These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP : MACRO BANNINGS

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#221 - 2012-03-02 19:38:39 UTC
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
3) I believe that CCP can do a LOT to put alliances under pressure to fight botting at the player level too. It might seem unfair to make some players responsible for the actions of other players but botting affects everyone and often times bots can go about their business with the knowledge (and even support) of "accomplices" who *do* share some of the responsibility and who are not held responsible for their actions (or lack thereof).

This has to end. As far as I know CCP still uses the "three strike" method for banning bots.... well this has to include people who support the bot by ignoring/supporting it. After strike 1 If a bot is identified then corp leaders of the affected corp need to be informed about the bot and the names of all in-corp characters associated to the bot. At this point there are no consequences for corp but corp is made "owner" of the problem to some extent.

At strike 2 if corp has done nothing to take ownership of "their" problem they are "fined" a given amount of isk (maybe what the bot makes in a day, which is often +/- 4-6 billion isk) and at strike 3 all corp assets are seized and the character (and alts) are forcefully removed from corp. Remember, corp leaders had 3 chances to follow up on this and did nothing before we get to this point.

Same can hold true for alliances. At strike 1 alliance leaders are informed of the name of the corp who had their bot banned. At strike 2 the alliance is fined (maybe 5x what the bot makes in a day (ie. +/- 30 billion isk) and at strike 3 the system where the bot was active is forcefully stripped of sov. The TCU and IHUB are simply deleted and any sov dependent production in process in that system will simply stop.


People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#222 - 2012-03-02 20:08:01 UTC
Andski wrote:
People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.


Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#223 - 2012-03-02 20:12:20 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Andski wrote:
People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.


Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules.


I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#224 - 2012-03-02 20:12:50 UTC
Andski wrote:

People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.


Also, the corp will just kick those members out on the first strike, and if the corp is actually complicit in the botting it'll let them rejoin with alts and feign ignorance, and even if it's not complicit, they could still rejoin with alts easily enough in a large and/or actively recruiting corp.

Also, what are CEOs supposed to do about botting? CEOs can't (and shouldn't have to) observe the behavior of corp members all the time. And even if they were aware of it, what would they do besides kick the botters, in which case see the above.

Also, it's pretty stupid to assume every corp with botters knows they have botters. There are corporations with thousands of members, and given the prevalence of botting in Eve, any corp larger than a couple hundred probably has at least a few botters despite the corp's absolute best intentions.

The best way to get rid of botters is to ban botters. The best way to get rid of botting is to get rid of repetitive activities that generate isk. Neither of these is the problem of the playerbase.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2012-03-02 20:18:12 UTC
Andski wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Andski wrote:
People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules.


Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules.


I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay.


I have no idea why you're actually too dumb to understand that people exist who
enjoy enforcing the rules of any authority, just to **** other people over.

Like ... for example ... policemen in the US. Or the TSA.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#226 - 2012-03-02 20:21:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Solstice Project wrote:
Andski wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Andski wrote:
People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules.


Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules.


I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay.


I have no idea why you're actually too dumb to understand that people exist who
enjoy enforcing the rules of any authority, just to **** other people over.

Like ... for example ... policemen in the US. Or the TSA.


The difference is that policemen and TSA agents don't pay for the privilege - that transaction goes the other way, hurrrr

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#227 - 2012-03-02 20:23:10 UTC
Elanor Vega wrote:
Shandir wrote:
MadMuppet wrote:
From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account.

So if someone got their account banned last year they can still transfer their characters?


As bad as bots are, it's not a good precedent for CCP to change their terms and then retroactively apply punishments based on them, so yes, any botters who got caught once before, have not yet transferred their characters, and have not been caught again - should be allowed to transfer their characters. If they're bad again, they'll get caught and punished like everyone else.


LOL... XD
You know... if someone killed person before you cant judge him untill he kills again... Lol
Funny little botters that now have locked toons and cant sell them. Lol


They should not make the ban in transfer retroactive because the retroactive activation will hurt people who innocently bought a previously banned or warned pilot and will suffer. Forward looking is great but someone who had extra iskies and bought a botted pilot should not be punished in the same manner botters themselves are punished. Sure some bot accounts can transfer but that pool will now start evaporating.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2012-03-02 20:23:33 UTC
Andski wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Andski wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Andski wrote:
People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules.


Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules.


I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay.


I have no idea why you're actually too dumb to understand that people exist who
enjoy enforcing the rules of any authority, just to **** other people over.

Like ... for example ... policemen in the US. Or the TSA.


The difference is that policemen and TSA agents don't pay for the privilege - that transaction goes the other way, moron.


That's like saying that nobody would ever pay for a game where he has the legal opportunity to grief others.
Very smart argument there...
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#229 - 2012-03-02 20:23:48 UTC
oh and you didn't bother reading the post I quoted to put it into context

solstice project ladies and gentlemen

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#230 - 2012-03-02 20:27:53 UTC
Buruk Utama wrote:
They should not make the ban in transfer retroactive because the retroactive activation will hurt people who innocently bought a previously banned or warned pilot and will suffer. Forward looking is great but someone who had extra iskies and bought a botted pilot should not be punished in the same manner botters themselves are punished. Sure some bot accounts can transfer but that pool will now start evaporating.


Warnings follow accounts, not characters.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2012-03-02 20:28:03 UTC
Andski wrote:
oh and you didn't bother reading the post I quoted to put it into context

solstice project ladies and gentlemen


Yeah, i didn't. :D
I just picked that line because it was the easiest to respond to. :D

That and ... there's nothing else to do right now. :D

Will you stop responding now? :(
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#232 - 2012-03-02 20:29:14 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Yeah, i didn't. :D
I just picked that line because it was the easiest to respond to. :D

That and ... there's nothing else to do right now. :D

Will you stop responding now? :(


the folly of the typical eve-o poster

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#233 - 2012-03-02 22:00:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnny Marzetti
Ptraci wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Over the past year I have seen one hulk in dek and it died.


Then you should pettition the decay rate for the industry levels over there then, cos they sure aren't decaying all that fast in systems like 5S-KXA and a whole bunch of other Industry 4, 3 and 2 systems that I won't bother mentioning. You need what, 12 million m3/24h to prevent an indy 5 from decaying, and 6 million m3 for an indy 4? Twice that amount for ice.

Yah, no miners in goon space. Your fart stinks.


Okay, so I got home and logged in to Eve (I know, I know, but it's too late, I already did) and guess what "a whole bunch of industry 4, 3, and 2 systems" in Deklein means to this ******** pubbie?

It means one industry 4, two industry 3s, and three industry 2s. Those 6, plus 5S-KXA, out of 68 systems in Deklein. All the rest are 0. No wonder he wouldn't "bother" mentioning them.

My fart is like a mountain breeze.
You're Mum
The New Eden Yacht Club
The New Eden Yacht Club.
#234 - 2012-03-03 01:19:43 UTC
Lady Spink wrote:
it seems everybody is very positive about the Bot removals.

There are some downsides:

-- No more ez ganking (from now on, only non botters will be killed. they will cry and quit)
-- toons that can not be transferred within the CCP environment will now be sold on the black market. ccp will loose money
-- when the 1500 detected bots are gone. CCP has to fire about 4 people if Eve doesn't get more players.
-- There will be less Capital fights (costs will go up like crazy) And huge battles is what CCP use for eve marketing.
-- Most fun kills are the haulers with botted stuff. Pirates will loose interest because they will only see each others instead of those fully loaded freighters.

If I was CCP i would do this only if the server population is too high. If you would need more hardware, costs might rise.

However if CCP could measure the positive effect of banning botters (more subscriptions) all is fine of course. That is something that has to be taken into consideration.



how do you down vote on this stupid web site?
Please read what you have just written and go away and think about what you have said.... your a mong

CCP’s song: 99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs, you take one down patch it around, 127 little bugs in the code
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#235 - 2012-03-03 01:50:28 UTC
Andski wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Andski wrote:
People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.


Don't ignore the fact that there WILL be people who enjoy enforcing CCPs rules.


I have no idea what dumb statement you're trying to make but okay.


Dude, he's talking about gankers. Career gankers. The sort of gankers who have resources to butt **** anyone they think is violating the rules of the game day in and day out.

Adapt or Die
Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
#236 - 2012-03-03 13:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tinu Moorhsum
Andski wrote:


People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.


I know this but bots seldom go about their business without accomplices either actively helping them turning a blind eye.

You know as well as I do that most of Shadow's titans were either built using minerals from bots or used to "white wash" RMT ISK and you know as well as I do that every dead-end system in Deklein was botted to hell for a long time (some still are) and that the money isn't just locked up in wallets. It negatively affects the game and corps and alliances DO benefit from this because they can have essentially unlimited resources.

The idea behind that suggestion isn't to hold players responsible for the actions of other players so much as holding accomplices responsible. Punshing a corp or alliance is not punishing individual players, it's simply taking back some of the isk that was generated by botting (probably with their knowledge and/or help).

Maybe it isn't a good idea, but the underlying intention of doing something not only about botters but the "fruits" of botting is valid, I believe.

T-
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#237 - 2012-03-03 14:08:09 UTC
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
Andski wrote:


People subscribe to the game to have fun, not to enforce CCP's rules. That alone voids your entire idea of any merit. Also, CCP has their own policies regarding this - any EULA/ToS violations are between CCP and the player, and no one else.


I know this but bots seldom go about their business without accomplices either actively helping them turning a blind eye.

You know as well as I do that most of Shadow's titans were either built using minerals from bots or used to "white wash" RMT ISK and you know as well as I do that every dead-end system in Deklein was botted to hell for a long time (some still are) and that the money isn't just locked up in wallets. It negatively affects the game and corps and alliances DO benefit from this because they can have essentially unlimited resources.

The idea behind that suggestion isn't to hold players responsible for the actions of other players so much as holding accomplices responsible. Punshing a corp or alliance is not punishing individual players, it's simply taking back some of the isk that was generated by botting (probably with their knowledge and/or help).


The idea behind your suggestion is to place an undue burden on alliance/corp leadership. CCP Sreegs and his security team have the tools and expertise to enforce the rules - alliance directors do not. You're pretending to understand 0.0 politics (Shadow's titans? What?) and you seem to think that there is a cabal of botters in every alliance that includes alliance leadership for some reason. Guess what, our alliance doesn't come close to being funded by rat bounties - it's funded by moons.

Tinu Moorhsum wrote:

I did notice that all three of the people who objected to this idea were Goons. That's not a big surprise to me, tbh.

T-


The responsibility to enforce CCP's rules tends to come with a paycheck, not a bill. I realize this is a difficult concept to understand.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
#238 - 2012-03-03 14:53:52 UTC
Andski wrote:

The responsibility to enforce CCP's rules tends to come with a paycheck, not a bill. I realize this is a difficult concept to understand.


I understand that just fine. What i don't like, and the point I'm trying make is that botting affects everyone, not just the person doing it, and I believe (actually, I'm sure) that alliance leaders have a pretty good idea of who is botting on a large scale.

I would be willing to bet that most of the renters in places like Spire are there to bot and that not only do Shadow leaders know about it, they probably openly negotiate with botters to put them in systems that suit their needs. The botters bot away and Shadow gets, what is it these days? about 15-20bil isk per month per system out there.... which they subsequently use to do nice things like hire PL to fight for them.

And yes, a lot of isk is generated by tech moons. But it isn't the only source of large amounts of isk. Renting is HUGE and provides alliances with pretty much unlimited isk for zero effort.

That isn't to say that all renters are there to bot but you're very naive to think that it doesn't happen on a large scale and that alliances don't know what their renters are up to,

.... and, repeating the point again .... since alliances use that "dirty" isk for game changing play (ie. steamrolling) then why shouldn't they be held responsible? At the moment, they just laugh at CCP and every honest player in this game has to deal with the consequences.

I dont think that's right.

T-
Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
#239 - 2012-03-03 15:17:57 UTC
While I'm at it, I would also like to submit that not all bots are bad for EVE.

When it's bad is when botting for RMT allows players who can afford it to buy expensive items with real $$$. That disadvantages everyone who can't.

It's also bad (as explained above) when alliances use botting (whether doing themselves or delegating it via renters) for game changing play.

However, some bots actually help the game. Players macro-mining in high-sec, for example, produce HUGE amounts of minerals and ensure an oversupply, which keeps the prices of minerals down. Those bots generate isk for their owners but much of that isk just stays locked up in a wallet and isn't used for RMT or for financing fuly reimbursable titan blobs.

There is no renting in high-sec and therefore the problem remains limited because the isk generated will remain, for the most part, locked up in the wallets of a few players. So if CCP succeeds in eliminating all high-sec macro miners then it *will* hurt the game by creating inflation in the mineral market and therefore everything will become more expensive.

In fact, weeding out high-sec macro-miners will have another nasty side effect, which is will be to hand control of the mineral markets over to the drone Russians, who (at least if they're smart) will start to act like OPEC and decide for us how much we will pay for Tritanium.... at least until the price of minerals gets so high that people stop running incursions in high-sec to go mining.

T-
Aquila Draco
#240 - 2012-03-03 15:23:43 UTC
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
While I'm at it, I would also like to submit that not all bots are bad for EVE.

When it's bad is when botting for RMT allows players who can afford it to buy expensive items with real $$$. That disadvantages everyone who can't.

It's also bad (as explained above) when alliances use botting (whether doing themselves or delegating it via renters) for game changing play.

However, some bots actually help the game. Players macro-mining in high-sec, for example, produce HUGE amounts of minerals and ensure an oversupply, which keeps the prices of minerals down. Those bots generate isk for their owners but much of that isk just stays locked up in a wallet and isn't used for RMT or for financing fuly reimbursable titan blobs.

There is no renting in high-sec and therefore the problem remains limited because the isk generated will remain, for the most part, locked up in the wallets of a few players. So if CCP succeeds in eliminating all high-sec macro miners then it *will* hurt the game by creating inflation in the mineral market and therefore everything will become more expensive.

In fact, weeding out high-sec macro-miners will have another nasty side effect, which is will be to hand control of the mineral markets over to the drone Russians, who (at least if they're smart) will start to act like OPEC and decide for us how much we will pay for Tritanium.... at least until the price of minerals gets so high that people stop running incursions in high-sec to go mining.

T-


Just shut up and **** off with your "botts are good for EVE" smalltalk.
There is indy players in EVE who dont need you to tell them that making their time worthless is good for them.