Rules or Code?

In a sandbox a game developer can control the behavior of the players via code or rules.

For example banning botters versus nerfing the ships botters use.

In a recent case I think CCP could have used rules, versus a nerf. I’m talking about war dec.

The behavior of a few corps was so outrageous and had such a negative impact on the game that almost everyone agreed something had to be done.

But were code changes the way to go? What if CCP had just told the corps they were over the line, cease or be banned?

It seems a shame that because a few abuse a system, that the system has to be nerfed.

Especially since it didn’t actually solve the problem.

1 Like

I agree with you but think they don’t have the resources ( or will ) to make sure who does that is indeed punished)

1 Like

Rule’s don’t work because it would be hell to search and enforce those rule’s, better to setup game mechanics to automatically deal with the problem area’s.

And I don’t mean by nerfing a ship I mean by if someone is ratting for 8 hour’s straight that the rat’s start warping out before they die to counter the inhuman-like behavior.

But CCP are already on this with their AI testing, AI will destroy the botter problem one day.


Didn’t it? We have social corps. Wars are completely opt-in. I get your point that plenty interesting game play was thrown out with the bath water, but I don’t see how it could be any other way. And now wars aren’t a problem for anyone without a structure.

You can’t ban people for playing the game by the rules. You can change the rules, but you can’t step and ban players for not doing what you want. You have to fix your game.

Too bad expediency is usually the primary factor influencing how CCP fixes a perceived problem, not what is necessarily the best for the game.


Pretty much this. Lately it seems CCP takes away content from certain groups and either injects something controversial, or nothing at all. Perhaps they need to have a policy of when content is removed, a new acceptable tested content should be implemented as well.

1 Like

Unfortunately, it may not be good to get one’s hope up about AI. There seems to be open source AI that anyone can play with. I haven’t researched myself, but there are the libraries on github. In theory, it may just end up as a cat and mouse game of AI vs. AI between botters and CCP.

1 Like

AI are scary man, but yea its a chance we take when we dream.

1 Like


It’s funny because AI seems to be beyond politics. Conservative, liberal, middle,… doesn’t seem to matter, no one is really trying to stop it. It’s almost like a natural pregnancy with no complications. The birth is inevitable. All that is left is dependent on what values we teach this new offspring. Hopefully the main value learned is the sanctity of life… :man_shrugging:

1 Like

And all the high sec indies are now under attack instead.

Nothing was solved, the “celebration” is that the attackers are attacking someone else.

What a selfless act!


Yes, for minor every day occurrences it takes too much manpower.

But for example when you see 2-3 corps being responsible for 90 plus percent of some activity. That doesn’t take a lot of research.

1 Like

for som time to come ther will probebly be more ganking in hisec.but the change was needed.a 3 man corp wardec 20 corp wher most of those 200+ players are not in to pvp and som not iven trained skill for it yet sins maxing out indy skills takes ower a year,and at the same time the war dec corp dident risk losing any more then the ships they was willing to they need a structure and risk somthing them self thats more fare gamplay id say.

The people being attacked now may not want to be attacked any more than those did.

Wanting has nothing to do with it.

But anyway, celebrate it is happening to someone else all you want.

No celebrating her just a warning,from 1 that knowe the imidiate rection to this change in the game

OK, so if CCP is going to threaten people with bans for doing stuff, how do we decide how much stuff is too much? Is one war ok? Two? Ten? A hundred?

And once we’ve established how many wars is OK, why not simply code a limitation into the game that you can’t have more than X wars? That makes a lot more sense than arbitrarily deciding that you have too many wars, stop or we’ll ban someone.


i sugested that in a tread on the forum years a closed cos it was to controversal. anger people

The take away from this is anything that can be defined as a hard numeric limit may as well be in code because it is cheaper to enforce than a rule.

Not too get too far off into war dec because it is the example not the topic. In the end the problem was not just how many wars, but who was being targeted.

Let’s just say they didn’t war the goons…

That kind of behavior isn’t really controllable via code.

well it was relewant back then and now,most of the corp that was war deced was new corp that was recrueting and had ads in local chat you cold get a war dec just bay using an alt in npc corp to advertice for your corp,and howe this make it relevant new players less than 3 months old say ■■■■ this, cant play cos war dec live corp and som just live EvE and newer return.

1 Like

So you propose to have a limit enforced by the whims of whatever GM happens to look at your war history? How is that a good idea? How can you avoid bias when it’s just their opinion on how many wars is too much? Who do you even ban in those corps for declaring too many wars? The CEO? Everyone? You seem fine with arbitrary rules enforcement, which is going to do a hell of a lot more damage to the game than restricting who can dec and be decced.


No I don’t propose anything, it is a discussion.

The rest of you post is just made up.

1 Like