These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

In-Game Programming of Protocols

First post
Author
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#21 - 2012-06-30 12:11:48 UTC
If (combat probes on scan) & (neutral in system)
then dock up
Nikodiemus
Ganja Clade
Shadow Cartel
#22 - 2012-06-30 12:29:07 UTC
Eve has so many boring parts in its game play that automation would mean most people simply automate almost everything and eve online becomes eve offline.

Maybe they should make the game less like a boring click fest and more interactive and player dependent instead of automating more boring crap.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#23 - 2012-06-30 12:32:23 UTC
Is there still a Features and Ideas topic on these forums or did CCP get rid of that? Roll

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-06-30 12:41:25 UTC
I do understand your idea behind this. For example the X series has a great scripting tool that allows you to build very complex scripts and automate things. I liked it a lot.

But the difference is: X is a single player game. Nobody cares if you do everything automated and don't sit in front of the game.

It would be very bad if EVE gets this kind of automation. Auto pilot has drawbacks for a reason and depending on the complexity of your proposed scripts, this would just be like botting.

Also, wrong forum section.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-06-30 12:57:48 UTC
I dunno, this sounds like it'd be great for POSes but anything that allows actual /gameplay/ to be automated is not good.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

ISD Stensson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-07-01 00:50:49 UTC
Thread moved from EVE General Discussion to Features & Ideas Discussion forum.

[b]ISD Stensson Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Perez1989
#27 - 2012-07-01 01:37:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Perez1989
Cebraio wrote:
I do understand your idea behind this. For example the X series has a great scripting tool that allows you to build very complex scripts and automate things. I liked it a lot.

But the difference is: X is a single player game. Nobody cares if you do everything automated and don't sit in front of the game.

It would be very bad if EVE gets this kind of automation. Auto pilot has drawbacks for a reason and depending on the complexity of your proposed scripts, this would just be like botting.

Also, wrong forum section.



Yes this was my inspiration.

I guess I see where all of you think I am supporting botting.. but really I have never botted in my life. I was thinking of making the game more realistic. I guess making a game more realistic does not always make it more fun.

Experiencing the future as it really would be seemed exciting to me. Combat would not be like it is depicted in Eve. What I am proposing would bring a very different gameplay to the table, that is for sure.

What is so bad about botting? Really.. ask youselves that question. Once again, believe it or not, I am not a botter and never have been.

Guess what, artificially intelligent beings would be very common place in the future.

Think about X: Multiplayer. Now apply that game image to Eve Online.
Perez1989
#28 - 2012-07-01 01:45:31 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
I like how you had your brother comment in order to give in-game sanctioned botting more credibility.

Just learn to PVP and you won't need "automated protocols" to turn on your point, prop mod, and guns for you.



It's cute, I think they spacebooklike each other's posts.



No.

Unrelated.

He's a corp member.

If you think outside the box a little, I think you may start to realize that this "Botting Phobia" that the gaming community has developed might not be such a bad thing for Eve or any game set in the future where botting is as real as you or I.
Pipa Porto
#29 - 2012-07-01 04:08:46 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
I like how you had your brother comment in order to give in-game sanctioned botting more credibility.

Just learn to PVP and you won't need "automated protocols" to turn on your point, prop mod, and guns for you.



It's cute, I think they spacebooklike each other's posts.



No.

Unrelated.

He's a corp member.

If you think outside the box a little, I think you may start to realize that this "Botting Phobia" that the gaming community has developed might not be such a bad thing for Eve or any game set in the future where botting is as real as you or I.


It would reduce the value of everyone's time. That's why people hate bots.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#30 - 2012-07-01 05:21:38 UTC
The problem with bots (and by extension this idea) is that they're either illegal or compulsory; there's essentially no middle ground between the two.

If you allow this kind of thing to be automated it would essentially destroy mining as a career; it's so simple and the entry-level skill requirements are so low that everyone would have a mining alt to leave running overnight or whenever they can't actively play. Because it takes so little time and effort, and because it's not cutting into their 'real' playtime, those players will be willing to sell their ore at significantly lower prices than someone who is actively mining would. The end result is that it becomes impossible to make any half-way decent money from mining unless you're using a bot to mine 23/7.

It's 'realistic', certainly - there are countless examples of RL jobs being totally taken over by machines once someone invents a way of automating them - but making entire styles of game-play obsolete for anyone who doesn't want to just run a bot to do it isn't going to be good for the game.
Perez1989
#31 - 2012-07-01 06:07:20 UTC
Raphael Celestine wrote:
The problem with bots (and by extension this idea) is that they're either illegal or compulsory; there's essentially no middle ground between the two.

If you allow this kind of thing to be automated it would essentially destroy mining as a career; it's so simple and the entry-level skill requirements are so low that everyone would have a mining alt to leave running overnight or whenever they can't actively play. Because it takes so little time and effort, and because it's not cutting into their 'real' playtime, those players will be willing to sell their ore at significantly lower prices than someone who is actively mining would. The end result is that it becomes impossible to make any half-way decent money from mining unless you're using a bot to mine 23/7.

It's 'realistic', certainly - there are countless examples of RL jobs being totally taken over by machines once someone invents a way of automating them - but making entire styles of game-play obsolete for anyone who doesn't want to just run a bot to do it isn't going to be good for the game.



These are good points. Let me attempt to explain my idea to counter this effect.

Installing protocols in ships and sending them off to do your bidding would be on par with the futuristic nature of Eve, I think. This could of course be limited by a skill governing how many ships you can have out at once that are being controlled by AI.

What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals.

Another balancing effort could be to limit AI to tech 1 ships and items only. This would enforce the "player done way is better" that needs to be in place. What you think?
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#32 - 2012-07-01 06:31:53 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:
Installing protocols in ships and sending them off to do your bidding would be on par with the futuristic nature of Eve, I think. This could of course be limited by a skill governing how many ships you can have out at once that are being controlled by AI.
Wait, you were thinking of allowing a player to do this with multiple ships at once on one account? Shocked
Perez1989 wrote:
What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals.
This was what I was assuming you'd do anyway and it won't make much difference. There's no way to stop a player starting up the client, setting up the bot to do it's thing, and then just walking away and leaving it to run.
Perez1989 wrote:
Another balancing effort could be to limit AI to tech 1 ships and items only. This would enforce the "player done way is better" that needs to be in place. What you think?
I doubt that this would be enough. Even using T1 gear with low skills, a bot running for 15-20 hours a day would end up pulling out a lot of ore (or running a lot of missions, or whatever). If you're going to allow officially-sanctioned bots, you have to assume that most active accounts will be running them for the majority of the time that the player isn't actively doing something else.
Perez1989
#33 - 2012-07-01 07:37:41 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:
What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals.
This was what I was assuming you'd do anyway and it won't make much difference. There's no way to stop a player starting up the client, setting up the bot to do it's thing, and then just walking away and leaving it to run.

What if running AI Ships and showing "supervision" of the bots involved actively pinging them? Maybe a module that you must fit on your ship which interfaces with all active ships. Would this solve this AFK issue?
Pipa Porto
#34 - 2012-07-01 07:51:50 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:


What if running AI Ships and showing "supervision" of the bots involved actively pinging them? Maybe a module that you must fit on your ship which interfaces with all active ships. Would this solve this AFK issue?


So, make botter's jobs easier?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#35 - 2012-07-01 08:45:12 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:
Quote:
Perez1989 wrote:
What if local authorities enacted limitations on the use of artificial intelligence? Maybe it is not allowed to have AI that is roaming unsupervised? So a player would need to be logged in and linked to an AI for it to be active. This would make AI an "active role". The same amount of effort and time would need to be sacrificed from each player to achieve the same goals.
This was what I was assuming you'd do anyway and it won't make much difference. There's no way to stop a player starting up the client, setting up the bot to do it's thing, and then just walking away and leaving it to run.


What if running AI Ships and showing "supervision" of the bots involved actively pinging them? Maybe a module that you must fit on your ship which interfaces with all active ships. Would this solve this AFK issue?
Anything which will successfully keep the player active at the keyboard would defeat the purpose of automating the jobs in the first place.

At this point, it sounds like what you actually want is to be able to multibox without having more than one account. That's a totally different proposition from allowing the player to automate some of what they want their ship to do.

It wouldn't create the issues with officially-sanctioned botting that I've been talking about, but it would make it much, much easier for the people running illegitimate bots. I personally think the problems it causes would significantly out-weigh the benefits from doing this, but that's almost beside the point.

Many players run multiple accounts just so they can multibox like this; if this was implemented they could drop all but one of those accounts. Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen.
Perez1989
#36 - 2012-07-02 01:16:15 UTC
Raphael Celestine wrote:
Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen.


That makes sense I suppose.

Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism.

AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think.
Pipa Porto
#37 - 2012-07-02 01:19:59 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:
Raphael Celestine wrote:
Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen.


That makes sense I suppose.

Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism.

AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think.


1) You already can. They're called Drones (though fighters have people in them).

2) No, they would just encourage it.

3) Play the game you want to play and stop being lazy.

4) There is no four.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Perez1989
#38 - 2012-07-02 01:35:59 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Perez1989 wrote:
Raphael Celestine wrote:
Fewer accounts means less money for CCP, so it will never happen.


That makes sense I suppose.

Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism.

AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think.


1) You already can. They're called Drones (though fighters have people in them).

2) No, they would just encourage it.

3) Play the game you want to play and stop being lazy.

4) There is no four.



Pipa Porto... Please stop posting on my thread. You haven't brought anything constructive or worthwhile to the discussion.
Pipa Porto
#39 - 2012-07-02 02:37:11 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:


Pipa Porto... Please stop posting on my thread. You haven't brought anything constructive or worthwhile to the discussion.


1) Disagreement on the value of the premise is perfectly worthwhile.
2) It's not your thread once you post it.
3) What gameplay issue do you hope to solve? or What gameplay benefit do you think this suggestion will bring?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#40 - 2012-07-02 02:51:36 UTC
Perez1989 wrote:
Being able to simultaneously control multiple ships by uploading artificial intelligence into them would be both fun and more in line with realism.

AI controlled ships could be limited in ways that would discourage 100% botting I think.

Unfortunately neither 'I would really like to be able to do this' nor 'this is realistic' offer any guarantee that the change in question is balanced or good for the game long-term.

EVE was designed with a one character = one ship paradigm. The mechanics were designed with that in mind, the ships were balanced for that, and the metagame developed based on that. Change that and you end up totally rewriting every aspect of the game, with corresponding problems for getting the new balance right. Like they say, you should never try to switch horses mid-stream.

As for botting; the trouble is that bots are built to exploit the simplest aspects of the game. If it's impossible to order the ships in question to mine an asteroid until they fill their cargohold, then heaven help you if you try to use them for anything complicated. Unless the new ships are so complicated to run that they're unusable, what would end up happening is that each bot goes from running one mining ship at a time to running 5 or ten mining ships at a time. That's a bad thing.

Perez1989 wrote:
Pipa Porto... Please stop posting on my thread. You haven't brought anything constructive or worthwhile to the discussion.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Pipa and I are making exactly the same arguments. She's just less patient than I am. Lol
Previous page123Next page