that on personal beliefs rather than existing examples or patterns. We keep saying countless times that bots will be able to keep up with changes made to gameplay unless you destroy the profession entirely, which seems to be no problem to you. And you keep saying that your ideas will destroy botting but in your OP, you clearly say that the bots will not go away, they'll just bot somewhere else (maybe switching to rating bots in nullsec. and then we'll have another thread destroying nullsec ratting and start the whole cycle again).
Why do you keep insisting that the majority of miners are botters, and that mining needs to be destroyed as a result?
Although, if mining became somewhat engaging and had the possibility of personal skill increasing efficiency I would be up to try that. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
275
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 22:00:00 -
[149] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote: To be fair, other Games fill this roles with other humans, i dont like Boxer or even Alts but yes we should accept it that its simply a common Part of Eve Online.
When it comes to being a booster character, good luck finding one, who wants to sit on a safe, watching for probes and not getting on any kills. You now are going to say that ongrid boosters should be used, which is indeed a viable option, until you realize that, on the one hand, you still cannot get on kills, because your utility slots and weapon slots are full with required boosters for the fleet, or, in the other hand, you get killed early in fights and thus doom your fleet.
Who cares kills?
I am ongrid booster since... 2 years and i am a very happy puppy, sure i cant get into big Fleet fights but i dont care, i prefer small Gangs and love to be the "Booster Sponge".
Think about it. |
Stephanie Rosefire
Starfleet Academy Red Squad
20
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 22:18:00 -
[150] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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.
this idea is terrible. the game would lose ALOT of active subscribers. most people who want to plex their account rely on mining enough minerals to eventually get the isk to plex their account. making that impossible would mean a good chuck (maybe around 5,000-10,000) of active subscribers would dissappear. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |