The effects of those factors are certainly decreased, because you can’t modify orders much.
Let’s compare two extreme examples. First is when you cannot modify orders at all (4x modification fee would suffice for that). Second is when you can modify orders freely and without cooldown. It is obvious that bots live extremely well in the second case, since they can outbid humans instantly, and not so well in the first case.
Changes move us more to the first case, so it will hurt bots compared to humans.
Not really. Bots can handle the introduction of new orders to undercut you better than humans. They can also do it better base on factors like most opportune times (fights that may trigger increased demand, times of day, events, etc.) or location. They can watch all markets with their chars at the same time while humans cannot.
If good bots are better than humans, it does not mean that changing the rules will benefit bots. All your arguments can be applied to any changes in market mechanics, including the opposite ones. Now, it is silly to argue that bots somehow end in a better situation if we change mechanics and later change them back.
As long as you keep the “only the cheapest order sells, most expensive order buys” in place, bots will always be at an advantage. That is what I mean. You can increase order relist fees, limit orders per char, or increase update cooldowns, but bots have inherent advantages over humans when it comes to staying on top and as long as ever increasing tedium is involved.
the effect between bots and human are simple , but for that you have to really trade to understand it
If you don’t care about the time you spend at changing order,
a human after experimenting a total complete domination of its order during 1 hours will simple quit the trade for the day : a bot does’nt .
That is one of my valid argument about Anderson Geten, he obviously doesn’t trade or troll .
There is some much basic trade behaviours he doesn’t grasp …
That is exactly what I wrote if you care to look at my provided examples why that is the case.
So what? You are really something else. Making the game more tedious for every player just to “fight bots” is not good game design and it certainly does not allow for “intelligent choices” as CCP says in their dev blog (by the way a phrase that clearly proves that CCP has no clue what they are doing). Making the game more frustrating for players just to fight bots is not “so what”.
No. You wrote something different, that is bots and players would be affected in different ways. Which is just plainly wrong.
I have two words for that:
Bull
■■■■.
This is not “making the game more tedious”. This is, literally, removing one gameplay by making it lose money.
Yes it therefore mechanically make more interest into “intelligent choices”.
It does not make the game more frustrating for players. It makes the game impossible for 0.01iskers. That is on purpose.
and considering that bots solve them more reliably and with ease these days, you might as well do that. Not to mention the continuous negative opinions about them.
Fortunately, EVE has no CAPTCHA yet and I pray to Bob that CCP will never listen to those people who suggest it as solution for all problems bot and afk. EVE has other ways to fight bots. Considering that CCP – self-proclaimed – wants to be more adventurous and experiment more, I still think they should endeavor the removal of anonymous orders and make the market like contracts: You see from who you buy and can decide against the cheapest/most expensive in favor of a certain seller/buyer or against a s/b’er from a certain group.
Speak for yourself. What I talk about does not drive more people into using bots because it is simply less frustrating than what you and CCP ramble on about.
As long as you keep the “only the cheapest order sells, most expensive order buys” in place, bots will always be at an advantage. That is what I mean. You can increase order relist fees, limit orders per char, or increase update cooldowns, but bots have inherent advantages over humans when it comes to staying on top and as long as ever increasing tedium is involved.