tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post4160052941534192212..comments2024-02-27T14:44:07.868+01:00Comments on Greedy goblin: Botting vs no-life: the core problem of botting and RMTGevlonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-40284699698943983362014-07-16T14:12:51.315+02:002014-07-16T14:12:51.315+02:00I've got an other suggestion. Perhaps CCP coul...I've got an other suggestion. Perhaps CCP could make a sort of mining minigame. Not as the hacking one. Let's say, there will be some mad asteroids, or comets flying through the belt at random times and random directions, that the miner has to avoid or take some decent damage.The evoiding mechanism should be in a special interface, where you will have to compute the avoiding trjectory on in a 3-d scanning-mision like manner. Or some other way, that will be hard to get botted. In terms of lore: those ateroids are "mad" in terms of phsics (or driven by space parasites or launched by space pirates or whatever billion of reasons), so the autopilot can't avoid it by themselves.<br /><br />I like the parasite asteriods version most since it can explain why the damage dealt to the ship is not absorbed by shilds or armor, but hits on structure and modules. And damage scaling % from ship size, so ventures don't get oneshotted and some tanki stuff couldn't ignore.<br /><br />Botting rats can be solved in an even better way. Once in a while rats will call "an armada" for help. Lot's of heavy armed ships that can whipe everything away. Or just one mysterios killa-ship. That event would be completely random and the only way a player can know about what's coming is reading an intercepted local chat message. Once called for help the killa arives in about 300 seconds, so the pilot has time to flee to safety and return a couple of minutes l8r. (Yep, killah is really bussy and leaves in about 30 seconds after he arrives). This way "not paying attention"/botting might cost one all his fleet of alts or just one ship.<br /><br />A painfull, simple to execute and eefective for changing minds of da playas pill (or should I say injection?)) )Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09033662919017820694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-41321337419151796992014-05-13T19:57:35.998+02:002014-05-13T19:57:35.998+02:00Dark Souls 1 or 2 is not a hard game. They are fai...Dark Souls 1 or 2 is not a hard game. They are fairly unforgiving of mistakes but the challenges generally aren't difficult.<br /><br />DS1 did have a few hard parts but virtually everything in that game except the Ornstein and Smaugh boss fight can be cheesed with some trick (and that fight is farly easy with 2 co-op phantoms). It is a game for OCD numbers people with the patience to get over the sharp learning curve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-77180810624791979122014-05-13T17:10:06.179+02:002014-05-13T17:10:06.179+02:00I have a question. How would you explain this in t...I have a question. How would you explain this in terms of EVE lore?<br />Every thing has to have some explanation. like industry teams using inferno booster, so they last only 1 month and then they are gone for ever.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009062465107029895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-65866092034530624732014-05-12T01:33:47.726+02:002014-05-12T01:33:47.726+02:00Only way to beat boting is to make game complex to...Only way to beat boting is to make game complex to degree when bots need to be too complex to be feasible. But in this case game will loose many players as many can not perform as good as average bot. TheHolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04397143395289722361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-1608666643311632202014-05-10T18:26:51.484+02:002014-05-10T18:26:51.484+02:00"@Von Keigai: absolutely NOT. The no-lifer an..."@Von Keigai: absolutely NOT. The no-lifer and the bot are anything but content."<br /><br />Not true. Who did you kill when doing your miner ganking? Who does the new order consider their primary target? The afk miner (and bots though I am not advocating bots) are the prey. Their existence provides the content for others too kill. <br /><br />And if the miner was limited in time, there would be less targets for gankers to hunt as they would be docked more time than not.<br /><br />Also, you set a low limit on mining, but a huge one on trading. 300 orders a day? I could adjust my 15 orders 20 Times each per day. That easily let's me play a .01 isk game in Jita with ease. Why are you favoring your current orefered income so heavily?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-39659350336139539662014-05-10T18:16:55.000+02:002014-05-10T18:16:55.000+02:00this is where gevlons system is elegant. a pool of...<i>this is where gevlons system is elegant. a pool of x hours refreshed by x/7 hours per day. the pool refreshes while you are offline and is reasonable for a non-bot. if you hit the cap you go do one of the many other activities which has a separate cap</i><br /><br />It's not elegant. It's brute-force, which is pretty much the axiomatic 'inelegant'.<br /><br />Create engaging gameplay. Make that engaging gameplay something that offers as good, or better, returns over time. And if people want to do that for hours on end, <i>it's their life</i>, you are not their dad.Arrendisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-71870927983912858542014-05-10T18:05:40.482+02:002014-05-10T18:05:40.482+02:00Woody: dark souls no lifer game
well Dark souls i...<i>Woody: dark souls no lifer game</i><br /><br />well Dark souls is that game that the "old folks" grew up with. games that forced some sort of skill. To play only on one coin for your stay at the arcade, so you had enough money to play the coming weeks.<br /><br />Dark souls hit the nail on that nostalgia. but throughout gaming history we don't have "coin" as a way to force players to get good at something. So in DS case they use TIME.<br /><br />So. If someone was smart and skilled enough at the arcade they didn't lose their money. That's not no-life that's active and engaging play to sustain a hobby without going bankrupt on back in the day kids allowance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-53624875293264874892014-05-10T15:09:24.803+02:002014-05-10T15:09:24.803+02:00"the PL guys shot back that he's run 30 l..."the PL guys shot back that he's run 30 level 5 missions in a day, does that make him a bot?"<br /><br />only if he does it the next day and the day after that.<br /><br />this is where gevlons system is elegant. a pool of x hours refreshed by x/7 hours per day. the pool refreshes while you are offline and is reasonable for a non-bot. if you hit the cap you go do one of the many other activities which has a separate capAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-69860549227693190202014-05-10T13:51:10.209+02:002014-05-10T13:51:10.209+02:00While your idea isn't bad, the implementation ...While your idea isn't bad, the implementation of a hard-cap on daily revenue is the wrong way of doing it. Instead, the game should either disencourage or make it extremly difficult to rat endlessly (this is where endless anomaly spawns in nullsec comes in). <br /><br />For example, while things such as incursions and c5-c6 capital escalations provide a ton of isk, they have soft caps or highly diminishing returns of availability after some point. I feel the same should happen with the main botting sources of the game. How that should be implemented I have no idea, though.jstkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189193221678685401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-49185892339214369362014-05-10T12:34:07.963+02:002014-05-10T12:34:07.963+02:00Botters are just another playstyle. Just because y...Botters are just another playstyle. Just because you are too risk-averse to engage in botting yourself doesn't mean that bots have to be nerfed, in fact it only shows that botting has a real risk vs reward decision attached to it that doesn't make it automatically the best choice for everyone.<br /><br />Botting successfully does require non-trivial skills and constant innovation (as public bots only get you banned), does require a rational mind that can deal with variance (sometimes you will lose a lot in a single day, even if you are profitable in the long run) and does require several/many accounts. <br />Seeing how few people have these prerequisites it's only natural that botting pays well.<br /><br />You are the last person I would have suspected to be in favor of increased regulation just to bring those who are smart and risk-neutral enough to run bots back in line with the morons and slackers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-28702274246068953092014-05-10T12:24:40.489+02:002014-05-10T12:24:40.489+02:00Maybe it's foolishly sentimental of me, but th...Maybe it's foolishly sentimental of me, but these limited allotment counters would bother me for aesthetic reasons.<br /><br />While I would never come close to hitting the caps, they would exist at the back of my mind as a factor and chip away at the whole sandbox immersion feeling, where I can go anywhere and attempt almost anything.Estebannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-85884568307948435552014-05-10T10:21:39.145+02:002014-05-10T10:21:39.145+02:00@anony - in many games (say counterstrike) the mor...@anony - in many games (say counterstrike) the more you play the better skilled you will be. So time invested can relate to skill. <br /><br />No lifing in an MMO is usually done on an activity with a low skill cap (hence why a bot can do it). <br /><br />I see no value to allowing it. Putting in more time to practise and better your skills is a virtuous activity whereas attempting to win because you have absolutely no life and just use a brute force application of spare time is not. <br /><br />I often wonder why people who no life would even bother as what possible feelings of pride and accomplishment would you get from it? <br /><br />No one should have their total playtime limited but rather playtime should be limited per activity and in particular on skill capped activities. <br /><br />E. G. In most mmo's you can attempt a progression boss 24/7. Knock yourself out, play it all day and night as you improve your skills. <br /><br />But once mastered you are restricted to one kill per week. <br /><br />This is why I call Dark Souls a no lifers game. At the start of Dark Souls 2 most people will die for the first time after running through an empty sewer system for five minutes, taking out some large knights the other side and then either dying on three of them in one room or the following boss. The game then resets you way back before the sewers such that you must spend twenty minutes walking through empty sewers and re-killing those knights that you already mastered. A large time investment with no skill gain. <br /><br />All that time wasted with no self improvement, no feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment and no story progression. Who could enjoy that but a no lifer who has such a lack of a life that there was no opportunity cost. <br /><br />Same type of guys you see farming or trading 18 hours a day. <br /><br />I don't understand why any normal healthy person would gain pleasure from no lifing but it is not something other players should feel compelled to do to compete or participate in a meaningful level. Otherwise it leads to a loss of players or botting. Woodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12938274286927262455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-90333752066968463962014-05-10T07:08:25.028+02:002014-05-10T07:08:25.028+02:00I disagree. I think the good changes, the ones tha...I disagree. I think the <i>good</i> changes, the ones that wind up being successful and enduring over the long-term, are the ones where they say 'let's find a better way to <i>encourage</i> this style of play...'<br /><br />As for the impossibility of failure and operating costs... eh. That's really true of every money-making method in EVE.Arrendisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-87772451990909866152014-05-10T06:34:38.425+02:002014-05-10T06:34:38.425+02:00@Arrendis: yes, I want to limit market order updat...@Arrendis: yes, I want to limit market order updates. This would force people to think about their price instead of just 0.01-ing all day.<br /><br />The limits should be account-wide, so you can only bypass them by setting up more accounts, which has PLEX cost.<br /><br />Obviously making everything engaging would be better. But that's HUGE programming effort. My limits could be implemented in an afternoon. I never said they are perfect, but better than no-lifers/bots farming 15 hours a day.<br /><br />The "risking their assets" can't be defined at a farmer. For a farmer there are no risks, just operational costs. If you lose your Macks once a year, you just factor it in. "Risk" is when you can fail instead of succeed. Losing a bunch of Macks isn't a fail, just a bump on the road. Look at the untanked Retrievers in highsec. They are ganked for years and they aren't going away, since the max-yield fit can earn 2M/hour more in highsec, paying for the Ret in 15 hours. Unless you are losing Rets more often, you just don't care.<br /><br />Every game change starts when someone says "let's dicate others play". The CSM is elected for that very reason. This statement is a strawman.<br />Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-47436350602905569602014-05-10T06:18:18.631+02:002014-05-10T06:18:18.631+02:00You seem to ignore that no-lifing is the reason of...<i>You seem to ignore that no-lifing is the reason of botting.</i><br /><br />No, not at all. What I'm saying is that automation has progressed to the point where botting is a feasible means to simulate most of the activity in EVE. Market activity, included.<br /><br />Should we remove market-trading, because you can bot it? That's silly.<br /><br />The PL pilot in your example is no-lifing because he can, and because the money is as good or better than it is doing more engaged things. Now, you can look for ways to limit peoples' activities, sure - but that's not right answer here. That won't change that simple premise:<br /><br />The money is as good or better than it is doing more engaged things.<br /><br />Change <i>that</i>. Don't just make me keep coming up with ways to get around your limits. Because I will. The no-lifer will switch alts. The botter will switch alts. The guy who's doing highly-engaged stuff that <i>isn't fun</i>... will simply quit doing things he doesn't enjoy.<br /><br />EVE is often described as a job you pay to work at. It shouldn't be. There should be no activity in this game that is not a)engaging, and b)enjoyable.<br /><br />Change <i>that</i>.<br /><br />Artificial constraints and limitations will just encourage people to find ways to get around them.<br /><br />CCP needs to create engaging, enjoyable gameplay that is competitive in terms of time/reward to the things that as so un-fun, most people who do them, don't want to pay attention to doing them.<br /><br />Mining in a Mackinaw is not the way to make the most money mining. Mining in a Hulk is. But that increase in throughput means you need a hauler, and you need to pay more attention to what you're doing. At that point, everyone needs to be at the keys more or less every 90s or so - the hold is small enough that it fills fast. And if they're there, and doing things, then what right do you have to say they can't do it for hours on end?<br /><br />Believe me, I am not going to tell you 'Gevlon, you have no right to resent people who are afk-money-printing' - they're <i>afk</i>. They're not actively playing. Are they allowed? Sure. Are they putting their asse(t)s at risk? Sure. Am I ok with that? I am. Doesn't mean <i>you</i> have to be ok with it.<br /><br />But if they're <i>at</i> the keys? If someone has the time AND is willing to focus on what they're doing?<br /><br />If they're doing that, then who are you to claim to dictate others' play? What gives any of us that right, other than feeling upset that someone who is willing to do what we're unwilling to do is benefiting from that willingness?<br /><br />They're really even <i>more</i> 'no-life' than the guy AFK-mining.Arrendisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-73668132771994317432014-05-10T05:56:25.984+02:002014-05-10T05:56:25.984+02:00@Sugar: you do the SAME activity for 10 hours a da...@Sugar: you do the SAME activity for 10 hours a day or different stuff?<br /><br />@Anonymous: in most games the time is limited. You can't win in football by waking up earlier and scoring while the other team is not on the field yet.<br /><br />@Arrendis: You seem to ignore that no-lifing is the reason of botting.<br /><br />Since no-lifing is profitable but repetitive and boring, let's get a bot do it. If you remove no-lifing in any way (better AI, time limits, resource limits) you removed botting, since bots aren't at the level to do content that needs player (there are no PvP bots)Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-40074788949883517342014-05-10T04:47:21.180+02:002014-05-10T04:47:21.180+02:00Ramm:
Why is it a problem? It's a problem beca...Ramm:<br /><i>Why is it a problem? It's a problem because someone finds it a problem. That's what being a problem means. In this case, that person is Gevlon.</i><br /><br />Right. I totally agree that Gevlon feels it's a problem. But the game devs clearly <i>don't</i>. That's what they designed the Mack to do. Therefore, attacking the problem of AFK gameplay from the direction of 'it's too much like botting' is clearly a non-starter. Gevlon's complaining about something baked into the game design. It's not something that was an oversight, like the effect of Drone Assist + Sentries.<br /><br />Nor do I think there's much traction to be gained from 'it's not fair' - EVE's not fair. At no level is EVE fair, other than 'you could be doing that, too' - again, by design. So again, I think trying to address AFK gameplay from that angle is a non-starter.<br /><br />Instead of trying to disincentivize AFK play, we should be pushing them to incentivize active play, play that's distinguishable from bots. But the problem there is the same one that PvE runs into in every single game:<br /><br />There are a limited number of hours the devs can put into coding NPC AI and behavior combinations. This means eventually, you've seen ever one of them. If they've all been seen, they all become stimulus that can be responded to in a formulaic manner ie: botting.<br /><br />That's why the answer to AFK gameplay right now is PvP. It's also why AFK-PVP like motionless sentry-drone fleets (Ishars, after all, are in motion around their drones - not a huge improvement, but it's something, and the individual pilots need to target now) was eventually curbed.<br /><br />If something's a problem, understanding it beyond 'this is why this is a problem' is necessary to devise an effective way to convince the devs to change it.Arrendisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-20847435836332110102014-05-10T02:17:46.875+02:002014-05-10T02:17:46.875+02:00An ice miner (10M/hour)
Wow, you think that's...<i>An ice miner (10M/hour)</i><br /><br />Wow, you think that's all I'm pulling in mining ice? Multiply that by... I dunno 4? 5? Per Mack - and I don't run a large mining fleet.<br /><br />But again: Let's take a look at that guy running 10 Macks in a mining fleet: That's 2B isk on the field, where it can be blown up.<br /><br />He's risking his investment, why shouldn't he profit?<br /><br /><i>The problem is that playing result should demand from... playing. Instead, the results depend more on time spent playing.</i><br /><br />So? Look, bottom line, you're not going to change that. After all, if you do limit it to say, 3 hours, and I'm a guy who's got 8 accounts dedicated to AFK mining, then after 3 hours, I switch to a second set of alts on the same account. 3 hours later, I switch again.<br /><br />No-lifers always have an edge - just the same as the guy who can muster the most manpower always has the edge. It's the same <i>exact</i> math: The guy who can bring more man-hours to an activity has the advantage.<br /><br />Now, if you want to make it impossible to AFK-mine, or AFK-rat, by changing the mechanics of those systems to require constant attention, then go for it. Lobby to have auto-repeat removed from mining lasers, maybe.<br /><br />Just don't expect <i>anyone</i> to support that change.<br /><br />Though, like I said, I do like that 'crew fatigue' mechanic. If anything, I think it could open the door to some additional fitting options - a 'lounge' module, for example, that offsets crew fatigue... but of course, it takes a slot up that means you're losing either performance or tank.<br /><br />That's got potential - that breeds adaptation, instead of just feeling like objecting because someone else is doing something you don't like.<br /><br />Because ultimately, that's what it comes down to: they're being successful in ways you don't like.<br /><br />Now, we opposed the massive-scale of drone assist on the basis that AFK-gameplay isn't <i>fun</i> gameplay. And I think that point here is totally valid: if the best way to do these things is by going AFK, then CCP needs to overhaul the system and figure out what makes the activity generally not-fun.<br /><br />But just saying 'you can't do that for a long period of time' is just patently ridiculous. I used to raid 6+ hrs a day. Was that somehow wrong?<br />Arrendisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-39971864150080571132014-05-10T01:16:46.836+02:002014-05-10T01:16:46.836+02:00Maybe some good ideas, maybe not... But you argue...Maybe some good ideas, maybe not... But you argue from false premises. <br /><br />What does it mean to be "competitive"?? You never do define the term. <br /><br />I imagine a lot of folks don't give a crap about competing no matter the context. I, for one, don't have the time for serious trading or fleet ops or anything, for that matter, that requires voice comms. But I do enjoy trying new ships, trying new play styles and crunching numbers (e.g. figuring out for myself why *exactly* the Machariel is the king of PVE). For me, all of this is fun, but absolutely none of it requires comparison with another player or competing with them in any sense. If I'm missioning or exploring, of course, I may be subject to PVP. But I know how to mitigate the threat, and no amount of bot-earned ISK is going to undercut such mitigation. So whatever, let em bot...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-48387074853807189352014-05-09T23:29:36.271+02:002014-05-09T23:29:36.271+02:00There's a pretty good connection between time ...There's a pretty good connection between time invested into something and "skill". (Assuming an intentional desire to get better at whatever x you are doing)<br /><br />I wouldn't want to take that away from a legitimate player who is willing to put in the time.<br /><br />In that light, arguing that my play time for 3 hours should not be beaten by someone else's 10 hours of play time seems silly.<br /><br />Botters should be targeted and removed, but I (as a casual player, less than 30 minutes/day in EVE) would defend the player who plays 10 hours/day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-44305322093456958282014-05-09T23:23:00.237+02:002014-05-09T23:23:00.237+02:00"The no-lifer is killing the content by makin..."The no-lifer is killing the content by making the "content-people" unable to replenish losses. He can't re-farm his lost cruiser because his farming hours are greatly devalued by no-lifers/bots"<br /><br />Simply not true. It's true that bots/farmers devalue the goods they are producing, but that just makes other activities relatively more profitable. They are an overall net positive on the production of the economy which makes things easier, not harder, for other people to attain.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-681578821371920332014-05-09T22:31:49.200+02:002014-05-09T22:31:49.200+02:00I'm pretty sure I qualify as a nolifer now wit...I'm pretty sure I qualify as a nolifer now with as much Eve as I do.Sugar Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15437978687639772023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-49488737544712147562014-05-09T22:08:04.788+02:002014-05-09T22:08:04.788+02:00@von keigai:
Gevlon has answered most of your poi...@von keigai:<br /><br />Gevlon has answered most of your points, and quite well. I just want to point out something you said specifically:<br /><br />" CCP offers you a space full of the most superb and lifelike AIs ever created."<br /><br />Ok, great...unless someone is botting. So based on your statement above, we see what the problem is with botting, it ruins that space. But why connect "playing a lot" with "botting"? That's the fundamental question here, right?<br /><br />Look at the quote above from Nosy gamer: "One of the PL guys shot back that he's run 30 level 5 missions in a day, does that make him a bot?""<br /><br />The no-lifers acknowledge that their behavior while farming ISK looks like botting. If it looks like botting, then it doesn't look like superb and lifelike AI, right? Hence, the similarity that people have been decrying in these comments is clearly seen, from the horse's own mouth.<br /><br />Gevlon has his own reason for decrying 'no-lifing', based on fairness. My argument for liking his suggestion is based not on fairness, but on good game design. I want to emphasize and reward skilled gameplay instead of doing something for 10 hours with 7 accounts while watching movies on your third monitor. Gevlon's suggestion hits bots hard, and also provides a step on the path towards rewarding people for acting more like superb and lifelike AIs (or humans that are engaged and paying attention, I think we've hammered that analogy into the ground) and less like simple bots.<br /><br />Rammsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-38069642460963760282014-05-09T21:56:37.055+02:002014-05-09T21:56:37.055+02:00@mugg+arrendis:
You guys aren't very good at ...@mugg+arrendis:<br /><br />You guys aren't very good at reading comprehension. I'm trying to help you out, by describing what the discussion is about, and your response is to assume I'm taking Gevlon's side? <br /><br />Why is it a problem? It's a problem because someone finds it a problem. That's what being a problem means. In this case, that person is Gevlon.<br /><br />Other games do exist with activity per day limits. It was a common feature back in the day of BBS's, as only one person per day could login with that old technology. It had the side effect of promoting skill over time, with the unfortunate side effect of making alts a prime way of cheating. <br /><br />This is a method of fighting bots and/or no-lifers. Any and every method of fighting bots and/or no-lifers will have negative consequences; the question is, are they worth it? Another question which has been raised here, is, should we regard no-lifing as a strategy to be limited as well? The answer to this latter question is pretty simple--an efficient marketplace should deliver games with and without this feature, and supply and demand will dictate its relative prominence. I would play a game with that feature, but it's not being offered, since most games just copy other successful games and don't bother to try meaningful changes. Most of the comments in this thread don't address these grey areas, but exist in some fantastical black and white realm of their own imagination, and so don't really mean anything at all.<br /><br />One last point: even if one doesn't agree that "no-lifing" should be limited in EVE as a goal in itself, Gevlon's solution is still a reasonable suggestion with the sole goal of limiting bots; it would then limit no-life play as a neutral and/or undesirable side-effect. Judged in gameplay terms I would be for this proposal, under those conditions; although I think that CCP wouldn't consider it because of the likely player backlash.Rammsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-50490925660010626672014-05-09T21:26:41.911+02:002014-05-09T21:26:41.911+02:00@Von Keigai: absolutely NOT. The no-lifer and the ...@Von Keigai: absolutely NOT. The no-lifer and the bot are anything but content.<br /><br />They run an safety-optimized farm. They must, as their performance depends on repetition. If you can catch him once, you can catch him 100 times!<br /><br />But you can't, because the bot/no-lifer is safeing up as soon as you enter local. The highsec mining bot/no-lifer is using cheap T1 ships with empty clone. <br /><br />Who can you catch? The casual player who cluelessly enters a wormhole or lowsec. Or hauls his PLEX in a T1 industrial. Or spends 15B on a "full epic" mission boat. Or comes to Jita in a wardecced corp.<br /><br />Let's face it: the "content" are the dumb people. And the bots/no-lifers are anything but. <br /><br />The no-lifer is killing the content by making the "content-people" unable to replenish losses. He can't re-farm his lost cruiser because his farming hours are greatly devalued by no-lifers/bots.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.com