Of course you don’t, so it’s better just to let things go. 
1 Like
You’re not the brightest flower, are you? I read a few of your posts across various threads and find it astonishing how intellectual capabilities of the posters here seem to continuously drop.
1 Like
Not a good expression. Flowers that smell appealing are for better than a pretty one. Just sayin.
1 Like
I dont really have a choice, cos there is no way I can respond to your analogy without understanding it.
You tried to teach a pig to sing, and it didnt work out, and looked silly, and what?
Am I a pig that cant learn to sing in this analogy?
Are you suggesting I’m incapable of understanding your “lesson” cos Im a pig, and you are a human?
1 Like
Salvos, don’t feed the bad troll…
3 Likes
Semantic arguments are so fruitless and pointless.
Salvos you are correct in your analogies. Rest of us 
piggies know what your singing about.
2 Likes
It’s not an analogy, it’s an idiom. “Never try to teach a pig to sing. You’ll only frustrate yourself and annoy the pig.” It means sometimes there’s situations where there is no common ground, where two parties will never ever reach an agreement, so just let it go. That’s literally what it means: Let it go.
edit: and for the record, yes, you do have a reputation for pigheadedness.
1 Like
I know your speaking to Salvos but usually its easier to just say: Lets agree to disagree, then to make idioms.
1 Like
You are way to freaking literal…
Did I say natural selection? No. You assumed that. You know how you complain about me reading stuff into your posts? Right back at you jackass.
The point is that there is a selection process, not that it must be natural/nature. It can be–i.e. biological evolution.
Seriously go use google and look up complexity theory and/or complex adaptive systems.
Or just read this.
From its characterization as a complex adaptive system, it follows that the market economy follows an evolutionary dynamic. It is well known in evolutionary biology that one can treat genetic and cultural evolution using the same analytical tools (including the same set of differential equations, the so-called replicator equations), and even combine them creatively in gene-culture coevolution (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1973, Richerson and Boyd 2004). Beinhocker adds that institutions, including firms, also evolve, as does technology and business culture.
[snip]
Evolution: In the complex economy, the evolutionary process of differentiation, selection, and amplification provides the system with novelty and is responsible for the growth in order and complexity. In the Walrasian economy there is no mechanism for creating novelty or growth in complexity.
And in this case the evolution is in terms of strategies between the devs and the botters. For example, many are rather butthurt in this thread because CCP missed a botter who was using a bot that is by all accounts “simple” or “unsophisticated”. But consider this passage from this article by Brian Arthur,
In his computerized tournament Lindgren discovered that the simple strategies in use at the start went unchallenged for some time. Tit-for-tat and other simple strategies dominated at the beginning. But then other, deeper strategies emerged that were able to exploit the mixture of these simple ones. In time, yet deeper strategies emerged to take advantage of those, and so on. If strategies got “too smart”—that is, too complicated—sometimes simple ones could exploit these.
Could it be that the Bots have gotten “too complicated” and that CCP is “chasing” those and as a result a “simple bot” could go unnoticed…because CCP was not looking for the simple bots thinking they had essentially “died out”?
Language evolves and it is constructed and there is an intelligence at work. Similarly EVE has evolved as well. It is clearly not the same game it was 5 year ago or 10 years ago. It may not have evolved via random mutation and natural selection, but then again the problem is you being totally literal and completely blinkered in your thinking.
2 Likes
Unlikely.
The possibility of more advanced bots proliferating as a result of CCP cracking down on simpler ones is a possibility, but thats not a reason to crack down on the simpler ones.
If botters then start using more advanced bots, well, then CCP will then just have to find a way to deal with those then at that point.
Its not so much that more advanced bots do more harm to the game.
Its more that advanced bots are more difficult to detect.
Volume of botting is the primary problem.
After that comes the value/harm of those bots to EVE.
I still maintain an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Instead of chasing around after bots, its more efficient to prevent them in the first place.
If the simpler one’s essentially disappear, at least for a time, and since time is limited…yeah actually it could be.
Of course, but time is limited, so CCP reallocates its time as the bots evolve over time. As bots become harder to spot, CCP has to allocate more time to finding those bots. If the sophisticated bots are displacing the unsophisticated bots this becomes even more true.
Pretty much.
This would be quite true if bot programmers did not respond to those changes. Given that bot programmers do respond and that the new bots could be duplicated and/or copied and even improved upon by different people it could be the start of a phase that is characterized as an arms race…and if CCP, sees a drop off in botting and reallocates Team Security to other non-botting yet security related tasks because of the apparent success? What happens if bots change yet again and adapt and are now hard to spot and can get around that “ounce of prevention”?
Then CCP has to change tactics again.
I make two assumptions:
-1 Most bots, by volume, in EVE are quite simple.
-2 Advanced botters who actually know what they are doing, whom are far fewer, dont like to share their setup for obvious self-interested reasons.
Botters want there to be as few other botters, as possible.
Sharing their setup clues CCP in on how to prevent the more advanced bots.
If you can wipe out the majority of “idiot” botters, that is already a huge boon.
I dont think all that many of them will bother to update their setups, nor have the know-how to do so. Advanced bots are advanced, ie: not as easy to setup as simpler bots.
2 Likes
Dear Mathra,
I agree botting can ruin a game. I do not think eve is at a near collapse. However I am not affected by this so much, so I can endure bots. All is relative.
What I suggest is that playing passive remains part of the game, but you gain additional risk (i.e. you get ganked) if you get active you can minimize the risk.
For the trading people this would mean, only trade at citadell structures avoid Station markets. you can swap markets and always change it within the system.
This could be enforced by the close down of station markets. However if the traders take desicion ahaed and go for the choice then it is much easier to close down the market on stations.
Of course such a desicion is negative for trading in general. But what is more important to you, soft live at markets or expose bad market particioners so they can be dealt with the one way or the other.
However it is something capsuleers can decide and not depends on CCP where there already trying to do their best.
You are affected. Everyone is.
The butterfly/ripple/hydraulic effect is strong in the EVE aquarium.
The more bots there are, the more exponential their impact is, as they cause changes in non-bot player behavior as a result.
Its not “just”, for example, that certain commodities become cheaper, it has a cascade effect on everything and everyone. Players re-inforce and magnify the result, exponentially x thousands of players, by changing their behavior commensurately with what the bots are introducing.
An arms race…that is what this describes.
1 Like
I see it more like using a nuke to obliterate most of the bot population.
Whomever survives that and can adapt, is then easier to deal with the sparse resources CCP has at their disposal.
The arms race between developers/botters is a perpetual “arms-race” anways, as tech advances and those with the know-how utilize it, and game developers try to keep pace.
Anticipation that bots will become more advanced, is not a reason to not take action against those that have not advanced, now.
Wiping out most bots does not mean those bots will return all with more advanced setups.
Its not rational to argue “hey, we better leave botters alone, cos if we fk them up now, they will come back with better bots”
Completely defeats the purpose.
2 Likes
Bots destroy games…
That is all
You seem to have this bizarre idea that every player who uses a bot writes their own bots. Not a bunch of players using a bot that someone else wrote, who may not even actually use their own code to avoid being banned other than through a firewalled proxy for testing, but just profits from selling it to other people.
Banning a bot also doesn’t wipe all the code out. The code still exists, the writers just have to work out how it got detected based on how many of their clients got accounts banned, and then work out if it was the clients doing dumb things with them, or a fault in the bot behaviour. And just do a slight edit on them.
So… your analogies are terrible, wrong and simply don’t apply in this situation?
3 Likes
It won’t work. Bots are like cockroaches in this analogy. They’ll simply adapt to that change and we’ll be back to where we are.
By the way, you have pretty much agreed that bots…they evolve thanks to their programmers adapting the bots to the changing environment.
You are basically creating penicillin…and the bots are like a bacteria. Do we want to end up with the MRSA form of bots?
Even worse…what if these botters actually share ideas somehow? It doesn’t even have to be explicit communication, merely taking another bot and looking at the code…