Missions & Complexes

man are you one of those people that applies the "marxist" label to anything you don't like

laffo

why are you making it look as if this is my quote?

As a professional software developer I find this entire discussion somewhat frightening from both the consumer and the vendor points of view. My concerns are as follows:

1. This is NOT activity that is banned by the EULA. It does NOT provide ANYTHING not otherwise obtainable, and NOT any any increase in speed.
2. IT is unenforceable. Without changes that would effectively fix the proble, YOU CANNOT tell whether I am present or not.
3. It seems to assume guilt, not innocence, arbitrated by means of the anti-bot mechanisms.
4. In the middle of my one-year subscription, the vendor is changing the use and purpose of the item they have sold me.
5. A specific case, but that encompasses MANY similar situations has just been deemed "illegal" within the realm of the game. How soon will the others follow. At what speed/value do they become exploits rather than fringe game circumstances?

Here is a concrete example of why this choice is the wrong one.

Its Friday morning, and I choose to telecompute from home. I start EVE right after DT on one screen and perform the now proscribed behavior. On another screen/computer/etc I go about my work, while keeping an eye on my "AFK" ISK farming. As long as nothing goes wrong, I do NOTHING, since nothing is needed. I have lunch, go to the bathroom, answer the phone, etc, NONE of which is prohibited, otherwise the game would be immeditately unplayable. Since its Friday, and I don't need to work tomorrow I can stay up all night, until the next DT, and watch Netflix, or DVD's, or do some outside contract work. At all times I am both present in EVE, yet AFK according to the bot logic. I gaining nothing not otherwise attainable, nor at an accelerated rate, and am not using a bot. I am however, completely uninvolved MECHANICALLY and have just run for 23 hours straight. I don't know about anyone else, but 23 hours certainly WOULD NOT be the longest I've ever been awake or involved in a single activity. Yet this is exactly the behavior that seems to be in question.

The questions remain:
1 How can you tell whether I'm AFK or not. If you can, you've probaly fixed the problem. By the way, even the little kids game, RUNESCAPE, was designed to detect AFK behavior.
2. Having established a certain behavior as illegal (its too bot-like), when will it be extended to similar situations. WHAT exactly is the threshold? How fast, how profitable, etc ???

This seems like a bad idea on all counts. Just change/fix the specific cases to make the practice less attractive. Announce that SOME change is on the way, and then make the changes and let the practitioners suffer the consequences.

except afk cloakers aren't generating 10-20mil isk/hour off of bounties.

miners have to interact with the client every few mins or else their income drops, roids pop pretty frequently, and cargo bays get full. when afk in the disputed cosmos plex you don't have to do ANYTHING besides a few mins of set up.

I would say setting a drone boat up in a manner that it doesn't require any interaction for 23hours (tbh eternally if it weren't for downtime, and/or connection issues) is in direct conflict with the EULA 6-A-3 "patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of ... currency, ... at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play." if you run a 23 hour marathon every now and then I'd think you would be okay, and if not that should be something that should be easy to fight.

Three problems

1. What's an accelerated rate versus:
• GO in with guns blazing
• Kill everything
• Wait until NPC's respawn (quick: make lunch, go pee, etc)
• repeat

They both result in the same ISK/time

Who/What decides who is doing a keyboard marathon and who is AFK. How long is a "marathon"? The problem with setting these limits is that its actually EASIER for the bots to observe and avoid them than human players.

What is the next similar long known behavior to be targeted as being an exploit.

Without requiring some sort of interaction, if the circumstances do not require any action, HOW can you tell who is AFK and who is present but just not interacting. Once you generate an event that requires interaction, you've solved the problem. Inaction = AFK, response = present and aware. Example, Genii offers you a gift, if you don't accept or reject, Genii teleports you someplace else, possibly hostile.

If you think outside "normal" mechanics, there are many possibilites. For instance, rather than "fixing" complex, fragile code, perhaps a security modifier could be applied to the complex. Minus 1 after each respawn, Plus one every x hours or so; back to normal if the complex is empty. Let the gankers punish the offenders once security gets low enough; if the wrecks are valuable enough, even the ninja looters might get interested. Substitute COSMOSaggedon for HULKaggedon. CCP doesn't actually have to fix/solve the problem completely, just make it less profitable to continue the practice.

I have one question I would like CCP to answer:

Is isk generation CCP's concern? or afk playing of their game?

Because there are plenty of ways for AFK isk generation in EVE. Datacore research, listing things on the market, or other market manipulations, loyalty points, courier missions, and mining to name a few. I think that warping to and deploying drones take as much if not more effort than most of those other isk methods listed. So where are you drawing the line here? Where is the threshold for AFK isk generation?

If AFK playing of the game is the issue, then why are you stopping with just afk ratting? The guy that parks a hostile cloak alt in a system and disrupts other players experience is also having an effect on the game. Why is that pilot OK and the one sitting uncloaked in an anmaly afk is not ok? There really is no distinction.

What this looks like is CCP is now trying to control how their players play the game. I would ask that you refrain from taking that approach. That is the unique item that draws many people to play this game. It is unique. That is the "sandbox" as CCP has coined. You work on making the game. Let the players work on creating their experiences within that sandbox. If you find an anomaly that is not producing your desired results then change the anomaly, don't try to change the players. When you try to change the players you will ruin the aspect of this game that makes it great. I look forward to a response.

Obviously you have completely failed at reading anything in this thread.

pretty sure skreegs already said that stuff was designed to be passive and is okay