These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Reason Why Removing Local would not fix the null botting.

Author
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#101 - 2012-02-07 19:32:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tenris Anis
RubyPorto wrote:

The incursion issue is the income.


But the income is relatively low. So there is no issue? Furthermore I am not saying that old content should be removed for group content, just more pve content as income sources added, which will make other sources less desirable. Casuals like myself will be fine that way. Bots will not stop, but become less relevant.

Furthermore pve group content can be flexible enough to give even casuals the ability take part if group size is dynamic enough. Incursions are actually a good example for this, as it does not hurt that much to run them with less than optimal numbers. While I agree that casual gamers should find a corp focused on what they want to do play than, it would be still better than the current state of game for them.

RubyPorto wrote:

Randomness also tends to reduce income, since you can't plan your tank, so adding randomness would likely require a significant bump in income per rat, which runs into the problem of people running sites in ships bigger than expected (a site that requires a BS to drop some DPS for tank isn't going to touch a carrier's tank), look at L5s.


You are playing in a sandbox. Markets will adapt and value your time still along the same. And I can not anyway follow you here really? People run battleships with 400 DPS and 1400 DPS already. Changing pve content means just that people have to adapt and people will adapt, easier than bots. Furthermore you seem to think that the game is played in eft, while a lot of factors which can be random can be countered with good flying, transversal speed, optimal ranges, changing ammunition, etc
Fitting the right hardeners in advanced is only a small part of what is actually possible in this game, but the only challenge which is delivered in most of our pve content.

Remove insurance.

Msgerbs
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2012-02-07 19:40:29 UTC
Razin wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.

That is all.

It's pretty clear the the current d-scan needs to be reworked for delayed local. This is stated in pretty much every topic advocating delayed local.

For example, my preference for the new d-scan would be to have the auto passive and the manual active modes (with some range and detectability tradeoffs for both), where the liberal use of the active scanner would tun your ship into a warpable signature.

Please for the love of god no.
Msgerbs
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-02-07 19:41:48 UTC
Tenris Anis wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

The incursion issue is the income.


But the income is relatively low. So there is no issue? Furthermore I am not saying that old content should be removed for group content, just more pve content as income sources added, which will make other sources less desirable. Casuals like myself will be fine that way. Bots will not stop, but become less relevant.

Furthermore pve group content can be flexible enough to give even casuals the ability take part if group size is dynamic enough. Incursions are actually a good example for this, as it does not hurt that much to run them with less than optimal numbers. While I agree that casual gamers should find a corp focused on what they want to do play than, it would be still better than the current state of game for them.


No, no, no, no, and no. Pretty much ALL income in EVE is pve already.
Razin
The Scope
#104 - 2012-02-07 19:51:06 UTC
Msgerbs wrote:
Razin wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.

That is all.

It's pretty clear the the current d-scan needs to be reworked for delayed local. This is stated in pretty much every topic advocating delayed local.

For example, my preference for the new d-scan would be to have the auto passive and the manual active modes (with some range and detectability tradeoffs for both), where the liberal use of the active scanner would tun your ship into a warpable signature.

Please for the love of god no.

No what?
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#105 - 2012-02-07 20:04:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tenris Anis
Msgerbs wrote:
Tenris Anis wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

The incursion issue is the income.


But the income is relatively low. So there is no issue? Furthermore I am not saying that old content should be removed for group content, just more pve content as income sources added, which will make other sources less desirable. Casuals like myself will be fine that way. Bots will not stop, but become less relevant.

Furthermore pve group content can be flexible enough to give even casuals the ability take part if group size is dynamic enough. Incursions are actually a good example for this, as it does not hurt that much to run them with less than optimal numbers. While I agree that casual gamers should find a corp focused on what they want to do play than, it would be still better than the current state of game for them.


No, no, no, no, and no. Pretty much ALL income in EVE is pve already.


Which is part of the problem. I agree. Tough, actually this is not true entirely. T2 salvage seems to come to a great deal from pvp, and once I start to have a effective efficiency rating above 75% I start to make isk from pvp drops. Though most have not such a good effective rating and lose isk while pvp. Many push their rating via km whoring in fleet fights. Increasing drops here could help.
Furthermore industry and markets are a great source for income and involve not pve but mainly pvp.

Remove insurance.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#106 - 2012-02-08 01:29:13 UTC
Tenris Anis wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

The incursion issue is the income.


But the income is relatively low.


Compared to Missions, mining, anomalies, and virtually every other PvE activity, HS Incursion income is higher (or the same in the case of Anoms which are in Null).

Quote:

RubyPorto wrote:

Randomness also tends to reduce income, since you can't plan your tank, so adding randomness would likely require a significant bump in income per rat, which runs into the problem of people running sites in ships bigger than expected (a site that requires a BS to drop some DPS for tank isn't going to touch a carrier's tank), look at L5s.


You are playing in a sandbox. Markets will adapt and value your time still along the same. And I can not anyway follow you here really? People run battleships with 400 DPS and 1400 DPS already. Changing pve content means just that people have to adapt and people will adapt, easier than bots. Furthermore you seem to think that the game is played in eft, while a lot of factors which can be random can be countered with good flying, transversal speed, optimal ranges, changing ammunition, etc
Fitting the right hardeners in advanced is only a small part of what is actually possible in this game, but the only challenge which is delivered in most of our pve content.


People will adapt, sure. Bots can adapt just as well. And bots have near unlimited access to ingame resources.

If they get really hard, someone might just do throw a bot trio of RR domis at the problem.

Good flying and transversal aren't hugely important in BS sized ships, and if bots can probe down sigs, I have no doubt they can manage range, transversal and ammunition.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#107 - 2012-02-08 02:17:40 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Tenris Anis wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

The incursion issue is the income.


But the income is relatively low.


Compared to Missions, mining, anomalies, and virtually every other PvE activity, HS Incursion income is higher (or the same in the case of Anoms which are in Null).


Good flying and transversal aren't hugely important in BS sized ships, and if bots can probe down sigs, I have no doubt they can manage range, transversal and ammunition.


While HS Incursions can indisputable generate more isk than most other PVE activity, they need indisputable larger groups of players interacting. And such groups have the tendency to waste time. A problem you do not have in solo content, because if 10 people are farming anoms, and all of them are making at different times their little capsuler pause, they are wasting only 5 minutes, while the same leads often to 50 minutes wasted on a evening of farming vanguards.

Travel times are a factor as well, as you need constant travel for incursions, and you need to do this in high sec without jb networks, you can not even set a jumpclone on your farming spot, as you never know when the next time a incursion will be in his system (though placing a clone in amarr space seems like a solid bet.)

Compare this to WH income, compare this to l4 missions which are instantaneous safe isk, and incursions get far less attractive than "100 mio/h" seem at first. Simply because there is lots of overhead which can reduce your isk/hour significant.
Fleet composition and fleet availability and fleet competition can become a further reducing factor. To make long words short: Yes incursions have to potential to be most profitable pve source of income besides wormholes in the game, and still they have potential to fall even below l4 missions because of factors out of your control. Is risk aversion really worth that much risk to your steady income? Sure it is more steady income than exploration for sure ... but some of the explores claim far higher isk/h on average too ... ;-)

So far I never achieved 100million isk / h, even when I was part in fleets which could potential reach about 150 per hour. To many breaks, not enough up time, to much isk wasted traveling. Sure with a zombie corp of zombies doing 6 hours and more straight incursion farming, I am sure I would make more than 100m/h *shrugs* Should be that the base of calculation?


And by the way, if you are not literally swarmed by small ships, transversal and good flying can always help your ship, even in a battleship, lots of them are even (theoretical) cable of speed tanking other battleships. Furthermore nothing stops from throwing ships on you which demand piloting to survive even when you are in a battleship. It is amazing how much pvp is praised in this game, but how unimaginable it is that playing pve could involve at least some kind of attention and "skill" besides battleship V and large guns V ...

Remove insurance.

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#108 - 2012-02-08 02:44:43 UTC
Had to edit the op again trying to spell it out for some people as I have to aggre thread is getting a bit long to read to pick up on things that have been figured out, known currenlty true, hypothetical and theorietical potentials, and to the current argument.

I have to agree the more stationary the bots are the more safer they will be.

iHubs could be constellation wide to start hampering with the bots efforts make it so it is possible to wipe out all sites in one system as others begin to get a bit denser.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.