These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A Few Modest Questions for CCP Sreegs

First post
Author
CCP Stillman
C C P
C C P Alliance
#101 - 2012-11-22 10:51:42 UTC
I'm finding this discussion very interesting indeed.

But from my perspective alone, it makes no sense to design things around the fact it could be botted. Because *everything* can be botted. That's something we can't change.

As to the lines from earlier, they're just macro trends. They give you an idea of the overall trend, but don't read too much into it beyond that. Smile

Just a random dude in Team Security.

CCP Stillman
C C P
C C P Alliance
#102 - 2012-11-22 10:54:42 UTC
Hazen Koraka wrote:
SaKoil wrote:
I am bad with maths. Does the data show anything else that CCP catches even less bots now after the changes that make bots indistinguishable from bot-aspirant AFK miners?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%3Dmx%2Bc

What screegs posted was the equation for a linear graph.

High-sec: y1 = -0.0011x + 0.773
0.0: y2 = 0.0008x + 0.1651

The y is the vertical part of the graph, the x the horizontal part of the graph.

The numbers above -0.0011 and 0.0008 are the gradient (i.e. the steepness) of the graph.

Anything positive shows the graph is increasing gradient (i.e. the line is increasing in y as x increases).
Anything negative shows a decreasing gradient.

tldr;
What these numbers show, is that in Hisec, the number of botters has decreased slightly, and increased in null.

I'm not sure what the graphs represent exactly (I think the y part is number of bots, x is time?), but that's my take on it.

Edit: Less in highsec, i.e. less being caught, as that was the context, more being caught in null.

Besides that it was me and not Sreegs that posted it, I'll also point out that the constant(b) is a percentage value. Smile

Just a random dude in Team Security.

Thomas Gallant
Quafe Company Courier Shipping
#103 - 2012-11-22 11:47:08 UTC
I think the idea that high sec mining ganking is a deterant to botting is partly based the idea that if you bot mining you are more likely to get ganked. While I don't believe this is true in as far as if a miner is targeted, it may be true with being able to survive an attempted gank. It'd be interesting to see the numbers of failed ganks from attentive miners verses botters.

The idea that ganking is a deterant to bot mining seems to be only as it's a deterant to all mining, as (to me) it doesn't seem that those to mine actively would be more willing to take a risk than those that bot.

As such, if ganking had a noticable effect on who mines, and the added tank and other improvements to mining barges and exhemers would increase all mining across the board, not merely botters.

TL;DR:
I'd think that ganking would effect all mining, bot or not, more or less equally.
Melvin Coulter
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#104 - 2012-11-22 14:45:31 UTC
People find ways to brake rules.

I believe that is how half of the earths population has came about

Move along!

SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2012-11-22 15:11:46 UTC  |  Edited by: SaKoil
CCP Stillman wrote:
I'm finding this discussion very interesting indeed.

But from my perspective alone, it makes no sense to design things around the fact it could be botted. Because *everything* can be botted. That's something we can't change.

As to the lines from earlier, they're just macro trends. They give you an idea of the overall trend, but don't read too much into it beyond that. Smile


One possible, if not probable, scenario why this trend is happening after recent changes is:
In high sec, mining bots and bot-aspirant AFK miners both exhibit the exact same playing patterns. These invulnerable non-players will sit in the belt, afk and empty their bays when they are full. Repeat forever. It is almost impossible to distinguish between these groups as the most rudimentary bots probably avoid mining 23/7 not to be too obvious, and at the same time the most foaming-from-mouth fanatic AFKbear will mine for longer than the average bot. From the outside it looks like some horrible Singularity event where you cannot tell where the human ends and the bot begins.

In null, the mining bots will still have to defend themselves from possible threats and have shown that they are pretty good at warping to safety at the first sign of trouble. This uncanny 0 sec reaction time is easy to detect, especially in hivemind situations where several of the bots warp off at the same time, if it happens a few times in a row.

What you have created with the increased ore bays and lower risk of ganking is a perfect camouflage for all the mining bots to do their economical damage while encouraging a group of people to think that they are entitled to profits by AFKing all day.

Indeed it does not make sense to design things around the fact an activity could be botted. It makes sense that the activity is designed not to BE botting, or close enough that no-one can tell the difference.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#106 - 2012-11-22 15:17:55 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
I'm finding this discussion very interesting indeed.

But from my perspective alone, it makes no sense to design things around the fact it could be botted. Because *everything* can be botted. That's something we can't change.

As to the lines from earlier, they're just macro trends. They give you an idea of the overall trend, but don't read too much into it beyond that. Smile



I'd counter that by saying that, as a rough rule of thumb, the more exciting and interesting a given gameplay mechanic is, the harder it is to bot it effectively and the less incentive. Making mechanics utterly predictable and repetitive (eg: mining, anomalies, missions) not only makes botting very easy, it provides a very strong incentive to do it in the first place. The more intelligence, intuition, decision making and pattern recognition required to accomplish a gameplay task, the better.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#107 - 2012-11-22 16:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Stillman wrote:
I'm finding this discussion very interesting indeed.

But from my perspective alone, it makes no sense to design things around the fact it could be botted. Because *everything* can be botted. That's something we can't change.

As to the lines from earlier, they're just macro trends. They give you an idea of the overall trend, but don't read too much into it beyond that. Smile



I'd counter that by saying that, as a rough rule of thumb, the more exciting and interesting a given gameplay mechanic is, the harder it is to bot it effectively and the less incentive. Making mechanics utterly predictable and repetitive (eg: mining, anomalies, missions) not only makes botting very easy, it provides a very strong incentive to do it in the first place. The more intelligence, intuition, decision making and pattern recognition required to accomplish a gameplay task, the better.

High-sec miners have made it quite clear that "excitement" for them can't come in the form of ship risk.

Failing that, I'm unsure what could be interesting or exciting about mining if we're being honest.

Which brings us to AFK bot aspiration and the current economic dilemma:

High-sec ice mining is getting less valuable every day so that eventually not all of the ice miners who subsist on PLEX to remain subbed will be able to do so, as they will be competing for PLEX purchases with individuals who earn ISK from a faucet directly at a fixed rate.

I guess it might be considered exciting to watch their buying power slowly evaporate as they and everyone like them further devalue their profession of choice. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom