Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3090
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 08:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all.
|
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
57
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 08:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
What if the only time you would show up on d-scan is when you are 24km away from them? |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 08:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
DScan doesn't give as much information and doesn't distinguish between friendlies and neutrals/hostiles and has a limited range. It wouldn't necessarily stop botting but it would make it harder. CCP could also add random false positives to DScan and keep everyone on edge, and bots inactive. ..(edit) also cloaked ships don't show up on DScan. ..not sure how I left that one out, because it alone would make botters lives miserable.
Anyway, there's more reasons to remove Local Chat intel than just addressing bots, as far as I'm concerned that would just be a bonus side effect not the purpose of removing Local Intel. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1377
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 08:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
The real reason removing local is a terrible idea is that Null Income for real players is based on Anomalies which do not require probes to find.
WHs work without local because: 1) The income is higher 2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
324
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 09:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
no man ask any guy who lives in a wormhole pressing d-scan is the ultimate in player skill |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
324
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 09:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The real reason removing local is a terrible idea is that Null Income for real players is based on Anomalies which do not require probes to find.
WHs work without local because: 1) The income is higher 2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan 3) mass limitations 4) no cynos 5) can destroy entry point with use of large ships once a hostile is detected |
baltec1
553
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 09:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
My bomber laughs at you. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
73
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 09:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
This like most things is an after thought. Had it been considered 6 years ago they could have made local like wormholes where you arent in local untill you speak up and that feature goes away as soon as you add an outpost to the system. Null sec would look much different than it does now had that been done.
It's always easier to look back and say what should be and should have been done different. Doing anything to local now would be huge, much bigger than anyone can predict. As for bots, that was never a part of local debates but they didnt build EVE to be anti bot, they built it to be played. Bots were built based on what was given to them. It didn't matter what CCP did, the bots would have adapted. |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
people who want local removed should just move into a wormhole and stfu local information is also vital for people who actually wants to pvp, used for hunting targets, specially for chasing someone through several systems...! unless CCP drasticly improves Dscan. removes cloaking, and much more, local should remain in non wormhole space |
I'thari
54
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:19:00 -
[10] - Quote
I suspect it's much simplier: any bot program will just have access to info server sends to client... and client knows who is in system in any given time and where he is (at least if old vid with GM menu is to be belived). So, by removing local you won't change anything for bots, but real people will have more trouble telling if there's one in system... |
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
231
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all. It's pretty clear the the current d-scan needs to be reworked for delayed local. This is stated in pretty much every topic advocating delayed local.
For example, my preference for the new d-scan would be to have the auto passive and the manual active modes (with some range and detectability tradeoffs for both), where the liberal use of the active scanner would tun your ship into a warpable signature. |
Honnete Du Decimer
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan
Combat site - no need D-scan give most ISK.
D-scan horrible. Press many many time. So broken, only crazy game make player do like this. Then they have cloak Warp To. PMS |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1379
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:36:00 -
[13] - Quote
Honnete Du Decimer wrote:RubyPorto wrote:2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan Combat site - no need D-scan give most ISK.
Are you talking about WH space or Null? Cause Anoms in WH space pay a pittance compared to Sigs. Also, the sentence you quoted referred quite clearly to WH space.
I swear, I think you're English is steadily worsening. I could've sworn you were able to use definite articles not two days ago. And parse-able sentence structures yesterday.
Quote:D-scan horrible. Press many many time. So broken, only crazy game make player do like this. Then they have cloak Warp To.
Yeah. That was part of my point... and then what's this about cloaked warp ins? That's why you've been d-scanning for probes this whole time. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
231
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'thari wrote:I suspect it's much simplier: any bot program will just have access to info server sends to client... and client knows who is in system in any given time and where he is (at least if old vid with GM menu is to be belived). So, by removing local you won't change anything for bots, but real people will have more trouble telling if there's one in system... So, the GM client couldn't possibly request this info from the server? |
Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'thari wrote:I suspect it's much simplier: any bot program will just have access to info server sends to client... and client knows who is in system in any given time and where he is (at least if old vid with GM menu is to be belived). So, by removing local you won't change anything for bots, but real people will have more trouble telling if there's one in system...
Pretty much this. Bots monitor the data coming into the client and when someone enters the system your client is forcefully updated. The bots recognize this signature change and therefore know immediately that someone came into system and to dock up or start their friend/foe subroutine before docking up. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:32:00 -
[16] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Are you talking about WH space or Null? Cause Anoms in WH space pay a pittance compared to Sigs. Also, the sentence you quoted referred quite clearly to WH space. .
lol, you're doing it wrong.
No local in null would shake things up a bit, for those alliances that build bubble fortresses on gates for there anomaly/mining ops would have to actually start manning the gates but it will never happen because the carebear nullsec'ers will cry too hard |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:36:00 -
[17] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Are you talking about WH space or Null? Cause Anoms in WH space pay a pittance compared to Sigs. Also, the sentence you quoted referred quite clearly to WH space. . lol, you're doing it wrong. No local in null would shake things up a bit, for those alliances that build bubble fortresses on gates for there anomaly/mining ops would have to actually start manning the gates but it will never happen because the carebear nullsec'ers will cry too hard
lmao you think people mine in nullsec like peasants
you're dumb andski for csm7~ |
Honnete Du Decimer
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Are you talking about WH space or Null? Cause Anoms in WH space pay a pittance compared to Sigs. Also, the sentence you quoted referred quite clearly to WH space.
I swear, I think you're English is steadily worsening. I could've sworn you were able to use definite articles not two days ago. And parse-able sentence structures yesterday.
Combat site - do many with dedicate salvage ship.
English - I am in work. Less time check and think.
RubyPorto wrote: Yeah. That was part of my point... and then what's this about cloaked warp ins? That's why you've been d-scanning for probes this whole time.
Scan many worm hole before people are log on. Catch in combat site. Only chance see come is time for enemy warp. PMS |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Are you talking about WH space or Null? Cause Anoms in WH space pay a pittance compared to Sigs. Also, the sentence you quoted referred quite clearly to WH space. . lol, you're doing it wrong. No local in null would shake things up a bit, for those alliances that build bubble fortresses on gates for there anomaly/mining ops would have to actually start manning the gates but it will never happen because the carebear nullsec'ers will cry too hard lmao you think people mine in nullsec like peasants you're dumb
mine hulls, duhhh |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
231
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
Buruk Utama wrote:I'thari wrote:I suspect it's much simplier: any bot program will just have access to info server sends to client... and client knows who is in system in any given time and where he is (at least if old vid with GM menu is to be belived). So, by removing local you won't change anything for bots, but real people will have more trouble telling if there's one in system... Pretty much this. Bots monitor the data coming into the client and when someone enters the system your client is forcefully updated. The bots recognize this signature change and therefore know immediately that someone came into system and to dock up or start their friend/foe subroutine before docking up. You don't get the point because you are too stupid. No biggie, here it is simplified: bots detect changes in system population because we have instant local. Hope that helps. |
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:08:00 -
[21] - Quote
Okay lets go hypothetical and I am not an idiot bot programmer and let my bots do something a person cant.
I have 100 bots and I sync them to dscan one ship every 1/100th of a second from the next one and have them setup to talk to each other. The moment one of them sees +1 more ship than them theyll cloak up. Only thing a bot needs to do is count dscan results not much different from current bots.
Now you might be smart enough to smash dscan as soon as you jump in and before you decloak/recloak to go hunting but in tha t one instance you pop up on overview, boom they're gone.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
231
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Okay lets go hypothetical and I am not an idiot bot programmer and let my bots do something a person cant.
I have 100 bots and I sync them to dscan one ship every 1/100th of a second from the next one and have them setup to talk to each other. The moment one of them sees +1 more ship than them theyll cloak up. Only thing a bot needs to do is count dscan results not much different from current bots.
Now you might be smart enough to smash dscan as soon as you jump in and before you decloak/recloak to go hunting but in tha tone instance boom they're gone. IMO your mistake is in looking for a flaw in the current d-scan that works with current local. Granted, CCP is known for taking the easy way out (see WTZ); however there is hope that d-scan gets some severe updates if and when delayed local is implemented.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
Razin wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Okay lets go hypothetical and I am not an idiot bot programmer and let my bots do something a person cant.
I have 100 bots and I sync them to dscan one ship every 1/100th of a second from the next one and have them setup to talk to each other. The moment one of them sees +1 more ship than them theyll cloak up. Only thing a bot needs to do is count dscan results not much different from current bots.
Now you might be smart enough to smash dscan as soon as you jump in and before you decloak/recloak to go hunting but in tha tone instance boom they're gone. IMO your mistake is in looking for a flaw in the current d-scan that works with current local. Granted, CCP is known for taking the easy way out (see WTZ); however there is hope that d-scan gets some severe updates if and when delayed local is implemented.
Agreed but if they keep it the same, the status quo is almost not going to change that much. And killing one of them isnt going to do much to stop them as on person stated, say hi to my bomber and Im like dude you need an entire wing of bombers and chances are not all of the bots are in the same area.
|
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Razin wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Okay lets go hypothetical and I am not an idiot bot programmer and let my bots do something a person cant.
I have 100 bots and I sync them to dscan one ship every 1/100th of a second from the next one and have them setup to talk to each other. The moment one of them sees +1 more ship than them theyll cloak up. Only thing a bot needs to do is count dscan results not much different from current bots.
Now you might be smart enough to smash dscan as soon as you jump in and before you decloak/recloak to go hunting but in tha tone instance boom they're gone. IMO your mistake is in looking for a flaw in the current d-scan that works with current local. Granted, CCP is known for taking the easy way out (see WTZ); however there is hope that d-scan gets some severe updates if and when delayed local is implemented. Agreed but if they keep it the same, the status quo is almost not going to change that much. And killing one of them isnt going to do much to stop them as on person stated, say hi to my bomber and Im like dude you need an entire wing of bombers and chances are not all of the bots are in the same area.
Except the bots are never going to know when you left, or if you logged, or if you jumped an alt in then logged, or whether they should log back in if they logged off. You can come up with a million counters, or counter-counters but the cloak will be the number 1 thing cried about if local went. I hope it goes go, null has it on easy mode for any alliance that has enough space and enough members to patrol and fill it. With the exception of wars of course |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Except the bots are never going to know when you left, or if you logged, or if you jumped an alt in then logged, or whether they should log back in if they logged off. You can come up with a million counters, or counter-counters but the cloak will be the number 1 thing cried about if local went. I hope it goes go, null has it on easy mode for any alliance that has enough space and enough members to patrol and fill it. With the exception of wars of course
it's almost like an alliance and its members work to achieve this level of security
but no let's throw away all of that because a few guys can't figure out ways to kill ratters andski for csm7~ |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:53:00 -
[26] - Quote
Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:Except the bots are never going to know when you left, or if you logged, or if you jumped an alt in then logged, or whether they should log back in if they logged off. You can come up with a million counters, or counter-counters but the cloak will be the number 1 thing cried about if local went. I hope it goes go, null has it on easy mode for any alliance that has enough space and enough members to patrol and fill it. With the exception of wars of course it's almost like an alliance and its members work to achieve this level of security but no let's throw away all of that because a few guys can't figure out ways to kill ratters
Instant local, cloaks and nullifier t3s, its almost like you dont need to be at the keyboard to rat at all |
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:59:00 -
[27] - Quote
Reason why people want local removed....so you can't SEE them.
Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 16:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:Except the bots are never going to know when you left, or if you logged, or if you jumped an alt in then logged, or whether they should log back in if they logged off. You can come up with a million counters, or counter-counters but the cloak will be the number 1 thing cried about if local went. I hope it goes go, null has it on easy mode for any alliance that has enough space and enough members to patrol and fill it. With the exception of wars of course it's almost like an alliance and its members work to achieve this level of security but no let's throw away all of that because a few guys can't figure out ways to kill ratters Instant local, cloaks and nullifier t3s, its almost like you dont need to be at the keyboard to rat at all
instant local is a two-way street
nobody uses cloaky nullified t3s to rat
cripes stop being dumb andski for csm7~ |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 16:54:00 -
[29] - Quote
Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:Except the bots are never going to know when you left, or if you logged, or if you jumped an alt in then logged, or whether they should log back in if they logged off. You can come up with a million counters, or counter-counters but the cloak will be the number 1 thing cried about if local went. I hope it goes go, null has it on easy mode for any alliance that has enough space and enough members to patrol and fill it. With the exception of wars of course it's almost like an alliance and its members work to achieve this level of security but no let's throw away all of that because a few guys can't figure out ways to kill ratters Instant local, cloaks and nullifier t3s, its almost like you dont need to be at the keyboard to rat at all instant local is a two-way street nobody uses cloaky nullified t3s to rat cripes stop being dumb
are bots people too?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:20:00 -
[30] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:are bots people too?
that's one hell of an existential question andski for csm7~ |
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:24:00 -
[31] - Quote
Andski wrote:Nova Fox wrote:are bots people too? that's one hell of an existential question
I know, I mean is it right to call them nobody? or its just the limits of thier natures to exist as such? One must ponder more about it.
|
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1468
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:32:00 -
[32] - Quote
Hi,
Can I just join in and call everyone dumb in this thread. I feel so excluded. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:38:00 -
[33] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Hi,
Can I just join in and call everyone dumb in this thread. I feel so excluded.
Yes you may.
|
Jhan Niber
EdgeGamers
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:54:00 -
[34] - Quote
I am not aware of bots being able to communicate amongst themselves. As far as I know they operate independently of each other. Even if the bots do become capable of communicating with each other to develop a system wide D-scan, they still can't keep track of ships with cloaking devices.
I was going to write a long explanation of the various ways that no local would make botting much more difficult, but I'll just go ahead and point out that there's a reason you don't find bots in W-space. |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1469
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 18:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Okay lets go hypothetical and I am not an idiot That's really pushing the boundaries of reasonable hypothesis.
(a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
214
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 18:09:00 -
[36] - Quote
ROLLS EYES ACROSS THE TABLE
So many Assumptions, so few working prototypes and proofs.
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians Wall of Shadow
808
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 18:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
Not like a stealth bomber could ever warp in cloaked and lock right after decloak quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1194
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 18:30:00 -
[38] - Quote
I suppose then that if the server detects a scan initialization at the same time other inputs occur, meaning that if say F1 is clicked only mere moments a scan is initiated, that could be a reason for investigation.
Of course players with thousands of NPC kills in null and null systems full of NPC deaths that drop the moment someone AFK cloaks there should also be a cause for investigation.
Existing stats would work.
But organized crime will probably take revenge if CCP actually did anything about botting. We don't want some poor pony losing his head, do we?
Botting will end when the game is dead, or the kind of people who purchase RMT are weeded out hopefully by some global disaster - being the kind of people who RMT are probably a bane on the world in other RL aspects and such a mentality that does not easily survive disasters, wars, zombie apocs, etc.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:04:00 -
[39] - Quote
Spurty wrote:ROLLS EYES ACROSS THE TABLE
So many Assumptions, so few working prototypes and proofs.
And you think having bots talk to each other is a technnological imposisbility? Software is capable of doing alot of things the programmers tell it to do.
Bots are mostly AI scripts put together to THEN interact with a client. There does come a point where bots may be utterly confused about how to play a game but with time and investment you can make a near player like bot easily enough and script him to have an entire week scheduled. If you dont belive me then you need to take a look on how Halo's AI operate, and how obiliviion and skyrim schedules thier npcs.
Also It be horrible if whoever ever built these bots how to analyze a pvp situation and engage a hostile player especially if you show up in one bomber and they have 8 officer fitted and jacked piloted tengus.
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
563
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:10:00 -
[40] - Quote
Didn't bother reading anything other than the OP, but...
1) dscan doesn't tell you when a cloaked ship is 10km from you
2) dscan doesn't tell you if the ship warping to you is firendly
Removing local won't kill the bots (other than shortly afterwards when they need to be redone), but it will make them supremely easier to kill. |
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Didn't bother reading anything other than the OP, but...
1) dscan doesn't tell you when a cloaked ship is 10km from you
2) dscan doesn't tell you if the ship warping to you is firendly
Removing local won't kill the bots (other than shortly afterwards when they need to be redone), but it will make them supremely easier to kill.
It was establised that the bots dont have to register as freindly it only has to register +1 descan results because of that vunerable transition period for that umph of a seconds you are recloaking up at the gate.
Also inversly if the number of established bots goes down by -1 then it would and should go into panic mode again.
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:19:00 -
[42] - Quote
removing local not only is a stupid solution but also very easy to get around. Scan probes will be deployed by Bots easy. It would be like having local. Its actually easy to implement. Not to mention gate activation, which i am sure can also be done. |
Count Spank
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Hi,
Can I just join in and call everyone dumb in this thread. I feel so excluded.
Indeed, you are excluded. That is your position here. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:30:00 -
[44] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:removing local not only is a stupid solution but also very easy to get around. Scan probes will be deployed by Bots easy. It would be like having local. Its actually easy to implement. Not to mention gate activation, which i am sure can also be done.
Yeah gate activation makes an audible noise just having a afk velator would give the bots an advanced warning to cloak up before even the inbound hunter has a chance to throw a dscan out.
|
Valei Khurelem
270
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:33:00 -
[45] - Quote
Removing null has nothing to do with bots, I don't know where you got this idea from, what it would fix quite a lot is ganking because it would force the lazy EVE PvPers to actually have to look for you in the system rather than just go "Oh look! Someone just jumped in! Let's get those bubbles up so he can't go anywhere!".
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1026
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:40:00 -
[46] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:Removing null has nothing to do with bots, I don't know where you got this idea from, what it would fix quite a lot is ganking because it would force the lazy EVE PvPers to actually have to look for you in the system rather than just go "Oh look! Someone just jumped in! Let's get those bubbles up so he can't go anywhere!". It was brought up in another thread a while back that removing local would deter bots since pretty much every bot program currently relies on local and the intel gathered from local to flee to safety when someone comes in system. The idea being that if local were to be removed it would be much easier for legit players to get the jump on and kill bots. This would still be the case even if bots spammed the D-Scan as D-Scan (you would know this if you ever used it) can only be used once every 5 seconds or so. Unless said bots were constantly aligned out to a safe this would make it much easier to get in and tackle bots for the kill.
As it stands the best chance to capture a bot is to put bubbles around it's safe POS and leave system. Come back in a couple minutes later and hope you get lucky with your little trap. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Metesurena
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:47:00 -
[48] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Valei Khurelem wrote:Removing null has nothing to do with bots, I don't know where you got this idea from, what it would fix quite a lot is ganking because it would force the lazy EVE PvPers to actually have to look for you in the system rather than just go "Oh look! Someone just jumped in! Let's get those bubbles up so he can't go anywhere!". It was brought up in another thread a while back that removing local would deter bots since pretty much every bot program currently relies on local and the intel gathered from local to flee to safety when someone comes in system. The idea being that if local were to be removed it would be much easier for legit players to get the jump on and kill bots. This would still be the case even if bots spammed the D-Scan as D-Scan (you would know this if you ever used it) can only be used once every 5 seconds or so. Unless said bots were constantly aligned out to a safe this would make it much easier to get in and tackle bots for the kill. As it stands the best chance to capture a bot is to put bubbles around it's safe POS and leave system. Come back in a couple minutes later and hope you get lucky with your little trap.
So with 100 bots it would be one dscan every 0.05 of a second if you stagger the cycles out.
And being honest, no I never had to spam d-scan, I only uesd it to check gates before I warp to them as some camps are particiularlly nasty to get though if they're expecting you.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets
In a counter attack pvp ship you can back hand most cloaking ships fairly easily, even the stealth bomber is all bite and no skin. As long as you keep your ship cheaper than thiers you should come out on top of the war of attrition.
|
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:51:00 -
[50] - Quote
Forgive my ignorance, but how does a bot spam the D-scan faster than the fixed limit? I'm not saying the limit on (or the range of)the D-scan is correct - higher would be better - but it's certainly not 100ths of a second.
And how does an NPC-ratting bot cloak if it is ratting?
And why are people saying removing local has nothing to do it? Bots have used local (or the feed that supports it) for at least 7 years. It would be easy to kill bots by cloaking up in the system and waiting at a belt if they didn't have something telling them someone was in the system with them.
And finally how will this affect the forum bots that post crap in every thread? |
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1026
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:51:00 -
[51] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Valei Khurelem wrote:Removing null has nothing to do with bots, I don't know where you got this idea from, what it would fix quite a lot is ganking because it would force the lazy EVE PvPers to actually have to look for you in the system rather than just go "Oh look! Someone just jumped in! Let's get those bubbles up so he can't go anywhere!". It was brought up in another thread a while back that removing local would deter bots since pretty much every bot program currently relies on local and the intel gathered from local to flee to safety when someone comes in system. The idea being that if local were to be removed it would be much easier for legit players to get the jump on and kill bots. This would still be the case even if bots spammed the D-Scan as D-Scan (you would know this if you ever used it) can only be used once every 5 seconds or so. Unless said bots were constantly aligned out to a safe this would make it much easier to get in and tackle bots for the kill. As it stands the best chance to capture a bot is to put bubbles around it's safe POS and leave system. Come back in a couple minutes later and hope you get lucky with your little trap. So with 100 bots it would be one dscan every 0.05 of a second if you stagger the cycles out. And being honest, no I never had to spam d-scan, I only uesd it to check gates before I warp to them as some camps are particiularlly nasty to get though if they're expecting you.
You are also forgetting that D-Scan only goes so far out. If you are out of that range they can't D-Scan you. If they scan you while you are already in warp to them...well...assuming they are using a BS to rat in it is likely too little to late. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Tian Nu
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:53:00 -
[52] - Quote
if you removed local from 0.0 you will stuck many solo players from going to 0.0 again the chat give alot of intel to solo players ofc blobers well are blobers. If one day CCP remove local it will do alot of bad to EvE. Father O'Malley about Darius III begging for whelp: GÇ£Hows that working out for ya ? I make it 02:21 and all I see is you begging Riverini to get numbers and trying to recruit from the incursion public channel.GÇ¥ |
Valei Khurelem
270
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:58:00 -
[53] - Quote
Quote:if you removed local from 0.0 you will stuck many solo players from going to 0.0 again the chat give alot of intel to solo players ofc blobers well are blobers. If one day CCP remove local it will do alot of bad to EvE.
Where in the hell do you get this idea from? It's obvious that local gives far too much intel both to blob fleets and gankers in general, you'll be able to do far more in low sec and 0.0 space without the threat of having people searching for easy kills in their system just by glancing at the side of chat to see who's popping into their empty system. I guarantee you that removing the ability to see who's in local chat will for the most part chase gankers off because they'll either be too lazy to look for you with the scanners or they'll be too scared because they won't know whether you have friends with you or not.
Vertisce Soritenshi I stand corrected then, you make a fair point about bots, but I reckon that instead someone clever is just going to program a way for the bots to spam directional scanner everywhere and the moment they detect a ship they'll go back to their station.
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:01:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ilany wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but how does a bot spam the D-scan faster than the fixed limit? I'm not saying the limit on (or the range of)the D-scan is correct - higher would be better - but it's certainly not 100ths of a second.
And how does an NPC-ratting bot cloak if it is ratting?
And why are people saying removing local has nothing to do it? Bots have used local (or the feed that supports it) for at least 7 years. It would be easy to kill bots by cloaking up in the system and waiting at a belt if they didn't have something telling them someone was in the system with them.
And finally how will this affect the forum bots that post crap in every thread?
You network the bots together to put it plainly, thought its very likely it will pita to get a clock they can all count on to script and sequence thie dscans then talk to each other out of the game (hell ingame have the bot that finds something spam fleet channel) the resource of 5 multiplies 100 times over which is a bit large for a ratting bot fleet in null but they do get that larget according to more recent reports last Ive seen them was 30 strong about.
Ask the null bot hunters for specifics on how these bots do it. Most of the time I hear they get mostly fustrated by the time they arrive the bots are gone and cloaked and/or safed somehwere behind a deathstar pos.
I am advodcating that removing local could potentially make the problem worse. However... it may give ccp an edge of finding these days as I am sure spamming dscan is going to lag out the system every 5% a second. Which doesnt say much for our paranoid human playes who refresh d-scan more often that I care to do.
What I am really surpised is as many numbers they have now why havent we seen them primary things to death? They're probably afraid of the jump portal or cynos.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:03:00 -
[55] - Quote
Tian Nu wrote:if you removed local from 0.0 you will stuck many solo players from going to 0.0 again the chat give alot of intel to solo players ofc blobers well are blobers. If one day CCP remove local it will do alot of bad to EvE.
Hmm no. if you said this about low sec I be more inclined to belive you.
However local with no intel replacement would be bad for player empires in general having a very weak idea of who is moving where and when without having to recuit a several dozen sit here and press this button people.
|
Fredfredbug4
Kings of Kill EVE Animal Control
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:04:00 -
[56] - Quote
D-Scan is only effective up to 21 AU give or take for most ships. In larger null-sec systems, there are areas that are 70 AU apart.
So if you are say, in a big fat miner and you see a few ships suddenly appear on your scanner, you have maybe 5 seconds at best to align and warp out.
In an area without local, the only way to truly know what you are dealing with in a system is to have a designated scanning ship. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:06:00 -
[57] - Quote
Fredfredbug4 wrote:D-Scan is only effective up to 21 AU give or take for most ships. In larger null-sec systems, there are areas that are 70 AU apart.
So if you are say, in a big fat miner and you see a few ships suddenly appear on your scanner, you have maybe 5 seconds at best to align and warp out.
In an area without local, the only way to truly know what you are dealing with in a system is to have a designated scanning ship.
Which is entirely possible, somone proved some time ago that bots are able to scan down sites as well which is rather distrubing becuase the amount of visual feed involved and some though process has to be made about the resulting in scan results.
However with 8 probes it be very hard to have full system coverage. Probes show up on the hunters dscanners at first if the bots are stupid and abandon the probes there. The hunter would then liklely know the system is occupied with bot ratters if the probes are a bit thick on coverage and no ships are on his scans.
Either way this is all a big if as well considering we have no idea how ccp is going to get rid of local and what to compensate with.
|
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:08:00 -
[58] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote: You network the bots together to put it plainly, thought its very likely it will pita to get a clock they can all count on to script and sequence thie dscans then talk to each other out of the game (hell ingame have the bot that finds something spam fleet channel) the resource of 5 multiplies 100 times over which is a bit large for a ratting bot fleet in null but they do get that larget according to more recent reports last Ive seen them was 30 strong about.
Yikes. That many? Is it even economical? (I guess it must be if they do it, but even so.)
Nova Fox wrote:Ask the null bot hunters for specifics on how these bots do it. Most of the time I hear they get mostly fustrated by the time they arrive the bots are gone and cloaked and/or safed somehwere behind a deathstar pos.
Okay, that was in response to your original post. I was imagining bots trying to cloak in situ with rats locking on to them etc. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:10:00 -
[59] - Quote
Ilany wrote:Nova Fox wrote: You network the bots together to put it plainly, thought its very likely it will pita to get a clock they can all count on to script and sequence thie dscans then talk to each other out of the game (hell ingame have the bot that finds something spam fleet channel) the resource of 5 multiplies 100 times over which is a bit large for a ratting bot fleet in null but they do get that larget according to more recent reports last Ive seen them was 30 strong about.
Yikes. That many? Is it even economical? (I guess it must be if they do it, but even so.) Nova Fox wrote:Ask the null bot hunters for specifics on how these bots do it. Most of the time I hear they get mostly fustrated by the time they arrive the bots are gone and cloaked and/or safed somehwere behind a deathstar pos. Okay, that was in response to your original post. I was imagining bots trying to cloak in situ with rats locking on to them etc.
Hmm understandable its okay to ask questions we all get to learn something. Im no expert myself but I do understand that local getting removed may make things harder, more typically finding where the botters are if ccp decides they need to get rid of other free intel tools like map statistics.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
325
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:11:00 -
[60] - Quote
Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets no way, people are going to line up to rat in space far more dangerous then wormholes for income 10% higher then l4 missions |
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:11:00 -
[61] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets no way, people are going to line up to rat in space far more dangerous then wormholes for income 10% higher then l4 missions
what about incursions?
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
326
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:19:00 -
[62] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets no way, people are going to line up to rat in space far more dangerous then wormholes for income 10% higher then l4 missions what about incursions? I'm sure an incursion lobbyist will tell you of the danger of running incursions, hazards like not bringing enough logi ships but trying to run the mission anyway, or forgetting to fit hardeners on your billion-isk faction bs and warping into a site, or some villain flipping your loot can. Scary stuff that keeps null players PvEing where they are, and definitely not just moving alts over for 2-3x the income. Not when the risk I just described looms over their heads.
What we need is to punish null PvE even more, because the reason there are less and less ratter kills couldn't be because they're finding more profit elsewhere, right? |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1472
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:20:00 -
[63] - Quote
OMG I MITE LOSE A SHIP IN HIGH INCOME PVE DAT IS A RISK GUISE LOOK HOW BALLSY I AM PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Hikaru Kuroda
Shimai of New Eden
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:20:00 -
[64] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan
Most of the time you'll be running cosmic anomalies (as in null), which don't require to probe. You can find them with the System Scanner even when you're cloaked.
|
Tian Nu
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:21:00 -
[65] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:Quote:if you removed local from 0.0 you will stuck many solo players from going to 0.0 again the chat give alot of intel to solo players ofc blobers well are blobers. If one day CCP remove local it will do alot of bad to EvE. Where in the hell do you get this idea from? It's obvious that local gives far too much intel both to blob fleets and gankers in general, you'll be able to do far more in low sec and 0.0 space without the threat of having people searching for easy kills in their system just by glancing at the side of chat to see who's popping into their empty system. I guarantee you that removing the ability to see who's in local chat will for the most part chase gankers off because they'll either be too lazy to look for you with the scanners or they'll be too scared because they won't know whether you have friends with you or not. Vertisce Soritenshi I stand corrected then, you make a fair point about bots, but I reckon that instead someone clever is just going to program a way for the bots to spam directional scanner everywhere and the moment they detect a ship they'll go back to their station.
what i do when i enter 0.0 first while on 60s cloack i tag bad standing to one or two players (if they is less that 10 in local) that give me alredy good pictures of what is in the sys (solo pvpers or gankers or blob). I wont go true what i do next but forcing me to warp from planet to planet to D scan (not to mention the range of d scan) is not going to make me enjoy the game. I probably never step in 0.0 again if there vas no local but hay i can still can flip so is ok if you guys belive is the right think to do to get rid of bots i ride whith you just dont cry if it bite you back. Father O'Malley about Darius III begging for whelp: GÇ£Hows that working out for ya ? I make it 02:21 and all I see is you begging Riverini to get numbers and trying to recruit from the incursion public channel.GÇ¥ |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
46
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:22:00 -
[66] - Quote
So much debate from so many incorrect 'facts'. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:22:00 -
[67] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets no way, people are going to line up to rat in space far more dangerous then wormholes for income 10% higher then l4 missions what about incursions? I'm sure an incursion lobbyist will tell you of the danger of running incursions, hazards like not bringing enough logi ships but trying to run the mission anyway, or forgetting to fit hardeners on your billion-isk faction bs and warping into a site, or some villain flipping your loot can. Scary stuff that keeps null players PvEing where they are, and definitely not just moving alts over for 2-3x the income. Not when the risk I just described looms over their heads.
Brick Squad is going around trying to kill the sansha carriers so they close out the incursions.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:23:00 -
[68] - Quote
Hauling Hal wrote:So much debate from so many incorrect 'facts'.
you could start stating facts.
As another scary aspect with the website update around the corner is the bot using that as intel tools as well Im sure if you made a script smart enough you can track everyship signature in new eden (though I am sure high sec would be the hardest to count for ship volume) that can only go about gate traveling using doltan maps. espeically lower traffic areas such as null.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Brick Squad is going around trying to kill the sansha carriers so they close out the incursions. Yep, no risk from rats and no rewards.
Nova Fox wrote:However with 8 probes it be very hard to have full system coverage. Probes show up on the hunters dscanners at first if the bots are stupid and abandon the probes there. The hunter would then liklely know the system is occupied with bot ratters if the probes are a bit thick on coverage and no ships are on his scans. Knowing how intel channels work, pretty sure any system with a large group of blues will make sure to spam their probes everywhere. |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
300
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:46:00 -
[70] - Quote
d-scan should be turned into an inbuilt active module on all ships... once activated it pulses out a scan every 10 seconds Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1028
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:15:00 -
[71] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:Quote:if you removed local from 0.0 you will stuck many solo players from going to 0.0 again the chat give alot of intel to solo players ofc blobers well are blobers. If one day CCP remove local it will do alot of bad to EvE. Where in the hell do you get this idea from? It's obvious that local gives far too much intel both to blob fleets and gankers in general, you'll be able to do far more in low sec and 0.0 space without the threat of having people searching for easy kills in their system just by glancing at the side of chat to see who's popping into their empty system. I guarantee you that removing the ability to see who's in local chat will for the most part chase gankers off because they'll either be too lazy to look for you with the scanners or they'll be too scared because they won't know whether you have friends with you or not. Vertisce Soritenshi I stand corrected then, you make a fair point about bots, but I reckon that instead someone clever is just going to program a way for the bots to spam directional scanner everywhere and the moment they detect a ship they'll go back to their station.
Oh I absolutely agree that the botters will just find another way. That is a given. But in the meantime why not make it just that much harder for them? EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Ehn Roh
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 23:59:00 -
[72] - Quote
Razin wrote:Nova Fox wrote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all. It's pretty clear the the current d-scan needs to be reworked for delayed local. This is stated in pretty much every topic advocating delayed local. For example, my preference for the new d-scan would be to have the auto passive and the manual active modes (with some range and detectability tradeoffs for both), where the liberal use of the active scanner would tun your ship into a warpable signature.
This would require a bit more understanding of sensor-ey things than CCP seems to have shown to date. But that's on the right track, as unlikely as I think it is to happen.
A sensor and EWAR model that made sense would make most of these problems go away, plus a whole raft of other ones. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 00:24:00 -
[73] - Quote
Either way it seems the concensus is we need to relook at how we find each other in space or try not to be found probably from ground up.
|
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
413
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 00:55:00 -
[74] - Quote
Why not fight fire with fire? CCP use thin clients to always have a random duplicated real pilot who is currently logged in. Have random number of thin clients with random times, but always having at least one always logged in.
Granted this will most likely keep the real pilots too scared to undock without a 100% blue local too, but if that's the case they don't belong outside of highsec anyways. This is not a fix, but something temporary till a better one can be found.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 01:19:00 -
[75] - Quote
NPC traffic?
|
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
413
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 01:43:00 -
[76] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:NPC traffic?
More like fake player traffic. As in only CCP and the player being duplicated know better. Bring on the bot owner tears.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 01:48:00 -
[77] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Nova Fox wrote:NPC traffic? More like fake player traffic. As in only CCP and the player being duplicated know better. Bring on the bot owner tears.
Be funny if they started to recycle all the unused alts names or everyone thats ever been biomassed. :P thought its more a of a server load issue I guess as you really cant have a fake player you need a phsyical presence of some sort. Dunno make yatchs or something that cannot be fired on for these guys.
|
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
373
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 01:54:00 -
[78] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all.
edit I guess its not all
1 I am not advodacting against the removal of local just trying to counter one argument for local removal. Its neary stupid to remove a 'feature' because of botting alone. reworked local for null would bring in a new level of thinking to null but it be much better if it brought a new level of stratagey.
2 I agree D-Scan needs to be fixed severly possibly made funner or infinitely much more useful.
edit 2 for those not wanting to read the whole thread
D-Scan of course doesnt tell hostiles from freindlies, however proves that bots are more than capable of counting +1 to scan and then set panic mode. Where as you may forget to hit dscan before transition cloaking (to prevent from getting nailed yourself) and may not catch anything in local when they cloak up.
The entirety of your post makes no sense.
It doesn't matter what happens with D-Scan. A cloaked ship can't be detected, regardless of how fast you scan. The issue is LOCAL, and showing up in it, not showing up on D-Scan. Furthermore, if you show up on D-Scan because you're warping in on a target and the bot cloaks, it's already too late. They're dead at that point if they immediately cloak up where they are. I'm a pirate in a pirate's body. -á Intelligence shouldn't be free. -á-á-áMining, reloaded.
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1385
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 05:50:00 -
[79] - Quote
Hikaru Kuroda wrote:RubyPorto wrote:2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan Most of the time you'll be running cosmic anomalies (as in null), which don't require to probe. You can find them with the System Scanner even when you're cloaked.
I was under the impression most people ran Combat Sites (the probe required kind) in WH space. But it's been a while since I've been out there.
Thanks for clearing me up on that. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 06:35:00 -
[80] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:Nova Fox wrote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all.
edit I guess its not all
1 I am not advodacting against the removal of local just trying to counter one argument for local removal. Its neary stupid to remove a 'feature' because of botting alone. reworked local for null would bring in a new level of thinking to null but it be much better if it brought a new level of stratagey.
2 I agree D-Scan needs to be fixed severly possibly made funner or infinitely much more useful.
edit 2 for those not wanting to read the whole thread
D-Scan of course doesnt tell hostiles from freindlies, however proves that bots are more than capable of counting +1 to scan and then set panic mode. Where as you may forget to hit dscan before transition cloaking (to prevent from getting nailed yourself) and may not catch anything in local when they cloak up. The entirety of your post makes no sense. It doesn't matter what happens with D-Scan. A cloaked ship can't be detected, regardless of how fast you scan. The issue is LOCAL, and showing up in it, not showing up on D-Scan. Furthermore, if you show up on D-Scan because you're warping in on a target and the bot cloaks, it's already too late. They're dead at that point if they immediately cloak up where they are.
read thread.
|
|
Count Spank
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 06:38:00 -
[81] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:OMG I MITE LOSE A SHIP IN HIGH INCOME PVE DAT IS A RISK GUISE LOOK HOW BALLSY I AM PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Please stick to constructive criticism.
Caps will make you look like a chidlish WoW player |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1385
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 06:43:00 -
[82] - Quote
Count Spank wrote:Lady Spank wrote:OMG I MITE LOSE A SHIP IN HIGH INCOME PVE DAT IS A RISK GUISE LOOK HOW BALLSY I AM PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Please stick to constructive criticism. Caps will make you look like a chidlish WoW player
You need to learn how to use foundation, proper lighting, and take the nuts out of those chipmunk cheeks you got going there (or did you just get a root canal?).
Or Poast with your main. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
327
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:04:00 -
[83] - Quote
you know dudes are mad as hell when.... |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:09:00 -
[84] - Quote
you start inisisting girls exist on the internet?
|
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
51
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:09:00 -
[85] - Quote
Dscan has a limited distance of 14 AU and cannot detect cloaked ships. All the player has to do is warp to the anomalies using the built in ship scanner and having a covert ops cloak at a distance so he doesn't get uncloaked. Probes are not able to detect cloaked ships either.
Assuming the bot is using D-scan, how would it truly know if the ship has left, cloaked, or logged off?
Local is the way of letting the bot know that they player is still in system with them. Removing local will make bots much more vulnerable to being killed.
Another way to stop bots is to somehow remove the possibility of python injection. Lock down the client making it impossible to for macro programs to extract information. |
Valei Khurelem
271
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:12:00 -
[86] - Quote
Quote:Oh I absolutely agree that the botters will just find another way. That is a given. But in the meantime why not make it just that much harder for them?
Yeah, I agree too, make it harder for botters easier for players, I really do question the agendas of people who are against this sort of thing that's all :p
Quote: You need to learn how to use foundation, proper lighting, and take the nuts out of those chipmunk cheeks you got going there (or did you just get a root canal?).
Please stop trolling people who come up with better ideas and debate than you.
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:17:00 -
[87] - Quote
I have to aggre anything we could ponteially come up with t o counter bots would only work to a short amount of time before the bots figure away around it IF we keep making the game interesting for players and not ruin thier experince in the same manner.
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1385
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:Quote:Oh I absolutely agree that the botters will just find another way. That is a given. But in the meantime why not make it just that much harder for them? Yeah, I agree too, make it harder for botters easier for players, I really do question the agendas of people who are against this sort of thing that's all :p Quote: You need to learn how to use foundation, proper lighting, and take the nuts out of those chipmunk cheeks you got going there (or did you just get a root canal?).
Please stop trolling people who come up with better ideas and debate than you.
I'm trying to figure out if your first bit is serious or not, but I'm just too dang tired to deal with subtlety tonight.
Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots. There are a few general exceptions to this, usually involving solving some sort of cultural/interpersonal problem. Given a multinational, multilingual, and multicultural game play, using this to sort out bots is a bad idea.
If you were being sarcastic, I'm sorry, carry on while I continue getting ready to sleep (I already accidentally closed my EvE client once). Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Valei Khurelem
271
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:42:00 -
[89] - Quote
Quote:Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots.
I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually drunk and not just tired coming up with that sort of logic, there are certain things human players can't do far better than bots and it would also be easier for players to which is why I said what I did.
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Soldarius
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
143
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 10:34:00 -
[90] - Quote
It occurs to me that if you have a score of bots spamming d-scan regularly for hours on end, some over zealous CCP dev might notice it and come take a look-see. So go ahead. Spam d-scan.
The more advanced bots use python injection and read data from the server without using the normal client. This is ofc a huge EULA violation. But the types that use these bots don't care. This method means nothing shows up on local because there is no local. They are omniscient, and thus you will never sneak up on them because they always know who is in system.
For everyone else, there's OCR. "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
|
My Postman
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 10:41:00 -
[91] - Quote
There is no need of bot mining in null. They perfectly do it in highsec.
When at work i use a crappy laptop for some mining, i wouldnt use for other things because of module lagging. Today i visited 12 belts, 11 of them outmined, even scordite. They are sitting there, having 3 warrior 1 out (lol) and are online 23,5/7. I will defenatly try out one or two of those T3 BC. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
140
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 13:02:00 -
[92] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Hikaru Kuroda wrote:RubyPorto wrote:2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan Most of the time you'll be running cosmic anomalies (as in null), which don't require to probe. You can find them with the System Scanner even when you're cloaked. I was under the impression most people ran Combat Sites (the probe required kind) in WH space. But it's been a while since I've been out there. Thanks for clearing me up on that.
Heh. I knew you were talking out of your @ss. Thanks for owning up to it. Yes Anton's are the bread and butter of WH space. |
Raneru
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
30
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 13:32:00 -
[93] - Quote
This topic has been done to death and despite all the arguments against I still think local removal for 0.0 is a good idea. However it can't be done just on its own without a revamp to the scanning mechanics and probably the contents of 0.0 systems.
Personally I think the arguments against all boil down to a few people not wanting to work together to live in 0.0 and earn isk. PvP, Incursions and Wormholes have shown that working together provides a richer experience than grinding content on your own (In my experience, your mileage may vary).
|
Jhan Niber
EdgeGamers
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 14:49:00 -
[94] - Quote
If it's true that most of the bots are using Python Injection to get around whatever a player would normally be aware of, then removing local won't change a thing. That said, in all my years of running around wormholes, I've yet to encounter a bot except when I jumped into Russian 0.0 space. If the bots weren't dependent on local for their situational awareness I would think you'd find a lot more bots in W-space. There is a lot of money to be made in W-space but it comes with much higher risk, primarily from the fact that local is absent. Having lived dependently on the D-scanner, I can think of a dozen ways to hunt down bots or at least interdict their activities, because I've been on both the receiving end and giving end of stalking in W-space. |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 15:28:00 -
[95] - Quote
Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Are you talking about WH space or Null? Cause Anoms in WH space pay a pittance compared to Sigs. Also, the sentence you quoted referred quite clearly to WH space. . lol, you're doing it wrong. No local in null would shake things up a bit, for those alliances that build bubble fortresses on gates for there anomaly/mining ops would have to actually start manning the gates but it will never happen because the carebear nullsec'ers will cry too hard lmao you think people mine in nullsec like peasants you're dumb
No, they farm like peasants. Mining is done these days with guns, you know? |
Ptraci
StoneWall Metals Productions Bloodbound.
319
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 15:30:00 -
[96] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:What if the only time you would show up on d-scan is when you are 24km away from them?
What if the only time they would show up on d-scan is when you were 24km away from them? Have fun searching every single belt in EVE, every day, in the hope of finding something to kill. |
Ptraci
StoneWall Metals Productions Bloodbound.
319
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 15:32:00 -
[97] - Quote
Tenris Anis wrote: Mining is done these days with guns, you know?
Oh? What race of tower runs on drone loot? Is it true you can jump a supercarrier with glossy compound in the fuel bay? Condensed alloy to light a cyno, right? |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 15:41:00 -
[98] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots. There are a few general exceptions to this, usually involving solving some sort of cultural/interpersonal problem. Given a multinational, multilingual, and multicultural game play, using this to sort out bots is a bad idea.
I have yet to see bots doing decent fleet actions. Bots are good in grinding, the problem is that currently the main income source of many eve players is grind. Grind anoms for null bears, grind missions for care bears. Grind ore for stupid bears. In all 3 areas bots reign supreme, because those areas of the game are repetitious, they are monotone and they are perfectly valid to with just one person involved. Actually all of them are often done by a single person, without bot involvement on multiple accounts with ease. While playing world of tanks. And with one hand on the back.
Our sources of income in eve need to be reworked if we want to stop bots reign supreme. We are currently playing wow in space with our daily missions or whatever else pays the bills. Naturally many people will be tempted to use bots, and naturally the will work just fine. (And as a site note, they proof how much risk is in null sec alliance space involved.)
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1388
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 16:37:00 -
[99] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:Quote:Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots. I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually drunk and not just tired coming up with that sort of logic, there are certain things human players can't do far better than bots and it would also be easier for players to which is why I said what I did.
Just about everything that's been designed to thwart automation has been successfully automated. Captcha Chess 2+2=? (Done cause it weeds out the laziest bots without hurting people) etc.
Maybe procedurally generated content would be hard to bot, but it would certainly be doable. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1388
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 16:39:00 -
[100] - Quote
Tenris Anis wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots. There are a few general exceptions to this, usually involving solving some sort of cultural/interpersonal problem. Given a multinational, multilingual, and multicultural game play, using this to sort out bots is a bad idea.
I have yet to see bots doing decent fleet actions. Bots are good in grinding, the problem is that currently the main income source of many eve players is grind. Grind anoms for null bears, grind missions for care bears. Grind ore for stupid bears. In all 3 areas bots reign supreme, because those areas of the game are repetitious, they are monotone and they are perfectly valid to with just one person involved. Actually all of them are often done by a single person, without bot involvement on multiple accounts with ease. While playing world of tanks. And with one hand on the back. Our sources of income in eve need to be reworked if we want to stop bots reign supreme. We are currently playing wow in space with our daily missions or whatever else pays the bills. Naturally many people will be tempted to use bots, and naturally the will work just fine. (And as a site note, they proof how much risk is in null sec alliance space involved.)
I meant to limit my statement to PvE activities, but I don't see why you couldn't make some bots to follow an FC's broadcasted (or IRC chatted) commands. Thing is that the fleet would instawelp if the FC got shot. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
|
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 16:54:00 -
[101] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: I meant to limit my statement to PvE activities, but I don't see why you couldn't make some bots to follow an FC's broadcasted (or IRC chatted) commands. Thing is that the fleet would instawelp if the FC got shot.
There are incursions, which are PvE, and which demand fleet action. But, yeah, I agree that it is possible to bot even fleets, but you run in way more problems. In general bots are good in predictable situations. And while actually computers play better chess than humans, most programmers of eve bots will not be investing that much time into their bots. So increasing complexity to pve will limit bot use. More complexity can be achieved by increasing the numbers of characters involved. More randomness would as well help, changing randomly spawns, escalations that drop you on the head, more variations. Players can deal better with this kind of stuff than common bots can.
Furthermore there is another advantage of making more pve content more group orientated. Not only humans are still better at this, but even when bot fleets arise, you will catch them more easy because if you get a fleet of them, you always get several accounts at once, which makes the use of bots more risky and less desirable.
And lastly, if we add more group stuff for null bears and low sec, we might silence the peeps who rant against incursions, but that is just a bonus.
http://xkcd.com/1002/ |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1388
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 17:17:00 -
[102] - Quote
Tenris Anis wrote:RubyPorto wrote: I meant to limit my statement to PvE activities, but I don't see why you couldn't make some bots to follow an FC's broadcasted (or IRC chatted) commands. Thing is that the fleet would instawelp if the FC got shot.
There are incursions, which are PvE, and which demand fleet action. But, yeah, I agree that it is possible to bot even fleets, but you run in way more problems. In general bots are good in predictable situations. And while actually computers play better chess than humans, most programmers of eve bots will not be investing that much time into their bots. So increasing complexity to pve will limit bot use. More complexity can be achieved by increasing the numbers of characters involved. More randomness would as well help, changing randomly spawns, escalations that drop you on the head, more variations. Players can deal better with this kind of stuff than common bots can. Furthermore there is another advantage of making more pve content more group orientated. Not only humans are still better at this, but even when bot fleets arise, you will catch them more easy because if you get a fleet of them, you always get several accounts at once, which makes the use of bots more risky and less desirable. And lastly, if we add more group stuff for null bears and low sec, we might silence the peeps who rant against incursions, but that is just a bonus. http://xkcd.com/1002/
That sort of thing might work, but I'm not sure how to do it without hurting casuals. My big comparison finale is DRM vs Piracy. Each layer of DRM marginally hurts the pirates, but often significantly hurts the paying customer. In this case, making all income group based means that anyone who's unlucky enough to be at the margins of their groups TZ is going to be screwed for half their playtime. Randomness also tends to reduce income, since you can't plan your tank, so adding randomness would likely require a significant bump in income per rat, which runs into the problem of people running sites in ships bigger than expected (a site that requires a BS to drop some DPS for tank isn't going to touch a carrier's tank), look at L5s.
As for limiting bot use; from my understanding bots are mostly maintained by 2 types: The hobbyiest who would love to see a more difficult problem to solve, and the business person who's making a fair amount of money and would do the work to keep their bot working and making them money. So the arms race isn't going to run in CCP's favor, since CCP has to make a fun game AND protect it from bots at every angle, while bot makers need only find one unprotected crack to wedge open.
The incursion issue is the income. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
390
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 18:11:00 -
[103] - Quote
Quote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
Going to have to slap this down as completely wrong. Lets assume for a moment that noone is hacking the client to get local information where none exists in a non-hacked client. So, the bot is pressing Dscan constantly. Ok. Are you alone in the system? Do you tell your buddies, "Hey, noone Fing move cuz I wanna bot and don't want to be interrupted!!" or does the bot use OCR and qualify what it expects are friendly ships by comparing ship name with ship type? If it does the latter then what is to keep some baddies from naming their ships exactly the same and fly the exact same ships thereby defeating such a poorly designed "friendly" check? It gonna get ya killed boy!
RubyPorto wrote:The real reason removing local is a terrible idea is that Null Income for real players is based on Anomalies which do not require probes to find.
WHs work without local because: 1) The income is higher 2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan
#2 is completely wrong. In w-space these are the least profitable sites since 1) they're few and far between, 2) require time to probe out to find, 3) usually have some of the worst ribbon drops & 4) require time to hack or analyze for what amounts to a paltry sum in loot for the time required to open those cans in their respective classes of w-space.
I've actually just done a tour of nullsec. What I found is smart people run missions which cannot be pre-probed during periods of low activity by smart hunters. Anyone that does run the anoms in null have local to immediately alert them to POS up. Local also gives lead time to anyone running missions that there may be someone about to probe out their mission site. A smart missioner is going to POS up immediately.
You're right though, removing local won't eliminate bots. But, it will make it easier for people to find them and attack them. Mission bots only need to look for probes on dscan, sure. Then again you're going to have a greater chance of catching a bot while its performing some other function than dscanning without local. With local, you've got no chance at all.
There are no perfect solutions. There are, however, deterrents that are easy & cheap to implement such as no local that will empower the real players to be able to further deter botting by finding them and killing them. At the worst, no-local will make it more expensive for botters to operate because there are a number of scenarios that would require them to invest in more accounts and equipment in order to develop a perfect system intel network for which local is now used. At best, it'll cost botters lots more isk in ship & equipment replacements. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:32:00 -
[104] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: The incursion issue is the income.
But the income is relatively low. So there is no issue? Furthermore I am not saying that old content should be removed for group content, just more pve content as income sources added, which will make other sources less desirable. Casuals like myself will be fine that way. Bots will not stop, but become less relevant.
Furthermore pve group content can be flexible enough to give even casuals the ability take part if group size is dynamic enough. Incursions are actually a good example for this, as it does not hurt that much to run them with less than optimal numbers. While I agree that casual gamers should find a corp focused on what they want to do play than, it would be still better than the current state of game for them.
RubyPorto wrote: Randomness also tends to reduce income, since you can't plan your tank, so adding randomness would likely require a significant bump in income per rat, which runs into the problem of people running sites in ships bigger than expected (a site that requires a BS to drop some DPS for tank isn't going to touch a carrier's tank), look at L5s.
You are playing in a sandbox. Markets will adapt and value your time still along the same. And I can not anyway follow you here really? People run battleships with 400 DPS and 1400 DPS already. Changing pve content means just that people have to adapt and people will adapt, easier than bots. Furthermore you seem to think that the game is played in eft, while a lot of factors which can be random can be countered with good flying, transversal speed, optimal ranges, changing ammunition, etc Fitting the right hardeners in advanced is only a small part of what is actually possible in this game, but the only challenge which is delivered in most of our pve content. |
Msgerbs
Imperial Assualt Guild
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:40:00 -
[105] - Quote
Razin wrote:Nova Fox wrote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all. It's pretty clear the the current d-scan needs to be reworked for delayed local. This is stated in pretty much every topic advocating delayed local. For example, my preference for the new d-scan would be to have the auto passive and the manual active modes (with some range and detectability tradeoffs for both), where the liberal use of the active scanner would tun your ship into a warpable signature. Please for the love of god no. |
Msgerbs
Imperial Assualt Guild
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:41:00 -
[106] - Quote
Tenris Anis wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The incursion issue is the income.
But the income is relatively low. So there is no issue? Furthermore I am not saying that old content should be removed for group content, just more pve content as income sources added, which will make other sources less desirable. Casuals like myself will be fine that way. Bots will not stop, but become less relevant. Furthermore pve group content can be flexible enough to give even casuals the ability take part if group size is dynamic enough. Incursions are actually a good example for this, as it does not hurt that much to run them with less than optimal numbers. While I agree that casual gamers should find a corp focused on what they want to do play than, it would be still better than the current state of game for them. No, no, no, no, and no. Pretty much ALL income in EVE is pve already. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
237
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:51:00 -
[107] - Quote
Msgerbs wrote:Razin wrote:Nova Fox wrote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all. It's pretty clear the the current d-scan needs to be reworked for delayed local. This is stated in pretty much every topic advocating delayed local. For example, my preference for the new d-scan would be to have the auto passive and the manual active modes (with some range and detectability tradeoffs for both), where the liberal use of the active scanner would tun your ship into a warpable signature. Please for the love of god no. No what? |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 20:04:00 -
[108] - Quote
Msgerbs wrote:Tenris Anis wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The incursion issue is the income.
But the income is relatively low. So there is no issue? Furthermore I am not saying that old content should be removed for group content, just more pve content as income sources added, which will make other sources less desirable. Casuals like myself will be fine that way. Bots will not stop, but become less relevant. Furthermore pve group content can be flexible enough to give even casuals the ability take part if group size is dynamic enough. Incursions are actually a good example for this, as it does not hurt that much to run them with less than optimal numbers. While I agree that casual gamers should find a corp focused on what they want to do play than, it would be still better than the current state of game for them. No, no, no, no, and no. Pretty much ALL income in EVE is pve already.
Which is part of the problem. I agree. Tough, actually this is not true entirely. T2 salvage seems to come to a great deal from pvp, and once I start to have a effective efficiency rating above 75% I start to make isk from pvp drops. Though most have not such a good effective rating and lose isk while pvp. Many push their rating via km whoring in fleet fights. Increasing drops here could help. Furthermore industry and markets are a great source for income and involve not pve but mainly pvp. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1390
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 01:29:00 -
[109] - Quote
Tenris Anis wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The incursion issue is the income.
But the income is relatively low.
Compared to Missions, mining, anomalies, and virtually every other PvE activity, HS Incursion income is higher (or the same in the case of Anoms which are in Null).
Quote:RubyPorto wrote: Randomness also tends to reduce income, since you can't plan your tank, so adding randomness would likely require a significant bump in income per rat, which runs into the problem of people running sites in ships bigger than expected (a site that requires a BS to drop some DPS for tank isn't going to touch a carrier's tank), look at L5s.
You are playing in a sandbox. Markets will adapt and value your time still along the same. And I can not anyway follow you here really? People run battleships with 400 DPS and 1400 DPS already. Changing pve content means just that people have to adapt and people will adapt, easier than bots. Furthermore you seem to think that the game is played in eft, while a lot of factors which can be random can be countered with good flying, transversal speed, optimal ranges, changing ammunition, etc Fitting the right hardeners in advanced is only a small part of what is actually possible in this game, but the only challenge which is delivered in most of our pve content.
People will adapt, sure. Bots can adapt just as well. And bots have near unlimited access to ingame resources.
If they get really hard, someone might just do throw a bot trio of RR domis at the problem.
Good flying and transversal aren't hugely important in BS sized ships, and if bots can probe down sigs, I have no doubt they can manage range, transversal and ammunition. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 02:17:00 -
[110] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Tenris Anis wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The incursion issue is the income.
But the income is relatively low. Compared to Missions, mining, anomalies, and virtually every other PvE activity, HS Incursion income is higher (or the same in the case of Anoms which are in Null). Good flying and transversal aren't hugely important in BS sized ships, and if bots can probe down sigs, I have no doubt they can manage range, transversal and ammunition.
While HS Incursions can indisputable generate more isk than most other PVE activity, they need indisputable larger groups of players interacting. And such groups have the tendency to waste time. A problem you do not have in solo content, because if 10 people are farming anoms, and all of them are making at different times their little capsuler pause, they are wasting only 5 minutes, while the same leads often to 50 minutes wasted on a evening of farming vanguards.
Travel times are a factor as well, as you need constant travel for incursions, and you need to do this in high sec without jb networks, you can not even set a jumpclone on your farming spot, as you never know when the next time a incursion will be in his system (though placing a clone in amarr space seems like a solid bet.)
Compare this to WH income, compare this to l4 missions which are instantaneous safe isk, and incursions get far less attractive than "100 mio/h" seem at first. Simply because there is lots of overhead which can reduce your isk/hour significant. Fleet composition and fleet availability and fleet competition can become a further reducing factor. To make long words short: Yes incursions have to potential to be most profitable pve source of income besides wormholes in the game, and still they have potential to fall even below l4 missions because of factors out of your control. Is risk aversion really worth that much risk to your steady income? Sure it is more steady income than exploration for sure ... but some of the explores claim far higher isk/h on average too ... ;-)
So far I never achieved 100million isk / h, even when I was part in fleets which could potential reach about 150 per hour. To many breaks, not enough up time, to much isk wasted traveling. Sure with a zombie corp of zombies doing 6 hours and more straight incursion farming, I am sure I would make more than 100m/h *shrugs* Should be that the base of calculation?
And by the way, if you are not literally swarmed by small ships, transversal and good flying can always help your ship, even in a battleship, lots of them are even (theoretical) cable of speed tanking other battleships. Furthermore nothing stops from throwing ships on you which demand piloting to survive even when you are in a battleship. It is amazing how much pvp is praised in this game, but how unimaginable it is that playing pve could involve at least some kind of attention and "skill" besides battleship V and large guns V ... |
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3094
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 02:44:00 -
[111] - Quote
Had to edit the op again trying to spell it out for some people as I have to aggre thread is getting a bit long to read to pick up on things that have been figured out, known currenlty true, hypothetical and theorietical potentials, and to the current argument.
I have to agree the more stationary the bots are the more safer they will be.
iHubs could be constellation wide to start hampering with the bots efforts make it so it is possible to wipe out all sites in one system as others begin to get a bit denser.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |