Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3232
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Is an argument I often hear on these forums. It's wrong.
You cant make such a simplistic assumption as "Banning 1000 PLEX-supported bots = $75000/mo loss to CCP".
CCP's revenue is (total subscriptions)+(total ETC/PLEX sales); the number of actual players is not directly relevent*.
The title assumption is based on the fallacy that the PLEX that botters consume could only be sold to botters, whereas I think that "human" players would be more than happy to take up the slack, opening up second accounts, and so on. The actual loss to CCP is far more marginal: the price of PLEX will fall as botter demand decreases, decreasing the perceived value of a PLEX, so fewer players will buy ETC to convert to PLEX; plus those players who simply convert their subscriptions to PLEX supported ones once PLEX prices fall below their personal threshold.
But then you also have less measurable benefits like disaffected players returning to (or not leaving) the game because CCP is finally doing something effective vs botters, previously bot-depressed mineral prices rising to the level where it's worth getting a mining alt, LP values rising to the level where it's worth getting a mission alt, etc., etc.
Additionally as the price of RMT ISK inevitably rises (and the perceived risk of buying it also rises), then those players who just want to pay some cash for a quick ISK fix are increasingly likely to buy ETCs instead. Once they get ex-ISK buying players into the habit of buying PLEX instead, they're more likely to keep doing so. Now would be a very smart time for CCP to cut the price of ETC and PLEX by a buck or two, just to twist the knife!
*Arguably, for any given level of revenue CCP want as many players actually playing as possible, since EVE's game content is primarily player generated. The more actual players there are playing, the more content gets generated, and the more likely they are to attract new players and retain current ones. Bots don't really count for this, since they don't produce player-interaction content. By this analysis, PLEX-supported bots are truly parasitic, not just to the player economy, but to CCP as well. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Stragak
Mangi Consilii S E D I T I O N
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
I also like this but I like the idea of it being a more steady process of turning the knife hurts them and keeps them in fear longer. And most statements you made about the mineral prices has caused me to activate another account. For now it is actually 'worth' it to have more alts to mine with. +1 Nobody cares about your plans to be dirty hippies. goon (n)-áthefreedictionary A thug hired to intimidate or harm opponents A stupid or oafish person.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3235
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP have to attack both the demand and the supply side of the bot/RMT issue. Punishing players for buying RMT ISK reduces demand because it reduces the perceived value of ISK acquired in this way, but there is one thing that CCP Sreegs is dead wrong about: he refuses to concede that EVE's horrible PvE is a factor in RMT demand.
When the process of making ISK is fun, challenging and unpredictable not only will it be harder to automate (I don't say "impossible" because...), then players will be less inclined to evade the whole process.
I'm not saying it is a total fix, because there will always be those who think that they ought to be able to HAZ TITAN NAOW, but it will help.
Not that making the game more fun ought to need any secondary justification, but everything that shrinks the market for RMT ISK helps. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Lanasak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bots also increase the cluster's OpEx costs disproportionately more than actual players, so the whole ~subscriptions~ argument is dead in the water. |
TheBlueMonkey
Natural Progression
117
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
Personally I'd rather they didn't ban mining bots and ship prices remained low.
but then I'm a crazy person. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3236
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:Personally I'd rather they didn't ban mining bots and ship prices remained low.
but then I'm a crazy person.
You are indeed a crazy person. Artificially "Low" ship prices distort the ship and module balance, rendering whole classes of ship useless and directly leading to the insane supercap inflation that's shitting up the game. I don't think that's worth saving a few mill on your Drake or whatever. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
123
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Provocative title for the thread, I couldn't believe it when I say it was by Malcanis! You usually make so much sense, but I guess you still do.
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3237
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Provocative title for the thread, I couldn't believe it when I say it was by Malcanis! You usually make so much sense, but I guess you still do.
I derive much innocent amusement from the replies made by people who reply to thread titles rather than posts. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
EFF ONEF1
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
you also have to take into account GM costs for dealing with people ticketing the botters and staff taken away to do the investigations and bans in these sweeps.
|
Prince Kobol
505
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
I have been arguing this for the last 12 months but unfortunately their are too many dumb people that will always believe the "CCP don;' ban botters because they do not want to lose money" argument regardless what you say. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3241
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:I have been arguing this for the last 12 months but unfortunately their are too many dumb people that will always believe the "CCP don;' ban botters because they do not want to lose money" argument regardless what you say.
People who don't want to believe will reject any arguments. People with a strong vested interest in the title being true (this includes both botters and players who blame their EVE failures on "botters") fall into this category.
I am trying to present a coherent counter-argument to those people who don't have a vested interest but might be swayed by the superficial plausibility of the title because they've never really thought carefully about the subject. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
648
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Good point and well made. I look forward to the idea that mining and producing T1 kit may actually be worth while. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
291
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
Well, I'd say about 80% of the miners in the ice belts are bots.
I've ganked/petitioned/reported them enough to know that CCP isn't interested in enforcing their own policy OR fixing the inherent problem. Months of petitions and reports from multiple accounts - nothing - not even a temp ban. Its pretty ****** up that CCP already outsources most of the hard work to the players (identifying them) - and still can't be bothered to make that last bit of effort to verify and enforce.
My conclusion?
Its a waste of time to fill out a petition. Its a waste of time to 'Report Bot'. So don't do it.
Besides, More bots = cheaper materials and ships for the rest of us. More bots = less income for miners.
I think of them as more of an 'ally' now. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
499
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
I have reported 2 very persistent mining bots 2 week ago and after 1 day there were off. They have yet to return. Also, I'd say that the bots are about 65-70% not 80%, at least here where I live. Still quite of an huge percentage. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
TheBlueMonkey
Natural Progression
117
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:TheBlueMonkey wrote:Personally I'd rather they didn't ban mining bots and ship prices remained low.
but then I'm a crazy person. You are indeed a crazy person. Artificially "Low" ship prices distort the ship and module balance, rendering whole classes of ship useless and directly leading to the insane supercap inflation that's shitting up the game. I don't think that's worth saving a few mill on your Drake or whatever.
HA! when'd I last flew a drake :P
I'm more thinking the 200sommit mil for Tier 3 BS's that I keep seeing at the moment. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3242
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:20:00 -
[16] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well, I'd say about 80% of the miners in the ice belts are bots.
I've ganked/petitioned/reported them enough to know that CCP isn't interested in enforcing their own policy OR fixing the inherent problem. Months of petitions and reports from multiple accounts - nothing - not even a temp ban. Its pretty ****** up that CCP already outsources most of the hard work to the players (identifying them) - and still can't be bothered to make that last bit of effort to verify and enforce.
My conclusion?
Its a waste of time to fill out a petition. Its a waste of time to 'Report Bot'. So don't do it.
Besides, More bots = cheaper materials and ships for the rest of us. More bots = less income for miners.
I think of them as more of an 'ally' now.
This seems like strange advice to give just when CCP really are cracking down hard.
CCP don't have to ban every single bot to make it impractical to bot. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
127
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 11:21:00 -
[17] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: This seems like strange advice to give just when CCP really are cracking down hard.
CCP don't have to ban every single bot to make it impractical to bot.
This is pretty much what they went for. High damage primary, anyone not making 3 trillion ISK from thier bot has to think, is it worth it?
I'm sure they also knew alot of RMT would go in to hiding once the first wave was launched, most of them heading to the unsub page but it looks like CCP are prepared to take the short term hit. If Bot accounts and RMT based set ups all quit for 6 months, untill things die down, it might allow ATK players to take the elements of EVE back that Bots ruled for 10 years.
|
Virgil Travis
GWA Corp
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 12:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CCP have to attack both the demand and the supply side of the bot/RMT issue. Punishing players for buying RMT ISK reduces demand because it reduces the perceived value of ISK acquired in this way, but there is one thing that CCP Sreegs is dead wrong about: he refuses to concede that EVE's horrible PvE is a factor in RMT demand.
When the process of making ISK is fun, challenging and unpredictable not only will it be harder to automate (I don't say "impossible" because...), then players will be less inclined to evade the whole process.
I'm not saying it is a total fix, because there will always be those who think that they ought to be able to HAZ TITAN NAOW, but it will help.
Not that making the game more fun ought to need any secondary justification, but everything that shrinks the market for RMT ISK helps.
Ignore this, sodding forums Roses are red. Bacon is also red. Poems are hard. Bacon. |
Virgil Travis
GWA Corp
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 12:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CCP have to attack both the demand and the supply side of the bot/RMT issue. Punishing players for buying RMT ISK reduces demand because it reduces the perceived value of ISK acquired in this way, but there is one thing that CCP Sreegs is dead wrong about: he refuses to concede that EVE's horrible PvE is a factor in RMT demand.
When the process of making ISK is fun, challenging and unpredictable not only will it be harder to automate (I don't say "impossible" because...), then players will be less inclined to evade the whole process.
I'm not saying it is a total fix, because there will always be those who think that they ought to be able to HAZ TITAN NAOW, but it will help.
Not that making the game more fun ought to need any secondary justification, but everything that shrinks the market for RMT ISK helps.
From what he was saying in the other thread when this point was brought up I'm not sure if he doesn't concede the point, he was just saying that he's not dealing with that aspect of the game, he's just part of the team of bulldogs chasing down rabbits, which is fair enough, you can't expect a store's security guard make the shopping experience better, he's just there to watch for illegal activity and such.
CCP does need to address this issue of making these aspects of the game play more engaging, I myself find running level 4s for isk to be a pretty repetitive and mindless activity, which it is once you've run the missions so many times that you can do it almost blindfolded. I'm happy to see the bots and RMT idiots finally getting a good kicking and enjoying their tears, removing them will have several benefits that will improve the game. Hopefully we can now get the ball rolling and get CCP to give us more engaging game play to earn the fuel of what makes the game tick. Roses are red. Bacon is also red. Poems are hard. Bacon. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
516
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 12:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
If you look at the alliance changes on Dotlan, it's rather a one sided excise of botters/rmt'ers. So, don't be so sure that CCP isn't making revenue on the RMT side. Could be a removal of competition rather than a game wide policy change. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
689
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 12:53:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ban all bots and RMTers. Game will not die beacause it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3245
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 12:54:00 -
[22] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:If you look at the alliance changes on Dotlan, it's rather a one sided excise of botters/rmt'ers. So, don't be so sure that CCP isn't making revenue on the RMT side. Could be a removal of competition rather than a game wide policy change.
Please elucidate for us. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Skydell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
201
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:If you look at the alliance changes on Dotlan, it's rather a one sided excise of botters/rmt'ers. So, don't be so sure that CCP isn't making revenue on the RMT side. Could be a removal of competition rather than a game wide policy change.
If I were to make a speculation in that department it would be more to the effect of, who knew before the purge? Having friends in high places might not get you a bullet proof shield but knowing when to duck is just as good and that might not even be something CCP are even aware of. What good is a spy if everyone knows who it is? |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
516
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
Skydell wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:If you look at the alliance changes on Dotlan, it's rather a one sided excise of botters/rmt'ers. So, don't be so sure that CCP isn't making revenue on the RMT side. Could be a removal of competition rather than a game wide policy change. If I were to make a speculation in that department it would be more to the effect of, who knew before the purge? Having friends in high places might not get you a bullet proof shield but knowing when to duck is just as good and that might not even be something CCP are even aware of. What good is a spy if everyone knows who it is?
Hiding in plain sight is very effective. The general idea of what I've been reading is this in now going to be an on going effort. It that is the case, and as seen from Dotlan, one could only conclude that some of the large alliance don't bot/RMT, which is highly unlikely, or they're being excluded from the purge. And that supports the idea of a sort of protectionism occurring. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3245
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Skydell wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:If you look at the alliance changes on Dotlan, it's rather a one sided excise of botters/rmt'ers. So, don't be so sure that CCP isn't making revenue on the RMT side. Could be a removal of competition rather than a game wide policy change. If I were to make a speculation in that department it would be more to the effect of, who knew before the purge? Having friends in high places might not get you a bullet proof shield but knowing when to duck is just as good and that might not even be something CCP are even aware of. What good is a spy if everyone knows who it is? Hiding in plain sight is very effective. The general idea of what I've been reading is this in now going to be an on going effort. It that is the case, and as seen from Dotlan, one could only conclude that some of the large alliance don't bot/RMT, which is highly unlikely, or they're being excluded from the purge. And that supports the idea of a sort of protectionism occurring.
A slightly less :tinfoil: possibility is that alliance A mainly uses Alphabot, which Sreegs has "cracked", and has therefore suffered heavily, whilst alliance B mostly uses Betabot, which Sreegs has not yet "cracked.
And of course we might also consider alt corps, renter alliances, etc. Unchanged alliance numbers are not an absolute indicator of the absence of purging. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3642
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
You do realize that most bots are funded by stolen accounts.
|
Vince Snetterton
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well, I'd say about 80% of the miners in the ice belts are bots.
I've ganked/petitioned/reported them enough to know that CCP isn't interested in enforcing their own policy OR fixing the inherent problem. Months of petitions and reports from multiple accounts - nothing - not even a temp ban. Its pretty ****** up that CCP already outsources most of the hard work to the players (identifying them) - and still can't be bothered to make that last bit of effort to verify and enforce.
My conclusion?
Its a waste of time to fill out a petition. Its a waste of time to 'Report Bot'. So don't do it.
Besides, More bots = cheaper materials and ships for the rest of us. More bots = less income for miners.
I think of them as more of an 'ally' now.
I am sure you are just griefing here on the forums as you grief ingame, but I will bite. That ship you blow people up in, is it made of ground up ponies, or from minerals? Was it built by some industrialist character, or did the griefing gods bestow upon you an unlimited amount of Torando's and Catalysts?
I have come to the conclusion that most gankers end up in that role because they don't have the intelligence nor patience to manage an industrial char. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3247
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:04:00 -
[28] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:You do realize that most bots are funded by stolen accounts.
I don't "realise" what the proportions are because I don't have the data, but judging by the bot forum tears, at least a sizeable minority do use plexes. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lanasak wrote:Bots also increase the cluster's OpEx costs disproportionately more than actual players, so the whole ~subscriptions~ argument is dead in the water. I was a 'subscriptions' believer unti I sat down and did some math. I no longer buy that argument. 'Bots r bad, m'kay? And CCP knows it, and is finally using an effective strategy against 'em.
Carry on smartly, I say!
EVE is EVE - Feaces will eventuate. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3645
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 15:29:00 -
[30] - Quote
Just saying as an industry of a whole Bots are typically funded by stolen accounds and credit cards hence why the mmo inudstry does try to stomp them out.
To be honest gold farmers should be called 'account farmers' becuase its all they do these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |