And the people who are happy to be unhappy.
More action against bots would make me happy.
We are not happy, being unhappy, with the bot situation in EVE.
Again, your â â â â makes no sense, except as trolling and derailing to the end of sabotaging discussion on how to fix the bot problem in EVE.
I claim that you are quite happy with being unhappy about botting, otherwise you wouldnât start petty fights with everyone who doesnât agree with your proposed so-called solution. Youâd post it, let others give you feedback on it and chill down. Youâd read other suggestions, comment and chill down. But no, you enjoy being unhappy about botting too much. This thread has become and unreadable abomination thanks to you and it wonât ever add anything to the anti-bot discussion, simply because you canât stop talking.
1 Like
What if I told you that I bot with 24 accounts?
8 of them rat in Player NS.
16 run mining fleets with bonuses in Player NS.
They run 8hrs while I sleep, and 8hrs while Im at work, with alarms sent to me as I quasi-afk remote control my ventral home clients PC.
The remaining 8hrs I spend ship-toasting on this forum with this character.
I net about 8-10bil isk a day.
Does this make you happy?
I donât care, other than that the better plural for bonuses is boni.
1 Like
You wouldnt care if I bot with 24 accounts for 16hrs a day, and generate 8-10bil in isk value per day, without actually playing?
I donât care for things youâre making up.
1 Like
Do you think CCP and players at large in EVE wouldnt care if I bot with 24 accounts for 16hrs a day, and generate 8-10bil in isk value per day, without actually playing?
I think people care more about what an unproductive thread-destroyer you are, than about your made-up examples.
4 Likes
IE: âStop saying things I dont like, cos I dont like you, and dont want you stopping my profits from botting.â
Gotcha.
My posts here are not harming EVE.
Botting, is.
Are you implying I said that? Are you quoting me wrong and with malicious intent?
Botting is harming EVE.
Your derailing of threads is harming the discussion about problems of EVE, such as botting.
Learn to say your piece, listen to replies and then shut up. It would be more productive.
3 Likes
Youâve already said you wouldnt care if I botted with 24 accounts, 16hrs a day, for 8-10bil a day.
Youâve said your piece, that you wouldnt care if I did so.
Listen then to the replies and shut up.
Stop lying, I said I donât care about your fake examples.
1 Like
I can setup the theoretical, for real, in about a month, in EVE.
Would you care then?
Do you care if its someone else? Or is it just me.
Botting is bad for the game in its current form. There is no further need to discuss this.
You try to re-open the same points of discussions again and again, just so you get a chance to argue with people. This again is bad for threads such as this, which have the potential to lead to a broader understanding of how things can be changed for the good.
But not with you. Youâre the guy in a circle of friends always trying to have the word and repeating your same old stories and no one wants to listen.
What happened that made you become someone who enjoys being unhappy?
1 Like
Good. We agree.
That botting is bad for the game, is understood, agreed and tabled.
What do you think CCP can do to fix that in EVE?
Unless they fundamentally change how mining/ratting works: nothing, beyond what they are already doing.
The only question is wether or not they should put more persons onto the job. Taken that this will mean to compromise on other jobs, Iâd have to see official statistics on the nominal influence of botting before being pro or contra more hours being put into fighting bots. There are no statistics about how much ISK/ore the catched botters made, but it would be good to have them. Otherwise the discussions keeps being based on too many assumptions.
Explain.
How could CCP change how mining/ratting works so as to prevent botting?
Maybe in a thread that people actually read. Here it will only get lost between too much petty fighting.
Thats really weak and lame.
It was your claim.
Explain it.