| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Verone
   |
Posted - 2006.06.28 11:48:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Wrangler
Our goal is not to shard EVE, but there has never been a definate no to that ever happening. If it can be avoided, then it will be.
However, that is not the topic for this thread, so please move on.
The day this happens is the day I cancel my accounts 
VETO RECRUITMENT |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 12:20:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Wrangler
Our goal is not to shard EVE, but there has never been a definate no to that ever happening. If it can be avoided, then it will be.
However, that is not the topic for this thread, so please move on.
The day this happens is the day I cancel my accounts
Unfortunately, computer hardware/connection hardware & service will force the issue if EVE keeps growing...
Either sharding or system population limits, what's worse?
------------------------------------------------
Current Hobby other than EVE
My Hero
|
Coupo
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 12:37:00 -
[63]
a really big galaxy?
-
I Shoot first, ask questions about your veldspar mining technique later
|
bohda
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 12:46:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Niraven
Quote:
I'm aware that the article says "alleged cheating" but in a case like this, if a 3rd party programme was detected running in the background, I'd say the burden of proof is on the user to prove it's not a contravention of the EULA.
Ah, guilty until proven innocent, or what?
I would suggest that detection of a 3rd party programme running gives you reasonable grounds to suspect/believe that a breach of EULA was taking place, which gives you sufficient evidence to deduce guilt. I've seen RGS/RGB cases prosecuted succesfully in a court of law. If you then appeal that ruling it's for the player appealing to disporve the evidence and therefore prove innocence.
Quote:
To date it never has, although one could argue that if in eve one was in a prolonged war then economics is an influencing factor, but then it makes no odds to me if they bought that isk or have a fleet of miners or some nice BPO's paying for there effort.
I can attack the mining fleet, or war dec the corp that is providing the mining fleet for my enemy/competitors and I could attempt to infiltarte an alt into the corp to steal their funds/bpo's (if I was so inclined) or hire professional corp thieves to do it for me. I CAN'T attack NPC Corp Macroers in empire without additional harm to myself or my corp/alliance, I CAN'T legally attack the websites that provide isk selling services.
In reality I could afford to buy isk myself and gain the same out of game advantage another player has over me but I already pay enough for this game and have the ability to make my own isk. I just wonder what happened to the level playing field that players effect and control to their advantage in game, it throws out my ability to attack my enemy if he has an untouchable source of isk.
As a side thought I've had at work today, what if the macro detector didn't ban players but instead flagged them -10? Then, instead of CCP policing the game, players are given the power to directly police and enforce the rules without taking a hit themselves for being EULA abiding and have a passion for the game and the way CCP intended it to be played? New mini proffesion of "Macro Hunter" anyone?
Oderint Dum Metuant |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 12:47:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Coupo
a really big galaxy?
That won't stop the 4000 players Sunday shopping in Jita, or the 400 vs. 400 fleet battles in 0.0...
I guess Serenity will be a good test...
If they're going to have 500k subscribers and 100k users online at the same time for launch, it will certainly be a strain on the starting system nodes...
------------------------------------------------
Current Hobby other than EVE
My Hero
|
Yumi Katanawe
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 13:33:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Yumi Katanawe on 28/06/2006 13:33:26
Originally by: bohda
As a side thought I've had at work today, what if the macro detector didn't ban players but instead flagged them -10? Then, instead of CCP policing the game, players are given the power to directly police and enforce the rules without taking a hit themselves for being EULA abiding and have a passion for the game and the way CCP intended it to be played? New mini proffesion of "Macro Hunter" anyone?
GENIOUS!
Needs to be implemented 
Too bad at -10 concord would gank them before you could even notice.
|
Major Death
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 13:34:00 -
[67]
If you want to find ISK Famers go to Inoue or the surrounding system.
Behold the silly numbers of cloned ISK mission farmers, all on trial accounts.
And while you there you can see the fleets of macro miners working the belts.
But don't waste time clicking the petition button cause nothing is going to happen.
|
Too Kind
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 14:26:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Too Kind on 28/06/2006 14:31:10
I'm all for banning cheaters, but I also wonder, how often innocent people get banned by these games companies, who go on a witch hunt and ban that many accounts at once. Ok, if they detect a cheat software safely, then there is the 100% proof.
But if they use e.g. some heuristics to find isk sellers in EVE etc. I really hope that they are good and don't show 'false positives'.
E.g. I don't wanna get banned someday for moving isk between my 4 accounts (mains and alts), which is just normal procedure, if you use e.g. an alt char for selling loot in Jita, buying a GTC for your main or if you need all the isk on another char to buy something.
I really hate it, when people don't play by the rules like cheat, exploit or farm to sell something for real currency, but banning innocent players would be really bad.
I really hope that they take enough time to investigate each case.
--------------------------
Post with your main !!!111 |
bohda
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 14:28:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Yumi Katanawe
Edited by: Yumi Katanawe on 28/06/2006 13:33:26
Originally by: bohda
As a side thought I've had at work today, what if the macro detector didn't ban players but instead flagged them -10? Then, instead of CCP policing the game, players are given the power to directly police and enforce the rules without taking a hit themselves for being EULA abiding and have a passion for the game and the way CCP intended it to be played? New mini proffesion of "Macro Hunter" anyone?
GENIOUS!
Needs to be implemented
Too bad at -10 concord would gank them before you could even notice.
Good point well presented, let's have them at least at -5 or lower then. Maybe an incremental Sec hit verytime they log on with the 3rd party programme running 
Oderint Dum Metuant |
Cheyenne Shadowborn
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 14:49:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Cheyenne Shadowborn on 28/06/2006 14:50:51
While I agree with your post in general, spying on a customer's client PC is not a good thing(tm) and Blizzard will probably rot in hell for this alone, united in the "don't" area of Dante's City of Dis along with the makers of Starforce, and Bill Gates, and all Electronic Arts executives.
My $0.02
-----------------------------------------------------
"At least freelancer keeps the physics realistic."
-- SINKFIST |
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 17:11:00 -
[71]
While having a spy in the client may not appeal to everyone, maybe this is the only real way to go. Using the client to ensure that the players doesn't cheat is not a new idea and has always caused a lot of controversy but it happens already and will continue to happen.
Take this scenario: I stay at your house and pay rent. I then steal your walkman and sell it to your wife. Since the walkman has not left your house, you are unaware that I have actually stolen it. However, your wife has just given me back the rent money so I am living at your house for free.
That is effectively what Macro miners are doing to CCP. They pay CCP for the account and then steal their in-game items to make the money back. Since the items have not left the game, CCP are unaware that they have been stolen. These macro miners are paying nothing to play this game and probably forcing other players to quit due to the inability to compete with them. Ore, mineral and ice prices have dropped so it's getting harder to make a living and even harder for the new players to get a decent start.
--
|
Zachary Bonaparte
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 14:03:00 -
[72]
Originally by: SGXiphias
Edited by: SGXiphias on 27/06/2006 20:09:44
yeah its interesting, i have reported an entire corporation of 4 players with a total of 30 accounts for macromining and using exploits to mine in 0.0. All they have to do is pop in a polaris frigs and its obvious when the NPC's are 500Km away from the belt and whole corp is strip mining the belts. It is killing the economy and CCP does nothing about it. Hell i had a private convo with there CEO, and he admitted to me he was using exploits and the GM's still didnt ban him.
you dont see macro miners lately operating in high security belts because they moved to belts that respawn in missions and some have long been cooperating with alliances out in 0.0 make a big kill macro strip mining the most profitable minerals. their problem used to be asteroids in belts respawn too slowly but in missions you get unlimited asteroids as long as you have the software to farm it. problem solved. theirs.
ccp has made a conscious effort to make it harder to earn ISK patch by patch, so it is no wonder to see sales of ISK increase on ebay making this game more attractive to macro miners. kind of like american solution to indians is close them off to reserves so they can not be seen. ccp has closed off macro miners to their personal asteroid belts to reduce whining by legitimate players.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |