These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How to utterly demolish bot mining easily
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave stark
#221 - 2014-04-30 10:27:16 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
True, no choice. So we all go back to Frigs, as in 2003. Because Cruiser, BC, Caps prices multiplied with a factor of 40 (I assumed an average of 500k/frig) are very unlikely to be used in actual combat. See your Mineral dreams fade away. Blink


you do realise you're posting complete crap, right?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#222 - 2014-04-30 10:37:36 UTC
I realized your failure to understand my point, yes.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Dave stark
#223 - 2014-04-30 10:42:58 UTC
your point is; if ships are expensive nobody will fly them.

look at every large scale battle. they were all frigates and cruisers because titans cost billions. right?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#224 - 2014-04-30 10:45:49 UTC
B-R is an anomaly, and so are the other big fights. I hardly believe that a lot of people are going to use BS that cost 1-2B+ (those that now cost ~200M) a lot. Scaps and Titans are being used, because they give tactical advantages; Standard T1 BS for the price of faction BS and even more expensive don't give that advantage. Blink

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Dave stark
#225 - 2014-04-30 10:47:09 UTC
every big fight is an anomaly, right, sure.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2014-04-30 10:58:00 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I realized your failure to understand my point, yes.
Actually you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The minerals can only become highly valued if people are continuing to purchase them. It is when the demand is higher than supply that the price rises. It will stabilize at the point where the buyers and sellers are agreeing on a price.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#227 - 2014-04-30 11:08:26 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I realized your failure to understand my point, yes.
Actually you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The minerals can only become highly valued if people are continuing to purchase them. It is when the demand is higher than supply that the price rises. It will stabilize at the point where the buyers and sellers are agreeing on a price.


Which can only be extremely high for an extended period of time because human miners cannot cope with the demand.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2014-04-30 11:14:28 UTC
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.

Have you thought this through?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#229 - 2014-04-30 11:34:54 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.

Have you thought this through?


Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#230 - 2014-04-30 12:00:50 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.

Have you thought this through?


Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.

If mining profit rose a mere 10 mil/hr (Ok so thats 50%) I'd mine on all my accounts when I wasn't so busy, rather than do other things or even just pure idle because I can't be bothered sometimes. Market will respond to demand.
Dave stark
#231 - 2014-04-30 12:20:07 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.

Have you thought this through?


Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.


so basically you're basing this on "because you say so"
very compelling.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#232 - 2014-04-30 12:23:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.

Have you thought this through?


Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.


so basically you're basing this on "because you say so"
very compelling.


I base it on experience. What do you base your assumptions on?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Dave stark
#233 - 2014-04-30 12:30:54 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.

Have you thought this through?


Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.


so basically you're basing this on "because you say so"
very compelling.


I base it on experience. What do you base your assumptions on?


oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so".
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#234 - 2014-04-30 13:13:02 UTC
While supply and demand cycles effectively regulate each other, there does come a point where supply cannot fully satisfy demand.

At that point, the items in question remain available ONLY to those still able to afford them, and become described as luxury items in the process.

EVE will fail as a spaceship game, if enough players cannot buy the spaceships.

I do not believe anyone seriously wants that.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#235 - 2014-04-30 13:39:52 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so".


That point is flawed, because of the points in my response after yours.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#236 - 2014-04-30 13:52:36 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Failing to meet the demand drives prices even higher, and draws more people into the profession.

Have you thought this through?


Yes, I have. And I come to the conclusion that not enough human miners willing to mine, regardless of how I look at it.

If a balance point were to be established based on the absolute non-existence of botting, the result would possibly be that ore being produced would be multiplied to the point where market stability needed it to be.

Players need X ore to build ships. X = Y + Z
Human miners produce Y amount of ore.
Botting miners produce Z amount of ore.

Botting eliminated, Z amount of ore stops.
Human mining adjusted so return Y now equals previous Y + Z.
(Increase in ore returned per cycle, not amount of time & effort)

X remains constant, but funds previously going to Botting now goes to human mining.
As mining already had caps on available ore & ice already in game, the increased return may cause more competition.

Those only wanting ore at previous levels can now do so in less time, allowing either growth of income with effort maintained, or growth of activity in other areas with just income maintained.

I believe the math is correct.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Dave stark
#237 - 2014-04-30 16:09:01 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so".


That point is flawed, because of the points in my response after yours.


"because you said so" doesn't prove ****, son.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#238 - 2014-04-30 16:11:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

oh you know, the facts i pointed out earlier; people still use big ships regardless of the prohibitively large costs rather than "because i said so".


That point is flawed, because of the points in my response after yours.


"because you said so" doesn't prove ****, son.


No, I mean that point:

Rivr Luzade wrote:
B-R is an anomaly, and so are the other big fights. I hardly believe that a lot of people are going to use BS that cost 1-2B+ (those that now cost ~200M) a lot. Scaps and Titans are being used, because they give tactical advantages; Standard T1 BS for the price of faction BS and even more expensive don't give that advantage.Blink

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Katherine Raven
ALTA Industries
Intergalactic Conservation Movement
#239 - 2014-04-30 17:02:20 UTC
If OP really believes that bot mining only happens in high sec then he is delusional, or perhaps just horribly misinformed. In the depths of null sec there's rarely anyone around to witness the bot miner and report it, meaning they get away with it for longer. Sure the risks are higher, but that just means smarter bot programs.

Reducing the yield on high sec ores would accomplish nothing on the bot miner front, and would simply crush high sec industrialists into the ground.
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#240 - 2014-04-30 17:06:59 UTC
Swing and a miss