These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

PvE fatigue: Phoebe for PvE

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#141 - 2015-05-07 17:16:11 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
EVE should reward the player being better and not letting his client run longer.


[...]Simply by virtue of the fact that I started this game almost 8 years ago I play better than any new player can ever hope. In a few minutes I'll earn far, far more than a new player. The new players will be much more likely to be impacted by this than I.[...]

You are comparing the wrong things. An experienced player will alway be able to earn more ISK, or quicker, than a newbie. No surprise here.

The question that OP asks is: Should a new account that runs 20+ hrs a day (and thus is likely a bot) earn 5 times more than a new account that runs 4 hrs a day, or should it earn, say, only 3-4 times as much?
Should an 8-year-account that runs 20 hrs/day (and thus is likely a very old bot) earn 5 times more than an 8-year account that runs 4 hrs/day, or should it earn only, say, 3-4 times as much?

If the return on time diminishes with more time spent, than human players - who cannot compete with bots in grinding ISK - get relatively more from their time than they do now. Which would increase player satisfaction of the majority of players that do not run bots. I.e. especially of newer players. Higher player satisfaction of newer player: higher new player retention rates.

Again, how many bots do you think there are, relative to real players? I haven't seen anything I suspected was a bot in about 3 months, and then I was pretty sure it was purely to keep his mining fleet arrayed all pretty-like.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Angrod Losshelin
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2015-05-07 17:21:05 UTC
TLDR lets break eve!

Check out my Podcast! My Blog!
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#143 - 2015-05-07 17:22:57 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
[...] This idea would be tantamount to limiting the amount of time they can engage in the aspects of the sandbox they enjoy. Players like myself would be impacted severely as I invent, haul, manufacture, occasionally mine, run explo sites and combat anoms, manage PI and market orders. [...]


It is a fatigue, not a lock-out. One gets less from it / time unit. Diminishing returns. One can still do it all day long.

And since the ones who do it longest are bots, this hurts bots most. And real players less, thus improving their reward against bots.

Also, each activity would have a seperate fatigue counter. Doing PI does not diminish your ratting returns, going on an exploration spree lets you recover from mining fatigue etc.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#144 - 2015-05-07 17:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
Teckos Pech wrote:
[...] And what if a guy wants to mine for 2 or three hours? What if he wants to run missions with his corp for a few hours while chatting on coms

Do you even read your own posts, Gevlon? And who the **** are you to tell other players what they can and can't do in game?

Did you even read his post that you are complaining about? That guy who wants to mine for 3 hours can do so. The only thing that happens will be he earns most in the first hour, a little less in the second, even less in the third, and only if he has already used up his considerable buffer of un-fatigued playtime - and still a lot more/hour than a bot that is doing it 23/7.

He is not trying to tell other players what to do, he is suggesting that those who do NOT really play it earn less/hour.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2015-05-07 17:56:32 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Felix Judge wrote:
The question that OP asks is: Should a new account that runs 20+ hrs a day (and thus is likely a bot) earn 5 times more than a new account that runs 4 hrs a day


Yes because if it is a bot, CCP can take action. Otherwise, you don't get to tell people how they spend their free time.

Felix Judge wrote:
If the return on time diminishes with more time spent, than human players - who cannot compete with bots in grinding ISK - get relatively more from their time than they do now. Which would increase player satisfaction of the majority of players that do not run bots. I.e. especially of newer players. Higher player satisfaction of newer player: higher new player retention rates.


People bot low end PvE activities. I, like most of the vets, don't do such pissant isk gathering. We indulge in a high level of isk making, one newbies or bots could never match in isk/hour stakes.

I repeat - show me a noob that is going to compete with high end PvE activities in an isk/hour and I'll show you a liar. High end PvE content requires high end skills, experience, cannot realistically be botted and can easily make tens of billions a week. All this crapfest does is ensure that noobs can never again purchase anything and the vets are unaffected. Shocker.

Even setting that aside, noob has a frigate. He spends two hours doing level 1 missions. I have a pimped marauder and I spend two hours hammering level 4s. Who makes more isk? Does the weath gap decrease, or increase?

Add the likelihood of a vet having alts and a noob not so should they so desire they can double down their income.

The noob is literally punished in every conceivable way.

Said noob quickly realises it's farmville with limits on what you can realistically do in a play session, logs off and never looks back.


Explain how this doensn't violate Malcanis's law and furthermore demonstrate with proof that bots are pricing noobs out the game and not, in fact, keeping T1 ship costs so low as to help newbies, who can sell drops/exploration content for isk.

And talking of bots/hardcore players, explain how someone who can play a few hours a day can compete in the market with these guys. Oh that's right they can't, but like all good nerf requests, OP doesn't want it affecting his part of the game as that is sacrosanct.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#146 - 2015-05-07 18:16:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
[...] My point is that your suggestion will actively stop players from performing their preferred activities. Whether bots can be more successful is irrelevant to whether a player chooses to perform a task or not. [...]

Bots de-value what you get from your preferred activity. And since many players choose their activities by ISK/hour (or if they think it is good money), of course the success of bots is relevant to what players do.
If the bots' success that compete with you does not stop you from a certain activity, then OP's idea will stop you even less.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
For example I and many others I know will mine whilst at work. We are ATK and depending on who is behind us will have the window open or at least fly properly tanked procs/skiffs. This gives a continued supply of minerals to markets and puts targets in space. It's up to other players to disrupt that, not some crappy mechanic. Jump fatigue is different in this sense as there was very little (if anything) that anyone could do to interfere with a massive fleet jumping stupid distances.

1.) Working OR playing.
2.) "Properly tanked procs/skiffs" - I presume in high sec - with the game window closed is afk-mining or semi-afk-mining. No wonder you are against the proposal that hinders afk-playstyles in favour of active playstyles. :)
And pray your boss never finds out ("is behind you" at the wrong time), or will have no need to close that window in the future while running the game client, because it may well be on your computer at home during work hours, too.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#147 - 2015-05-07 18:27:59 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'm all for a rest mechanic similar to WoW, perhaps affecting damage. A tired capsuleer should take some penalties. Nobody needs to play 16-23.5 hours per day, every day. A rest mechanic penalizing people who play more than 112 hours in a week (sliding window) will only harm botters and people who really should get more sleep.


Now, explain why this is good for anyone. That it only harms people who are playing for a marathon session is insufficient reason to implement a feature if there is no clear cut upside anywhere.

It only harms no-lifers, but some of the best times I've had in eve have come from marathon fleets, in one case 53 hours of near continuous play. This was a special case (long weekend, girlfriends out of town, a couple other eve players co-located in meatspace) but it was still one of the best times I have had in eve.


112 hours / week.

53-hour marathon.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#148 - 2015-05-07 18:30:05 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'm all for a rest mechanic similar to WoW, perhaps affecting damage. A tired capsuleer should take some penalties. Nobody needs to play 16-23.5 hours per day, every day. A rest mechanic penalizing people who play more than 112 hours in a week (sliding window) will only harm botters and people who really should get more sleep.


A tired capsuleer does take penalties. The penalties include....

-Lower risk management (I can take on 4 guys at once)
-Higher chances of making a mistake (Did I just click jump to or bridge to?)
-Lower reaction time (Hey guys that tornado has me....nevermind he alphad me)
-Not notice something important (How did I end up in low/nulsec? I should have gotten that low/nulsec warning box to pop up)

There are many more. So if anything, by encouraging people to turn off the game and get some sleep or go outside, you are encouraging people to not do as many things that will get them killed.


Bots do not tire.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#149 - 2015-05-07 18:42:44 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
[...]Suggest something to enhance PvE, not limit it. If anything CCP wants people to log in, not provide incentives to log out.

Since actual players get relatively more from it, the suggestion a.) enhances PLAYED PvE (over botted or grinded PvE), and will b) thus make more people stay logged in when they see that what they earn by PvE actually buys them something worth their time.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#150 - 2015-05-07 18:50:59 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
So if you and I have the same job and you work one hour a day and I work 10 we should make just about the same amount of money?

If this sounds stupid then please re-read your post.

You have not read it. OP says that if you "work" more than 10 hours each day (which means you are probably not working, but something else is happening), then you will get less for whatever it is you are doing in those >10 hours.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#151 - 2015-05-07 19:12:27 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
[...] Joe mission runner is a semi-AFK, capstable FOF missile kinda guy, and makes 40m/hr. Jimmy Ratter runs a shiny pwnmobile through belts and sites and cherry picks faction spawns and knows how to chain them, so he makes 120m/hr.

The new potato at the top of the pile costs 140m, and the toys to make it work right cost another 10.

Joe needs to run for almost 4 hours to afford this new potato, but is hit with fatigue after 2, so needs to either dock up in shame, new potato still on the shelf, or power through and take 5 hours to get the potato, [...] Joe has lost real, and relative income for the sole reason of fatigue.

Yes, because he is the afk-"playing" one. Working as intended.
Only your example is also very extreme, as fatigue already kicks in after two hours. OP's suggestion is that fatigue starts to impact after, what, 50 hours/week or so.

James Baboli wrote:
Jimmy, on the other hand, quickly makes his 120m, and realizes that he got one particularly nice potato seed, so when his last tick ends, he takes the shiny potato seed and sells it, and then heads to the potato store @ 4-4, and gets himself a new potato, which is still the lowest buy order, because Joe is still stuck trying to kill a frigate with FoFs for the last 30 minutes because his
afk-self-induced
James Baboli wrote:
fatigue has lowered his majestic potatoes DPS to less than that of a well rested and fit frigate. Jimmy has not lost much real income and has gained relative income.

Because he is actively playing. Again, working as intended! \o/

James Baboli wrote:
Is this what you want, or is this some war on actual bots [...]

Both.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2015-05-07 19:12:32 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
[...] My point is that your suggestion will actively stop players from performing their preferred activities. Whether bots can be more successful is irrelevant to whether a player chooses to perform a task or not. [...]

Bots de-value what you get from your preferred activity. And since many players choose their activities by ISK/hour (or if they think it is good money), of course the success of bots is relevant to what players do.
If the bots' success that compete with you does not stop you from a certain activity, then OP's idea will stop you even less.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
For example I and many others I know will mine whilst at work. We are ATK and depending on who is behind us will have the window open or at least fly properly tanked procs/skiffs. This gives a continued supply of minerals to markets and puts targets in space. It's up to other players to disrupt that, not some crappy mechanic. Jump fatigue is different in this sense as there was very little (if anything) that anyone could do to interfere with a massive fleet jumping stupid distances.

1.) Working OR playing.
2.) "Properly tanked procs/skiffs" - I presume in high sec - with the game window closed is afk-mining or semi-afk-mining. No wonder you are against the proposal that hinders afk-playstyles in favour of active playstyles. :)
And pray your boss never finds out ("is behind you" at the wrong time), or will have no need to close that window in the future while running the game client, because it may well be on your computer at home during work hours, too.


My work means I regularly have to wait for scripts to run, builds to complete etc etc. It's just the nature of the work and I most certainly wouldn't be playing if it interfered with what I do! When I mined I could easily monitor 2 screens at once, I do it all the time with multiple running scripts and builds so mining alongside was a breeze.

My point is that I am logged in even if I'm not actively doing something. How would the servers know the difference? How would they track how long I actually played or was just following corp/friend chat? If the server could tell who was botting or not I think that would already be implemented. Any implementation of the OP punishes those who choose to have a marathon Eve run for whatever their reason and it isn't up to CCP to punish players for doing so.

Example: I'm setting up a new PI planet, I'm doing so in the 5 minute waits whilst scripts run but there are times where I leave my computer open on the PI window whilst I do more actual work (some people read news etc whilst stuff runs, I do PI). How does the server time how long I'm doing PI for? Measure the length of time the window is open for? Measure how much I move the mouse? Measure the number of clicks (Already a punishment in itself with PI...)? Too many variables and a potentially large increase in server side load. It isn't a workable idea in my opinion.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2015-05-07 19:13:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
odd double post...
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2015-05-07 19:38:06 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Example: I'm setting up a new PI planet, I'm doing so in the 5 minute waits whilst scripts run but there are times where I leave my computer open on the PI window whilst I do more actual work (some people read news etc whilst stuff runs, I do PI). How does the server time how long I'm doing PI for?


This is another good reason it's a stupid idea. The very notion PI can be botted/"hardcored" is like suggesting the same for the skill queue.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#155 - 2015-05-07 19:49:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
afkalt wrote:
People bot low end PvE activities. I, like most of the vets, don't do such pissant isk gathering. We indulge in a high level of isk making, one newbies or bots could never match in isk/hour stakes.

I repeat - show me a noob that is going to compete with high end PvE activities in an isk/hour and I'll show you a liar. High end PvE content requires high end skills, experience, cannot realistically be botted and can easily make tens of billions a week. [...] the vets are unaffected. Shocker.

[...]

Said noob quickly realises it's farmville with limits on what you can realistically do in a play session, logs off and never looks back.

Explain how this doensn't violate Malcanis's law and furthermore demonstrate with proof that bots are pricing noobs out the game and not, in fact, keeping T1 ship costs so low as to help newbies, who can sell drops/exploration content for isk.
[...]


You did yourself, see above:
a) Malcanis law: You wrote yourself that Vets are unaffected. For Malcanis' law to be fulfilled, Newbies would have to be adversely affected. Since bots are affected adversely, and newbs who do not play ridicilous amounts of time (remember the weekly buffer OP suggests, too) are not, and bots do low-end PvE activities and thus are the ones who are competing with what newbies do, and thus the newbies' competitors are adversely affected, and thus the newbies are positively affected, while the vets - who do not compete with the bots and thus neither with the newbies - are unaffected, Malcanis' law is not fulfilled.
b) Demanding proof that is difficult to obtain from someone so that he may prove his point is a well-known kill-phrase technique and I am not responding to it. Instead I am answering with logic: When bots can out-compete newbies on almost anything that newbies typically do, simply because they can do it a lot longer, than it is obvious that bots are bad for newbies and their income and their wealth, and thus their ability to purchase stuff. Stuff that would maybe be more expensive, but because of higher income relatively better accessible.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#156 - 2015-05-07 20:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Of course it is fulfilled. The value of EXISTING liquid isk and assets increases massively.

People sitting on bil/trillions are worth even more overnight. Do you think these vets and newbies don't play the same market, use the same sandpit? Preposterous.

Quote:
"Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."


Try harder.


You're the one arguing for game mechanics to hurt something that is against the EULA, not me. The onus is on you to prove that real players should suffer for those in violation of said EULA.

I see you're ignoring the market. Hi Gevlon.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#157 - 2015-05-07 20:17:09 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
[...] And what if a guy wants to mine for 2 or three hours? What if he wants to run missions with his corp for a few hours while chatting on coms

Do you even read your own posts, Gevlon? And who the **** are you to tell other players what they can and can't do in game?

Did you even read his post that you are complaining about? That guy who wants to mine for 3 hours can do so. The only thing that happens will be he earns most in the first hour, a little less in the second, even less in the third, and only if he has already used up his considerable buffer of un-fatigued playtime - and still a lot more/hour than a bot that is doing it 23/7.

He is not trying to tell other players what to do, he is suggesting that those who do NOT really play it earn less/hour.


Obviously a player who cannot fly a ship with a jump drive.....

Fatigue has to be exponential in its application for it to be truly effective like Gevlon is saying. He wants to make it so if a player is going to rat in 4 ishtars for 10 hours that is no longer feasible. At most, it would be something like maybe 2 at the most. After that the fatigue would become very burdensome so you might as well log off and wait hours for it to dissipate

And anyone who justifies nerfing actual play time for players with the argument, "It will hurt bots more" is just being...well I'd prefer it ISD did not remove this post, so lets just say you are very special. The reason is we don't want bots and we want human players. Going after the bots by also going after the players is a horrible strategy. And I'm pretty sure a player logged in for long periods of time and who is also active during that time...is already on Team Security's radar.

And perhaps you should re-read the OP again. There would be, at least in some instances lock outs.

Quote:
After a high fatigue you are also locked out of PI interface.


And the OP does NOT say each form of PvE gets its own fatigue measure.

Quote:
Let's calibrate the fatigue to kick in after 1 hour/day farming - which is more than enough for a casual player if we want him to do other things than farming!


Note the presumptive arrogance of that line, "...if we want him to do other things than farming...." Who is Gevlon or any other player to dictate what aspects of the game another player can engage in? It is a freaking sandbox game. You get in the sandbox and....do what you like. Gevlon is basically saying that people who want to PvE for "too long" are sandboxing wrong. He thinks he knows how to make the game better for them and he'll make them play the way he thinks they should.

I also like how you completely refuse to answer the point about Malcanis' Law that I and afkalt have brought up.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#158 - 2015-05-07 20:21:27 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Example: I'm setting up a new PI planet, I'm doing so in the 5 minute waits whilst scripts run but there are times where I leave my computer open on the PI window whilst I do more actual work (some people read news etc whilst stuff runs, I do PI). How does the server time how long I'm doing PI for?


This is another good reason it's a stupid idea. The very notion PI can be botted/"hardcored" is like suggesting the same for the skill queue.


True. My goal with PI...get in and get out. Restart planets as fast as possible. Worst part is when I have to empty the POCOs. I'll even just fly through my PI systems moving stuff off planet to the POCO until that gets filled. In short, I'm already doing what the OP wants...at least for PI.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2015-05-07 20:32:00 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:
afkalt wrote:
People bot low end PvE activities. I, like most of the vets, don't do such pissant isk gathering. We indulge in a high level of isk making, one newbies or bots could never match in isk/hour stakes.

I repeat - show me a noob that is going to compete with high end PvE activities in an isk/hour and I'll show you a liar. High end PvE content requires high end skills, experience, cannot realistically be botted and can easily make tens of billions a week. [...] the vets are unaffected. Shocker.

[...]

Said noob quickly realises it's farmville with limits on what you can realistically do in a play session, logs off and never looks back.

Explain how this doensn't violate Malcanis's law and furthermore demonstrate with proof that bots are pricing noobs out the game and not, in fact, keeping T1 ship costs so low as to help newbies, who can sell drops/exploration content for isk.
[...]


You did yourself, see above:
a) Malcanis law: You wrote yourself that Vets are unaffected. For Malcanis' law to be fulfilled, Newbies would have to be adversely affected. Since bots are affected adversely, and newbs who do not play ridicilous amounts of time (remember the weekly buffer OP suggests, too) are not, and bots do low-end PvE activities and thus are the ones who are competing with what newbies do, and thus the newbies' competitors are adversely affected, and thus the newbies are positively affected, while the vets - who do not compete with the bots and thus neither with the newbies - are unaffected, Malcanis' law is not fulfilled.
b) Demanding proof that is difficult to obtain from someone so that he may prove his point is a well-known kill-phrase technique and I am not responding to it. Instead I am answering with logic: When bots can out-compete newbies on almost anything that newbies typically do, simply because they can do it a lot longer, than it is obvious that bots are bad for newbies and their income and their wealth, and thus their ability to purchase stuff. Stuff that would maybe be more expensive, but because of higher income relatively better accessible.

Actually what was demonstrated was that from a time perspective vets and new players are equally effected, thus Malcanis Law comes into full effect with the higher potential gains in that timeframe older players have compared to newer ones. It ensures that new players can't put in the extra time to try to close the gap with less active older players.

Also in the case of several activities there is no effective separation between older and newer players. The thousand LP a new player on level 1 missions makes is still in competition with the tens of thousands a level 4 runner makes at the same time. Veteran miners have access to Hulks and Orcas with max boosts to enhance mining capacity over the that of ventures and barges without boosts.

These realities hold true with or without bots. That is on top of the fact that botting creates an unfair advantage over the new and veteran alike. The only proper solution is their active banning rather than punishing legitimate players or opening holes to be gamed with personal income. Your logic is flawed because it introduces tolerance for bots, creating a minimum effort level that mandates their use since you can no longer make up the difference over time. If we simply accept that they are wrong and should be banned their performance becomes a non-factor in other considerations.

We've presented logic counter to your own thus you should be able to provide a use case where the logic holds without resorting to EULA violations. It your position really has room to stand on that shouldn't be so difficult to satisfy. Calling it a "kill-phrase" seems like a deflection from the fact that you can't justify your reasoning.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#160 - 2015-05-07 20:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Felix Judge wrote:


You did yourself, see above:
a) Malcanis law: You wrote yourself that Vets are unaffected. For Malcanis' law to be fulfilled, Newbies would have to be adversely affected. Since bots are affected adversely, and newbs who do not play ridicilous amounts of time (remember the weekly buffer OP suggests, too) are not, and bots do low-end PvE activities and thus are the ones who are competing with what newbies do, and thus the newbies' competitors are adversely affected, and thus the newbies are positively affected, while the vets - who do not compete with the bots and thus neither with the newbies - are unaffected, Malcanis' law is not fulfilled.


Wrong. Vets are less affected because we engage in ISK making endeavors that new players cannot usually get into. Mostly because they lack the skill points, the ISK and often times the organizational support. Most new players will make ISK one of three ways,

1. Mining--subject to PvE Fatigue.
2. Missions--subject to PvE Fatigue.
3. A combination of 1 & 2--subject to PvE fatigue.

Thus, two primary sources of new player income is nerfed right from the get go.

A veteran player on the other hand can do other things like running a reaction farm which will net him billions depending on how big he goes. A veteran player can run PI and probably stay well within the 1 hour time limit. I know I usually do when I do my PI stuff. For many new players they wont have the isk for buying PI skill books, the command centers, the hauler, the hauler skill book, and they'd have to wait for all those skills to get to a reasonable level. A veteran player could also rat in null for his allotted hour far more efficiently than the new player could run missions or rat in null. Even trading the veteran is going to have the edge. Starting with 200 million is going to mean the veteran always stays ahead of the new player baring some very, very good luck on the part of the new player. And hauling is hardly a viable income source for new players in a T1 frigate. Salvaging might work, but probably not. With PvE fatigue there will be less wrecks lying around, right? After all farming is bad and there should be less of it.

So as a veteran, I'll be less affected and it isn't clear this will help the new player in that with less ISK the new player acquires skill books at a slower rate, ships and equipment at a slower rate, just about everything in the game at a slower rate.

Malcanis' Law is in full effect here.

Quote:
When bots can out-compete newbies on almost anything that newbies typically do, simply because they can do it a lot longer, than it is obvious that bots are bad for newbies and their income and their wealth, and thus their ability to purchase stuff. Stuff that would maybe be more expensive, but because of higher income relatively better accessible.


Nobody is denying that bots are bad, nor would many disagree that bots impose more harm on new players either (e.g. a ratting bot is going to put more ISK into the economy and increase the rate of inflation and given the new players reduced ability to ramp up income earning this results in a net loss). But this solution is not aimed just at bots. It is aimed at all players, bots and human alike. It limits the playing time of bots and humans. And the solution to bots is not to nerf human play time to nerf bot play time, but to find the bots and ban them.

And as I said, any player logging in for 10 hours a day with 10 accounts and being active the entire time...I'm pretty sure CCP has an eye on them. I would imagine that would be part of any algorithm to find suspected bots.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online