These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Solution to Bot Mining

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#81 - 2013-03-28 08:20:41 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Bot banning was declared 2012 03 01, according to graphs, almost one month and 7 days later, trit price has raised up by 1-2 isk. Then the next month, the prices hold steady at around 5 to 6 isk per unit, despite the total volume being at it LOWEST of all year.

all info was gathered from here: http://www.eve-markets.net/detail?typeid=34#history I set history at the past 395 days from the time of this post.

Slowly though trit prices has leveled off


did you even read the data in your own link? 1-2 isk? less than one isk.
4.73 - 5.63, that's an increase of 0.9 isk.

not to mention, april was when hulkageddon was going on (according to a quick google). hence, the low volume.

in short, none of this evidence proves anything about bots, banning of bots, or anything even remotely relevant to this thread.



Then I will ask you, when provided a 800 day review, why is it that the only month that the mineral supply for trit was the lowest? Hulkageddon didn't last the entire month, it lasted for like..A week AT MOST before it got old, next do you think that was the only time hulkageddon happen in the life of this game? If so you are sorely mistaken. If you go back 999 days, the max that the data goes back to, that month is still in fact the LOWEST. Proof? I provided the proof, now it your turn to believe in it.


Hulkageddon and both interdictions lasted a month each.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#82 - 2013-03-28 08:23:38 UTC
Corbin Cummings wrote:
If drones did not automatically go after Pirates/rat and each rat had to be manually targeted then mining barges could not survive. Therefore; making it impossible to BOT MINE. Or even AFK mine.

How about random Captcha to prove we are not bots.


Question to op. Do you mine and why do you even care?

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
T'Laar Bok
#83 - 2013-03-28 10:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: T'Laar Bok
Corbin Cummings wrote:
How about random Captcha to prove we are not bots.


CAPTCHAs 13 years ago had a failure rate of over 85%. The script I use today had to have a second go maybe once in the last 12 months.

Their main use is giving humans a false sense of security.

Amphetimines are your friend.

http://eveboard.com/pilot/T'Laar_Bok
Dave Stark
#84 - 2013-03-28 16:02:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Bot banning was declared 2012 03 01, according to graphs, almost one month and 7 days later, trit price has raised up by 1-2 isk. Then the next month, the prices hold steady at around 5 to 6 isk per unit, despite the total volume being at it LOWEST of all year.

all info was gathered from here: http://www.eve-markets.net/detail?typeid=34#history I set history at the past 395 days from the time of this post.

Slowly though trit prices has leveled off


did you even read the data in your own link? 1-2 isk? less than one isk.
4.73 - 5.63, that's an increase of 0.9 isk.

not to mention, april was when hulkageddon was going on (according to a quick google). hence, the low volume.

in short, none of this evidence proves anything about bots, banning of bots, or anything even remotely relevant to this thread.



Then I will ask you, when provided a 800 day review, why is it that the only month that the mineral supply for trit was the lowest? Hulkageddon didn't last the entire month, it lasted for like..A week AT MOST before it got old, next do you think that was the only time hulkageddon happen in the life of this game? If so you are sorely mistaken. If you go back 999 days, the max that the data goes back to, that month is still in fact the LOWEST. Proof? I provided the proof, now it your turn to believe in it.


what does that have to do with the fact that none of the evidence you've provided has anything to do with botting?

edit: in answer to your question: drone/t1 loot changes. are you really that ignorant of game changes?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#85 - 2013-03-28 16:07:40 UTC
Corbin Cummings wrote:
If drones did not automatically go after Pirates/rat and each rat had to be manually targeted then mining barges could not survive. Therefore; making it impossible to BOT MINE. Or even AFK mine.

How about random Captcha to prove we are not bots.


Yes, lets make mining even more boring than it is.

I hate the bot proof captcha, they are often times impossible to read.

http://io9.com/5938836/will-captcha+breaking-bots-soon-make-it-impossible-to-prove-were-human

No. A million times no.

What's next Voit-Kampf tests?

Let me tell you about my mother....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2013-03-28 16:34:50 UTC
Andracin wrote:
The bot battle will not end as long as there is in-game money to be made by boring tasks. Either you have to find a way to make the boring tasks not boring...


There is considerable truth in this statement. Mining is boring. Adding a captcha will simply make it frustrating. I don't see how that will help the problem really. If anything a bot will simply become more sophisticated to deal with the captcha...or you may end up with fewer bots and non-bot miners due to the increasing difficulty of finding a captcha players can actually read.

And adding a dumb little "mini game" is unlikely to work as well. Those can be fun...for about 10 minutes. Then they get old and boring. Adding more clicks to the game isn't fun....or if you think it is, try PI or invention. I got totally burned out on invention and PI is barely doable simply because once the planets are set up and with the 4+ day depletion times you only have to do it every few days.

I don't have an elegant solution to bot mining. Nobody really does.....

TL;DR Making mining more click intensive/frustrating/boring is never ever going to be a solution.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dave Stark
#87 - 2013-03-28 16:49:07 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't have an elegant solution to bot mining.


i do.
it's not broken, so...

leave it the **** alone.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2013-03-28 17:24:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't have an elegant solution to bot mining.


i do.
it's not broken, so...

leave it the **** alone.


I think you are mistaken, bot mining is not fine. It is a problem.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#89 - 2013-03-28 17:51:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't have an elegant solution to bot mining.


i do.
it's not broken, so...

leave it the **** alone.


I think you are mistaken, bot mining is not fine. It is a problem.


And said bot miners almost managed to destroy the only threat they face in high sec last year.
Dave Stark
#90 - 2013-03-28 19:28:58 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't have an elegant solution to bot mining.


i do.
it's not broken, so...

leave it the **** alone.


I think you are mistaken, bot mining is not fine. It is a problem.


no, mining simply isn't a problem.

the fact that the game has bots, is totally irrelevant to the state of mining currently. as a game mechanic mining is fine and doesn't need to be changed at all. as an activity mining could do with a few tweaks such as making null sec worth mining in, giving player corps a way of actually having something to offer miners etc.

a lot of bots being miners has nothing to do with mining, if you want to change bot mining; ban the bots not **** up a perfectly fine game mechanic.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2013-03-28 21:00:48 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
...as an activity mining could do with a few tweaks such as making null sec worth mining in, giving player corps a way of actually having something to offer miners etc.


I'm not going to disagree with your post in general, but this part I think is the problem. I know many miners who would jump at the opportunity to go mine for a null sec corp/alliance if they felt like they could be an important cog in the industrial machine.

The problem is, in my opinion, that null sec alliances only want combat pilots so they can do CTA blobs. There's also no reason for a combat pilot who can make 40m/hr (just arbitrary number) to protect a miner who's only making 20m/hr (again, arbitrary number). The math just doesn't work.

The issue, in my mind at least, is that CCP doesn't want to screw up the balance in the game right now by revamping mining, drops, and industry.

If I could revamp the system myself I would make it so that no modules would drop off of rats, or at least very rarely. Meta 0 items would be built like they are now, but meta 1+ items would be built from the previous meta items + more materials. To illustrate:

meta 0 - minerals from high sec
meta 1 - meta 0 + minerals from high sec or below
meta 2 - meta 1 + minerals from low sec or below
meta 3 - meta 2 + minerals from deep low sec or below
meta 4 - meta 3 + minerals from null sec / worm holes
meta 5 (tech II) - meta 4 + minerals from null sec / worm holes
meta 6+ (faction/officer) - meta 5 + minerals from null sec + limited run BPC's

That would shake up the game a lot, but I don't think a lot of the blob pilots would want to play a game where there was incentive to protect a important part of your corporation: the miner. It would also take a lot of effort to balance out all the mineral redistribution, blueprint changes, low/null industry changes, or anything else that would have to change to make this actually work.

But we all know that isn't going to happen, a balance of sorts has been met, and I doubt CCP would want to shake it up. All the industry we need are meta items dropping off pirates, mining bots in high sec, and moo goo from null sec.
Dave Stark
#92 - 2013-03-28 22:25:06 UTC
but you don't feel like a cog in the machine mining in null sec, most of the minerals are imported. almost everything you mine is unwanted surplus that you must move to jita to turn in to isk.

you're right, there is no reason for a combat pilot to want to protect a mining op. it's neither fun, exciting, rewarding, or lucrative. although you don't need protecting in null sec so it's fine.

if ccp didn't want to screw up the balance by revamping mining/drops/industry then why is odyssey exactly that? it's a rebalance of mining/industry/loot/etc
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2013-03-28 22:34:28 UTC
I totally agree with moving minerals, that's the heart of the problem with the entire industry as it currently stands. Everything that alliances need from null sec they get with combat pilots and passive moon goo. Maybe some industry for capital ships as well, but everything else is outsourced to the high sec masses, and imported via jump freighter.

I haven't heard of any loot, mining, or industry changes. Did I miss them in the notes?

Only thing I've heard of is a ship re-balancing and some tweeks to modules.
Dave Stark
#94 - 2013-03-28 22:43:56 UTC
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2013-03-28 22:47:02 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
take a look at this.

http://www.eveonline.com/odyssey/


Well +1 to you good sir.

Although it was extremely vague, so we'll see.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#96 - 2013-03-28 23:06:24 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
take a look at this.

http://www.eveonline.com/odyssey/

Doesn't tell anyhting. Please refrain from posting useless links.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Dave Stark
#97 - 2013-03-29 07:55:10 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
take a look at this.

http://www.eveonline.com/odyssey/

Doesn't tell anyhting. Please refrain from posting useless links.


except it's not useless, as the person i posted it for pretty much had no idea of the announcement of odyssey.

please refrain from posting stupid comments.
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
#98 - 2013-03-29 09:16:07 UTC
Eve is a business.

CCP is a for-profit company.

Each bot requires a paid account, making each bot a revenue stream for CCP.

That so much has been made of the issue of botting would indicate a large number of paid accounts dedicated to bots.

If bots were eliminated a large number of paid accounts would disappear. CCP would lose revenue.

The possibility exists that this loss of revenue could test the financial viability of Eve.

It's possible that losing bots could lose you Eve.

Was that your intention?

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.
T'Laar Bok
#99 - 2013-03-29 09:50:32 UTC
As a totally dedicated miner for the last 10 years I don't have a problem with the current system, there's a few tweaks I'd like to see but I can live without them.

However to get miners into low/null radical changes need to be made.

The three biggies for me are:

1. Survivability. Corps/alliances/whoever promise the world to "look after" you but they soon get bored with that. I don't blame them, no one in their right mind would spend 12 - 16 hours (my normal mining time) looking after me. I'm a sitting duck for everyone who comes along and that could be 100s of ships and it only takes one.

2. Storage. I mine A LOT and the storage system is a joke. I'm so disgusted with it I cant be rational talking about it so I wont.

3. Refining. I'll just say too small and too long for the time invested. Otherwise As Above.

Its just not worth it no matter how heavily they nef high sec. 50% - 60% tax bring it on, I'll still make more isk and have a lot less stress.

Amphetimines are your friend.

http://eveboard.com/pilot/T'Laar_Bok
Dave Stark
#100 - 2013-03-29 10:06:47 UTC
T'Laar Bok wrote:
As a totally dedicated miner for the last 10 years I don't have a problem with the current system, there's a few tweaks I'd like to see but I can live without them.

However to get miners into low/null radical changes need to be made.

The three biggies for me are:

1. Survivability. Corps/alliances/whoever promise the world to "look after" you but they soon get bored with that. I don't blame them, no one in their right mind would spend 12 - 16 hours (my normal mining time) looking after me. I'm a sitting duck for everyone who comes along and that could be 100s of ships and it only takes one.

2. Storage. I mine A LOT and the storage system is a joke. I'm so disgusted with it I cant be rational talking about it so I wont.

3. Refining. I'll just say too small and too long for the time invested. Otherwise As Above.

Its just not worth it no matter how heavily they nef high sec. 50% - 60% tax bring it on, I'll still make more isk and have a lot less stress.


1. that's only true in low sec. in null sec i'd gladly pay good isk to see some one enter a system, scan down, and tackle a miner before the miner can align and warp to a pos.

2. unless you're living in a pos in a WH storage is fine.

3. again, unless living out of a pos, refining is fine.

a 60% tax on high sec will just make the current situation worse as it further reduces supply.