Science & Industry

Ah, yes. The story of the boy who cried 'wolf'. We all know how that ended.

how about using ECM burst? would that work?

You mean the acceleration vector is unaffected by model bearing, only target destination? That would be simpler (lazier) to code, but somewhat surprising.


If you aren't facing towards say the station, your ship turns around to face it first - some ships can turn fast, but big ones (like mining barges) can take some time to turn to face the direction you are specifying. The speed seems to increase more slowly when doing the turning about thing than when you are already facing the direction you want to accelerate towards.

Its particularly annoying/noticeable like when you have an industrial at a gate and want to warp to another gate that happens to be behind you (in the position you entered from) as the slow thing must turn around. The time difference taken to enter warp (ie: when you can no longer cancel) seems large in such cases. Unless it's really just a massive mindtrick physics thing. Hm, I could/should check that.

Sure you can always warp to something ahead of you, but by definition you're already (passive) aligned to it. Certainly if your ship is pointing away from the station and you try to dock it would take longer than if you were facing it and then hit dock. Unless the ship accelerates towards something at the same rate no matter which way it was facing (wierdonly because the thrusters suggest something not necessarily true in code).

Usually, the two signs of botting are, either the pod sitting in the belt foe an extended period if time (hours, not just a few minutes while they fire off hate mail) or the pod continues to act as a mining vessel. The latter means the pod warps to the belt, passes about 15 minutes, warped to station to drop off the load it thinks it mined, then back to the belt.

Also, my understanding of passive alignment is.... Get close to the asteroid (within 2km), align to Target, set soeed to 6m/s. You will not move out of range from the asteroid, but are still aligned and in motion only needing to reach warp speed.

The fact that you announce your presence and intentions before ganking anyone skews your numbers considerably.

Not to mention the fact that some ganker fleets are accompanied by a single salvager that doesn't shoot. Since Catalysts have been well known to be effective salvagers at a cheap price, and since they got a buff in hybrid turret RoF with buff to hybrids themselves, the only way to know for sure if one of the ganker ships is a salvager is by looking at the turrets visually. Then there is the issue of time as gankers in dessies usually are very coordinated on how fast they lock and shoot in unison. Therefore one will not have time to verify a salvage fit on a single dessie (let alone 4-5 of them).

If the ECM burst hits the salvager, the Hulk pilot will have effectively assisted the gankers in their endeavor to destroy the Hulk. So, NO ECM BURSTS, PLEASE!

It is sort of a fine line really. I respect the miners that actually participate in the game. These are the people that react to current situations, adjust tactics and fits to deal with threats, and most importantly fight back.

These are typically the people that either dock up when we announce our presence or survive the attack.

The people I don't care so much for are the ones that are botting or VERY afk. I can understand mining while watching TV or reading a book. But, if they aren't paying enough attention to notice the comments in local, concord in the belts, wrecks, and the sounds of their ships blowing up; well then I think they deserve to be blown up.


I've used this example before, but I will do it again:

If they are so AFK that they loose not one, but TWO fleets (with Orcas!), well... they probably deserve what they got.

The number that tickles my memory is that your current velocity vector has to be within 5 degrees of your target warp vector.

And undocks now spray you out in a 15-degree cone, which is why insta-undocks aren't as foolproof as they used to be.

Because of 2 reasons:

1) bots are not always so obvious.

If CCP's bot detection software reports an hit then they could proceed with immediate ban.

But bots - like viruses - can be changed all the time to escape being detected, therefore it's very easy to be in a grey area.

Since mining is a very, very BAD game design, in case of grey area it's very hard to discern the real miner who fills in 18 minutes and goes to empty at station vs an undetected bot doing the same.

Therefore the only ways to fish in the large numbers is to use heuristics and as of now their heuristics are not *that* refined. I sent CCP a list of additional behavioral filters to refine their search (and they replied they would pass them to their security team) but I don't know how much of that is possible to implement without creating huge logs of many things.


2) bots are just the pushers and they need to find the RMT "heads".

If you immediate-perma-ban a "puny low end" bot it'll be replaced in 1 hour, if you want to escalate the RMT hyerarchy up to the "brains" they don't have to suspect being tracked and hunted, therefore the bots cannot be hit too hard too soon.
It's really like real life police investigations to find drug cartels bosses.

YAY to you guys! Keep up the good work! Not sure why people have a problem with this, you sure as hell won't find people that use bots on the forums. Killing bots = more profits for people that don't use bots. Simple as. Worse still, bots generally feed into the darker side of eve, selling isk for cash! I can almost picture some chinese guy behind a keyboard screaming when he comes back to find all his ships destroyed.

And yes, they could report them. But as we all know, the wheels of eve bureaucracy move slowly, and most of the time ccp likes to encourage players to make their own solutions.

In this case, the solution envolves explosions! Who can have a problem with that?