These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Mining - Embracing the bot

Author
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-08-10 22:12:50 UTC
So what do you envision this scripting will be doing for mining which won't completely **** mineral, isotopes and fuel block prices in the ass due to excessive botting?

And why do you think this would be something CCP would even willingly consider given the fact they're constantly trying to remove AFK content such as datacores, moon mining and bots (the latter because it injects excessive amounts of isk and minerals into the economy), and scripting would be the epitome of AFK content?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
#22 - 2012-08-10 22:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Clystan
Lord Zim wrote:
So what do you envision this scripting will be doing for mining which won't completely **** mineral, isotopes and fuel block prices in the ass due to excessive botting?

And why do you think this would be something CCP would even willingly consider given the fact they're constantly trying to remove AFK content such as datacores, moon mining and bots (the latter because it injects excessive amounts of isk and minerals into the economy), and scripting would be the epitome of AFK content?


Because they can offer an in-game alternative to players who enjoy programming and automation, offer some new technology that may actually teach players something new and different, and possibly add a new game option like Cyberwarfare. They can regulate the use of the technology and enforce bans on real-world scripting by saying that the game offers some level of automation that has been designed to keep the impact of these activities in check.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-08-10 22:39:03 UTC
Yeah, no, that's not going to happen. Again, CCP are actively changing game mechanics which don't require active input into game mechanics which DO require active input, datacores being one of them, and they're (at least publically claiming they're) cracking down on bots mission and mining bots because of the effect they have on the economy.

They're not going to make "officially sanctioned bot-mechanics" just so they can "teach players something new and different".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
#24 - 2012-08-10 22:45:15 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Yeah, no, that's not going to happen. Again, CCP are actively changing game mechanics which don't require active input into game mechanics which DO require active input, datacores being one of them, and they're (at least publically claiming they're) cracking down on bots mission and mining bots because of the effect they have on the economy.

They're not going to make "officially sanctioned bot-mechanics" just so they can "teach players something new and different".


You never know. I am assuming that more than one developer has used LegoNXTs and could imagine allowing players to incorporate some level of behavior into the machines.

If you think about it, look at all of the stuff we already do not have to control. Drones, probes, ships, everything already has extensive programming that we do not have to touch to accomplish our tasks. I am just exploring the idea of letting the players have a window into the machines behavior. That's the exciting part to me.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-08-10 23:05:52 UTC
Clystan wrote:
You never know. I am assuming that more than one developer has used LegoNXTs and could imagine allowing players to incorporate some level of behavior into the machines.

Au contraire, I know for a certainty that it will not happen, for a myriad of reasons.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
#26 - 2012-08-10 23:13:45 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Clystan wrote:
You never know. I am assuming that more than one developer has used LegoNXTs and could imagine allowing players to incorporate some level of behavior into the machines.

Au contraire, I know for a certainty that it will not happen, for a myriad of reasons.


Tell me the difference between dropping in a rig and dropping in a code module? Hardly anything but a name. We are already scripting. It's just not branded.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-08-10 23:16:05 UTC
Huh? "dropping in a rig" vs "dropping in a code module"? That makes zero sense.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
#28 - 2012-08-10 23:40:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Huh? "dropping in a rig" vs "dropping in a code module"? That makes zero sense.


If you think of the UI as your window into the objects of Eve, the act of dragging a rig icon into a slot is a highly simplified way to accomplish the complex task of altering the ships properties.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-08-10 23:56:00 UTC
Clystan wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Huh? "dropping in a rig" vs "dropping in a code module"? That makes zero sense.


If you think of the UI as your window into the objects of Eve, the act of dragging a rig icon into a slot is a highly simplified way to accomplish the complex task of altering the ships properties.

That's something completely different from what you started out with.

Clystan wrote:
Maybe a POS module or station service that allows controlling ships fitted with a remote control rig in a solar system? Maybe a little code window to write and upload scripts to the rigs using a CCP scripting language?

This is scripting the ship's behavior, not its properties. This will never, ever be officially sanctioned by CCP. Ever. Stop dreaming about it.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#30 - 2012-08-11 00:05:36 UTC
Clystan wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Huh? "dropping in a rig" vs "dropping in a code module"? That makes zero sense.


If you think of the UI as your window into the objects of Eve, the act of dragging a rig icon into a slot is a highly simplified way to accomplish the complex task of altering the ships properties.

What the hey, modules and rigs have nothing to do with bots and scripting.


Bots and scripts automate what would normally be done by players.

Modules and scripts improve the ship's abilities.
Belshazzar Babylon
Doomheim
#31 - 2012-08-11 01:05:26 UTC
Where is James315 when you need him? Anyways horrible idea. Why would any soul want to mine if he knew he was competing against sanctioned bots? How would one get to mine anything if the bot locust descended as soon as downtime was over?
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-08-11 03:11:59 UTC
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
Where is James315 when you need him? Anyways horrible idea. Why would any soul want to mine if he knew he was competing against sanctioned bots? How would one get to mine anything if the bot locust descended as soon as downtime was over?


It would require tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of bots to prevent high-sec ice mining from still being possible, and I do that when I want to earn isk while doing something else on my PC. I have 4 monitors and a PC that can easily handle half a dozen or more EVE clients. I'd be annoyed over the lower prices, but I'd still mine ice when I want to read books, watch movies, catch up on my TV, or even play other MMOs and still want to make isk in EVE.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#33 - 2012-08-11 05:05:32 UTC
Scripting + mining = bad

Scripting + industry = good

I could see scripting for mass fitting ships or mass producing complicated items. Right now CCP is looking for a simplier approach. The automation would be built-in. It was a topic in the CSM minutes and looks like the next big expansion this winter.

CSM Minutes (pg57) wrote:
CCP Arrow showed a document that outlined changes planned in the near term related to industry. CCP decided that industry should be goal based making it more fun and quicker to do. There should be graphical feedback while it operates.

CCP Arrow is aiming to reduce the number of clicks and again improve the graphical aspects. Improvements include seeing minerals status displayed immediately and the ability to see multiple jobs at the same time. Industry will also include a new "batch" system to allow large scale manufacturing to be more easily manageable.

CCP Arrow and the CSM discussed an example of the change where you would build a carrier using the new "job order" process and all the sub modules would be automatically rolled into a single operation. Another example given was a player could start a job building 100 of an item with only enough minerals to build 10 and then feed the job with more minerals as the job progressed as required so long as the minerals are fed into the process before they would be required.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-08-11 06:26:39 UTC
still on this? ok

The idea that there is a comparison between a rig and a bot ( repetitious chain of actions directed by a program and not a player) is hard to understand. simply because they are not at all related. Why this is a talking point (or was) is mind boggling.

Ice mining is a special case as it respawns like normal asteroids yet gets depleted on a much longer time scale. Think of all the other types of asteroids. then think about nullsec mining operations in guarded systems.

Ice mining - while its true that it would take a very massive effort to harvest all the ice in hisec, I have no doubt that some would make their valiant tries. Being able to legaly bot mackinaws or which ever ship for the purpose, one would drop many many bot characters into ice belts. (if the bots are not actually characters but drone like operations add five or however many the maximum is per character to the field) on any given day in gallente space there are over a hundred ice miners out, the numbers are much lower then they were three years ago, when they numbered well over two hundred at the end of dt. 23 hours of ice mining mackinaws with bestowers hauling support. figure about 250 actual miners going. ice prices were around 70-80k per block. on the second most widely used ice in the game. Caldari if i remember right was around 60-70 simply because their ice belts were even more crowded.

I still have some amarr and minmatar ice that i bought from a desperate miner for 18k a block.
This is all just to give you some history of CCP and bots.

CCP changes to bot catching and Goonswarm Ice interdiction/ Helicity Boson's hulkageddon events have dropped the numbers of ice bots and miners, other changes have also raised the prices of minerals.

Bot mining, while adding to the realism of the game ( http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining/ ) Would ruin the mineral economy again, and make several massively sov holding alliances even richer. When you can make building titans that much easier, and fueling jump bridges that much less of a chore, acquiring huge supercap fleets to roll your opponents is that much easier. everything is devalued again and the production bottleneck once again becomes moon materials. order of the large otec or otec like economic heavy weight reigns again.
while the common hisec nonbot miner makes little or nothing daily as nullsec miners can do it better or other hisec miners with bots and better computers can do it better.

seriously though why are you wanting bots? i understand you think that it would help you but it would really really hurt the game. Im pretty sure you werent around when there were tons of bots around. mining then was fairly well off worthless. as any isk you could make was a pittance to what you could make now. take a look at your total tritanium (as its an easy metric) and value it at 2 isk per unit. its much better at 150% that price for casual miners.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
#35 - 2012-08-11 08:06:31 UTC
I am not suggesting totally unattended bots. Maybe a better way would be to describe them as a remote controlled drone net with the ability to program/script in some intelligence.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-08-11 08:07:21 UTC
No. Get out.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Sigras
Conglomo
#37 - 2012-08-11 08:27:42 UTC
The problem with this idea is that it would either do one of two things:

1. change nothing because its too restrictive and encourages people to use their own bots anyway
2. make all the high sec minerals up to and including nocxium go to 0

If you give people a way to make easy guarenteed isk while not sitting at the computer, then there is no reason not to do it. If it involves significant risk or player interaction there is no reason to use this over the current system of botting that works for them now.
Previous page12