| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
369
   |
Posted - 2014.04.20 19:10:00 -
[211] - Quote
DetKhord Saisio wrote:[Like moths to a flame, the bats will follow the prey.
Holy painful mixed metaphor, Batman!
Are you trying to say the bats will follow the moths? or are they following a flame, but bats fear flames.. eh someone bring me a blue pill.. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1125
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 20:24:00 -
[212] - Quote
DetKhord Saisio wrote:I agree, highsec mining should not be very profitable. Removing highsec endless ice was done. If I understand you correctly, you want to do the same thing to highsec ore. I'm pointing out that if highsec ore had a high enough yield, the highsec bots would become unable to sell their ores to nullsec because the cost of transportation would become greater than the cost to mine locally, and nullsec would get their own low-end ore. Then highsec mining would cease to be anything but a fringe business, run by people who want to sit and watch the lasers or even just go AFK (or a few low-income bots), and it would be purchased by highsec and used in highsec primarily. If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree with you. I'm not endorsing my original post as a good solution, but I stand by my assertion that it would, in fact, have the projected consequences. I'm also not saying it's a bad solution. That is for you guys to decide.
DetKhord Saisio wrote:Afaik, CCP has known of bot/macro use for years, but took minimal action to stop it. Are IP bans the answer? CCP put a lot of effort into stopping the bots at one point, and they were hugely successful. Several years back, there was a bot infestation in which swarms of bot accounts literally plowed out to lowsec and mined in industrials. Players would shoot them, but there were just too many to make a difference. But CCP developed new technology for spotting bots and is currently employing this tech live on Tranquility, where they detect bots and continue to update the technology. Initially, they banned thousands of accounts accurately, with very few accidents involving banning legitimate players. There are still bots, but it is no longer quite so easy to maintain one. People will tell you that anyone can download a macro program and run their own profitable bots in EVE but it simply isn't true. If it were true, there would still be bots flying industrials into lowsec.
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. Alternatively, it's not something they need to worry about because there's no way they can get rid of botting in one fell swoop. It won't happen.
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!! |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
798
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 20:48:00 -
[213] - Quote
Many botters operate in nullsec. Sounds just like normal anti highsec junk |
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 01:31:00 -
[214] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Many botters operate in nullsec. Sounds just like normal anti highsec junk
Yup just another troller trying to encourage bots. Classic null bear logic. |
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
301
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 08:44:00 -
[215] - Quote
Novel (half baked or bad) Ideas to demolish bot mining that are marginally better than the OPs
Remove Defensive mode from Drones and up the quantity and quality of belt rats. Increase the drone bay of all ORE vessels other than the venture (who will get to field two drones) so they can carry a full wave of lights at least. BONUS: this now means that comedy fleets are more fun.
More ewar rats. Particularly warp scramble rats rather than ECM rats.
Logistic Rats
ECM rats
Rats start fitting resists if too many die. A rat spawns each time a person warps to the belt and every 7-17 prime minutes a wave of rats spawn.
Make mining like PI: set up a base, move mining laser/drone platforms into patterns to mine, belt warp in has a POCO style structure that holds minerals that you bring a hauler to to collect. Make the POCOs forced neutral for a year or so and then decide whether to make them procurable. Each race has a different method to mining (amarr use lasers, gallente use drones, caldari use missiles then tractor beam fragments in, Minmatar send fellow Minmatari out to plasmacut the surface)
Join them: allow players to send mining drone I and IIs to belts and they mine out the asteroids for you. New UI function allows to to add modules to a C&C drone which has combat versions, logistical versions, ewar versions, booster versions and Carrier/hauler versions. I'm seeing slot layouts like rookie ships though for modules, or maybe more restrictive.
UI elements would also include a "picture in picture" option of your C&C drone so that whether you are ship spinning, scamming, trading, manufacturing or actually out there PVPing/Doing the work of the lord of high sec you know when your little cubs are under distress so you can go to them and be all mama bear on the enemy/AI or assume direct control of the C&C module and either fight or flight. (WARNING:do not assume direct control while in the middle of PVP, or when you are the midpoint for a cyno chain).
|
Dave Stark
5206
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 09:27:00 -
[216] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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.
strangely, i'd be perfectly fine with the economic backlash of mining's isk/hour not sucking balls. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
453
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 09:42:00 -
[217] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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. strangely, i'd be perfectly fine with the economic backlash of mining's isk/hour not sucking balls.
Are you sure? No one would buy a Frigate that costs 20M to produce.  |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1189
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:13:00 -
[218] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Are you sure? No one would buy a Frigate that costs 20M to produce. A higher demand doesn't reduce sales. Miners would easily profit from the disappearance of bots. Mining would become much more profitable.
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!! |
Dave Stark
5209
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:17:00 -
[219] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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. strangely, i'd be perfectly fine with the economic backlash of mining's isk/hour not sucking balls. Are you sure? No one would buy a Frigate that costs 20M to produce.
if they wanted a frigate, they'd have no choice. just because a frig costs 20m doesn't mean people stop buying and flying frigates. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
456
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:24:00 -
[220] - Quote
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.  |
Dave Stark
5212
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:27:00 -
[221] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: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.
you do realise you're posting complete crap, right? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
456
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:37:00 -
[222] - Quote
I realized your failure to understand my point, yes. |
Dave Stark
5212
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:42:00 -
[223] - Quote
your point is; if ships are expensive nobody will fly them.
look at every large scale battle. they were all frigates and cruisers because titans cost billions. right? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
456
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:45:00 -
[224] - Quote
B-R is an anomaly, and so are the other big fights. I hardly believe that a lot of people are going to use BS that cost 1-2B+ (those that now cost ~200M) a lot. Scaps and Titans are being used, because they give tactical advantages; Standard T1 BS for the price of faction BS and even more expensive don't give that advantage. |
Dave Stark
5213
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:47:00 -
[225] - Quote
every big fight is an anomaly, right, sure. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1189
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:58:00 -
[226] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I realized your failure to understand my point, yes. Actually you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The minerals can only become highly valued if people are continuing to purchase them. It is when the demand is higher than supply that the price rises. It will stabilize at the point where the buyers and sellers are agreeing on a price.
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!! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
456
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:08:00 -
[227] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I realized your failure to understand my point, yes. Actually you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The minerals can only become highly valued if people are continuing to purchase them. It is when the demand is higher than supply that the price rises. It will stabilize at the point where the buyers and sellers are agreeing on a price.
Which can only be extremely high for an extended period of time because human miners cannot cope with the demand. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1189
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:14:00 -
[228] - Quote
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.
Have you thought this through?
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!! |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
456
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:34:00 -
[229] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.
Have you thought this through?
Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1304
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:00:00 -
[230] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.
Have you thought this through? Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.
If mining profit rose a mere 10 mil/hr (Ok so thats 50%) I'd mine on all my accounts when I wasn't so busy, rather than do other things or even just pure idle because I can't be bothered sometimes. Market will respond to demand. |
Dave Stark
5214
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:20:00 -
[231] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.
Have you thought this through? Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.
so basically you're basing this on "because you say so"
very compelling. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
456
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:23:00 -
[232] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.
Have you thought this through? Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it. so basically you're basing this on "because you say so" very compelling.
I base it on experience. What do you base your assumptions on? |
Dave Stark
5214
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:30:00 -
[233] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.
Have you thought this through? Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it. so basically you're basing this on "because you say so" very compelling. I base it on experience. What do you base your assumptions on?
oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so". |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4182
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:13:00 -
[234] - Quote
While supply and demand cycles effectively regulate each other, there does come a point where supply cannot fully satisfy demand.
At that point, the items in question remain available ONLY to those still able to afford them, and become described as luxury items in the process.
EVE will fail as a spaceship game, if enough players cannot buy the spaceships.
I do not believe anyone seriously wants that.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
459
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:39:00 -
[235] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so".
That point is flawed, because of the points in my response after yours. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4182
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:52:00 -
[236] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.
Have you thought this through? Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.
If a balance point were to be established based on the absolute non-existence of botting, the result would possibly be that ore being produced would be multiplied to the point where market stability needed it to be.
Players need X ore to build ships. X = Y + Z
Human miners produce Y amount of ore.
Botting miners produce Z amount of ore.
Botting eliminated, Z amount of ore stops.
Human mining adjusted so return Y now equals previous Y + Z.
(Increase in ore returned per cycle, not amount of time & effort)
X remains constant, but funds previously going to Botting now goes to human mining.
As mining already had caps on available ore & ice already in game, the increased return may cause more competition.
Those only wanting ore at previous levels can now do so in less time, allowing either growth of income with effort maintained, or growth of activity in other areas with just income maintained.
I believe the math is correct.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Dave Stark
5218
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:09:00 -
[237] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so".
That point is flawed, because of the points in my response after yours.
"because you said so" doesn't prove ****, son. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
461
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:11:00 -
[238] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so".
That point is flawed, because of the points in my response after yours. "because you said so" doesn't prove ****, son.
No, I mean that point:
Rivr Luzade wrote:B-R is an anomaly, and so are the other big fights. I hardly believe that a lot of people are going to use BS that cost 1-2B+ (those that now cost ~200M) a lot. Scaps and Titans are being used, because they give tactical advantages; Standard T1 BS for the price of faction BS and even more expensive don't give that advantage.
|
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries
Intergalactic Conservation Movement
143
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:02:00 -
[239] - Quote
If OP really believes that bot mining only happens in high sec then he is delusional, or perhaps just horribly misinformed. In the depths of null sec there's rarely anyone around to witness the bot miner and report it, meaning they get away with it for longer. Sure the risks are higher, but that just means smarter bot programs.
Reducing the yield on high sec ores would accomplish nothing on the bot miner front, and would simply crush high sec industrialists into the ground. |
chaosgrimm
Universal Production and Networking Services
99
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:06:00 -
[240] - Quote
Swing and a miss |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |