These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Adapt Freighter and Jump Freighter

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#861 - 2013-09-02 22:58:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I get it from the publicly available records.


Ok? Your methodology and source are still relevant, thus the inquiry.

Quote:
The shear number of bots out there is proof enough of that.


a. I'd love to see you pull out some figures for bots
b. Your evaluation of the human psyche is pretty lacking if you think people equate automation with non-consensual pvp directed at a group providing them ubiquitous services with thin margins.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#862 - 2013-09-02 23:15:26 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I get it from the publicly available records.


Ok? Your methodology and source are still relevant, thus the inquiry.

Quote:
The shear number of bots out there is proof enough of that.


a. I'd love to see you pull out some figures for bots
b. Your evaluation of the human psyche is pretty lacking if you think people equate automation with non-consensual pvp directed at a group providing them ubiquitous services with thin margins.


CCP banned several thousand not too long ago when they hit a popular market bot tool.

How about your evidence for the human psyche in your whacky theory?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#863 - 2013-09-02 23:16:53 UTC
S Byerley wrote:

a. I'd love to see you pull out some figures for bots


A review of the team security fanfest panel, with numbers and graphs and things.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#864 - 2013-09-02 23:34:54 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
baltec1 wrote:
How about your evidence for the human psyche in your whacky theory?


I don't have faith in Psychology's ability to support such a complex comparison.

I think it's pretty obvious if you consider the matter thoughtfully though. For one thing, the former historically strengthens a community whereas the latter causes it significant injury. (please note: I'm referencing real life analogies here because they shape social adaptations, not because I'd like to introduce them to the larger discussion)

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
S Byerley wrote:

a. I'd love to see you pull out some figures for bots


A review of the team security fanfest panel, with numbers and graphs and things.


Those are figures on bans rather than bots - not nearly as interesting. Also, your chart showing 300 bots doesn't particularly support baltec's argument.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#865 - 2013-09-02 23:59:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Numbers banned is proportional to the amount of bots and RMTers, who are usually one and the same. Just from a quick glance it looks like CCP are banning an average of between 300 and 500 bots a month, that's 3600-6000 accounts a year at minimum. CCP banned 2350 people using autopilot hacks/bots in April this year, how is that insignificant?

From Team Security's own Dev Blogs the bot banning is a slow burn, to minimise the effects on the economy and thus legitimate players, we're unlikely to see a repeat of the "unholy rage" bans of 2009.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#866 - 2013-09-03 00:09:22 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Numbers banned is proportional the amount of bots and RMTers, who are usually one and the same. Just from a quick glance it looks like CCP are banning an average of between 300 and 500 bots a month, that's 3600-6000 bots a year. Those are fairly significant numbers.


Straight

A. You have no reason to think bans are proportional to bots, let alone present it as fact. Bans only give you a lower bound (which still assumes that most bans are correct, but that's probably accurate)

B. You're ignoring, or at least glossing over, the likelihood that botters create significantly more accounts and will replace banned ones with new ones.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#867 - 2013-09-03 00:09:41 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
How about your evidence for the human psyche in your whacky theory?


I don't have faith in Psychology's ability to support such a complex comparison.

I think it's pretty obvious if you consider the matter thoughtfully though. For one thing, the former historically strengthens a community whereas the latter causes it significant injury. (please note: I'm referencing real life analogies here because they shape social adaptations, not because I'd like to introduce them to the larger discussion)



Still stands that if ganking freighters was easy and massively profitable there would be more than 40 getting ganked a week.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#868 - 2013-09-03 00:19:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
S Byerley wrote:

A. You have no reason to think bans are proportional to bots, let alone present it as fact. Bans only give you a lower bound (which still assumes that most bans are correct, but that's probably accurate)
I may well be wrong to say that they're proportional, I'm man enough to admit that. I still say that the amount of bots banned implies that there are more that haven't been banned yet as evidence is being gathered.

Quote:
B. You're ignoring, or at least glossing over, the likelihood that botters create significantly more accounts and will replace banned ones with new ones.

Machine fingerprints, they're fairly unique, botters have been using a tool which alters them, it no longer works according to them. Bots, especially ones that use python injection, throw obvious exceptions and errors that show up at CCPs end, email and credit card details are recorded. Over on Nosygamer there's quite a collection of tears collected from various botting forums complaining that CCP are now picking up their bots faster than ever. It's a war of attrition, and CCP are currently winning it, as evidenced by the increase in RMT isk prices.

Anyway this is offtopic, I refuse to go any further into how many bots there may or may not be. Discussion of botting is probably a no no as far as mods are concerned, I don't fancy taking an enforced holiday for doing so.

Back to the serious business of ganking afk, autopiloting morons in freighters that are stuffed to the brim.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#869 - 2013-09-03 00:21:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Still stands that if ganking freighters was easy and massively profitable there would be more than 40 getting ganked a week.


If you accept my assertion, then it only stands that organizations comfortable with the moral tradeoff would participate. (which, AFAIK, is pretty accuracte). However, those likely to make the tradeoff are also less likely to be interested in the profit, making it hard to distinguish.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#870 - 2013-09-03 00:25:11 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Still stands that if ganking freighters was easy and massively profitable there would be more than 40 getting ganked a week.


If you accept my assertion, then it only stands that organizations comfortable with the moral tradeoff would participate. (which, AFAIK, is pretty accuracte). However, those likely to make the tradeoff are also less likely to be interested in the profit, making it hard to distinguish.


People do this for the profit not the km. Again, if it was as easy and profitable as you seem to think it is then there would be a lot more people doing it.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#871 - 2013-09-03 00:35:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Again, if it was as easy and profitable as you seem to think it is then there would be a lot more people doing it.


I think you underestimate the difficulty of organizing thirty people willing to be dickish on a regular basis in return for marginally above average monetary returns.

I'm not going out of my way to insult you (I think morality is relative personally), but I'm under the impression that your organization's mission statement makes it significantly easier.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#872 - 2013-09-03 00:38:18 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Again, if it was as easy and profitable as you seem to think it is then there would be a lot more people doing it.


I think you underestimate the difficulty of organizing thirty people willing to be dickish on a regular basis in return for marginally above average monetary returns.

I'm not going out of my way to insult you (I think morality is relative personally), but I'm under the impression that your organization's mission statement makes it significantly easier.



There are tens of thousands of corps with the manpower and ability to work together.
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#873 - 2013-09-03 00:39:07 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Still stands that if ganking freighters was easy and massively profitable there would be more than 40 getting ganked a week.


If you accept my assertion, then it only stands that organizations comfortable with the moral tradeoff would participate. (which, AFAIK, is pretty accuracte). However, those likely to make the tradeoff are also less likely to be interested in the profit, making it hard to distinguish.


There is no moral tradeoff. It's an Internet spaceship game.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#874 - 2013-09-03 00:51:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Again, if it was as easy and profitable as you seem to think it is then there would be a lot more people doing it.


I think you underestimate the difficulty of organizing thirty people willing to be dickish on a regular basis in return for marginally above average monetary returns.

I'm not going out of my way to insult you (I think morality is relative personally), but I'm under the impression that your organization's mission statement makes it significantly easier.



There are tens of thousands of corps with the manpower and ability to work together.


Please note the additional requirements

Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
There is no moral tradeoff. It's an Internet spaceship game.


You can't have effective organizations without morality; you'd have trouble arguing that Eve is completely devoid of it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#875 - 2013-09-03 01:03:57 UTC
S Byerley wrote:


Please note the additional requirements



This is a pvp focused game. Thousands of corps have no issue with blowing up other people.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#876 - 2013-09-03 01:08:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
This is a pvp focused game. Thousands of corps have no issue with blowing up other people.


Blowing people up because they're trying to blow you up, are competing for resources, are infringing on your territory, ect. is not particularly dickish.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#877 - 2013-09-03 01:09:42 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
This is a pvp focused game. Thousands of corps have no issue with blowing up other people.


Blowing people up because they're trying to blow you up, are competing for resources, are infringing on your territory, ect. is not particularly dickish.


Neither is piracy.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#878 - 2013-09-03 01:13:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
This is a pvp focused game. Thousands of corps have no issue with blowing up other people.


Blowing people up because they're trying to blow you up, are competing for resources, are infringing on your territory, ect. is not particularly dickish.


Neither is piracy.


Depends on the piracy; blowing up people who make your life easier is pretty dickish - by social evolution standards.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#879 - 2013-09-03 01:18:12 UTC
S Byerley wrote:


Depends on the piracy; blowing up people who make your life easier is pretty dickish - by social evolution standards.


There is only one kind of piracy.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#880 - 2013-09-03 01:19:18 UTC
It's like watching a Moth continually hitting a light bulb, he simply can't help himself.

Oh and our house hold has stopped playing chess, we deplore the whole regicide angle of that game. Oh the humanity.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.