Might work. But I hate bounties on NPC so I'm a bit worried of adding more. Maybe don't make them pop in every mission/belt, but just sometimes randomly when you're doing pve.

Now we need something for market bots (captcha every x order updates?) :D

For incursions, you can multibox them, sure, but you have to look at the isk by character. 80m is enough to make it work, though, with 7-8 hours of incursion/week, you pay for the character. More than that and it's money.

Edit : the captcha rat is better than the mission accepting captcha, because it solves a lot more than just missions : you can put some with very low dps in belts, even highsec belts, you can put some in 0.0 anoms...

KwarK

United States44245 Posts

January 26 2013 15:55 GMT

#28583

Every time a rat dies you could have like a 0.2% chance of a captcha rat spawn. Also you can give it a big bounty so people look forward to it as a windfall while making it not farmable. The money to fund the captcha rat system would be more than offset by the lack of botting. If you're at your computer and the captcha rat appears you ought to be happy that you just made an hour or more (non afk farmer value) of isk in a second just for being not afk.

Soap

Brazil1546 Posts

January 26 2013 15:57 GMT

#28584

Just have a captcha to release large bounties, spin it as a Concord verification or something, no need to add rats.

Although the best would be to redesign missions to have more complex flying.

Nyvis

France284 Posts

January 26 2013 16:03 GMT

#28585

On January 27 2013 00:57 Soap wrote:
Just have a captcha to release large bounties, spin it as a Concord verification or something, no need to add rats.

Although the best would be to redesign missions to have more complex flying.

Bots can have someone watching behind and able to come every given bit of time to unlock the bounty. You want something less predictable. And more punishing than just not getting the bounty.

KwarK

United States44245 Posts

January 26 2013 16:33 GMT

#28586

I just read three pages of "if my hulk is blown up it is the same amount of isk sink as if I destroyed the value in isk" "no it isn't". EVE-O forums.

Edit: wow, he finally was made to understand that the money you paid for an asset doesn't disappear but remains in the hands of the guy who bought it and then immediately in his next question called plex a faucet because they're worth 550m and CCP makes them.

Body_Shield

Canada3373 Posts

January 26 2013 16:45 GMT

#28587

On January 27 2013 01:33 KwarK wrote:
I just read three pages of "if my hulk is blown up it is the same amount of isk sink as if I destroyed the value in isk" "no it isn't". EVE-O forums.

Edit: wow, he finally was made to understand that the money you paid for an asset doesn't disappear but remains in the hands of the guy who bought it and then immediately in his next question called plex a faucet because they're worth 550m and CCP makes them.

Those forums are a wonderful magical place

Nyvis

France284 Posts

January 26 2013 17:06 GMT

#28588

If that understanding wasn't plaguing EVE's economy, I would laugh with you. But literally all the small T1 things are manufactured by this kind of people and selling them for a net loss compared to the mineral price. The same happens in trade with people undercutting too hard and breaking markets. In a real life company, you do that, you're fired, next. Here, you break the economy. Because harvesting materials have no cost, no wages to pay, you can transform the materials into something with less value and still make a profit for the (harvest + create) action, and because of that, people miss the fact that the create action only generate a loss of profit.

Zavior

Finland753 Posts

January 26 2013 17:10 GMT

#28589

Refining and manufactoring are taxed, as well as market actions. The taxes are fairly neglible though.

Nyvis

France284 Posts

January 26 2013 17:21 GMT

#28590

On January 27 2013 02:10 Zavior wrote:
Refining and manufactoring are taxed, as well as market actions. The taxes are fairly neglible though.

And if he's insured, these can't compensate the fact that he is creating money instead of removing some ...

Body_Shield

Canada3373 Posts

January 26 2013 17:22 GMT

#28591

On January 27 2013 02:21 Nyvis wrote:

Show nested quote +

And if he's insured, these can't compensate the fact that he is creating money instead of removing some ...

What?

Nyvis

France284 Posts

January 26 2013 17:28 GMT

#28592

If you insure a ship and loose it, you are injecting money in the system, because you are reimbursed a hull (minerals) with money (pure ISK).

kollin

United Kingdom8380 Posts

January 26 2013 17:31 GMT

#28593

Not the full hull though...

KwarK

United States44245 Posts

January 26 2013 17:36 GMT

#28594

On January 27 2013 02:31 kollin wrote:
Not the full hull though...

I think you've missed the point.

kollin

United Kingdom8380 Posts

January 26 2013 17:39 GMT

#28595

Probably

Nyvis

France284 Posts

January 26 2013 17:47 GMT

#28596

NPC insurance is atrocious, and CCP knows it. They stated in the minutes "we are running the worst insurance company ever". It makes no sense at all that your insurance agrees that you should insure each time you know you are going to loose your ship, and don't insure when you won't. A logical insurance company should want the exact opposite.

The fact that insurance companies in EVE are also federal banks and can pull money out of their asses is the only reason it "works".

Don't know what CCP should do about it, though? Maybe reduce all hulls costs but remove insurance if you loose your ship in a way that clearly shows you knew you were going to (low/null, wardecs ...), but it's not pushing the game in the right direction at all, so it's probably best to just lower hulls costs and remove insurances completely. It would remove one big ISK generation in the game. Which is good, the ideal state being no isk sinks, and a very small isk generation to keep the mean isk/character constant.

Missions are showing the same problem : corporations create money from nowhere to pay you for the mission, concord create money from nowhere to pay for bounties...

That's why the big part of my proposals for a better EVE pve is to make killing rats something useful for other people (industrialists, traders, harvesters), so those would want to be the ones giving the missions and putting bounties on NPC heads. If you're paid in ISK for something, it should come for players, if we really want EVE to be the sandbox it's labelled as.

KwarK

United States44245 Posts

January 26 2013 18:14 GMT

#28597

We're potentially looking at a 40% reduction in the mass of plates which is going to have pretty huge implications for ships like the deimos and zealot for the kind of fleets we run. Unfortunately hacs are suffering badly from power creep as the t1 cruisers have been buffed a lot but still, 1600 plate deimos with a big agility increase could be nice.

Nyvis

France284 Posts

January 26 2013 18:29 GMT

#28598

It's also a up for some T1 cruisers.

Still, it's interesting, maybe I'll look again at putting armor buffer on some of my solo ships.

Shootemup.

United States1044 Posts

January 26 2013 18:33 GMT

#28599

On January 27 2013 03:14 KwarK wrote:
We're potentially looking at a 40% reduction in the mass of plates which is going to have pretty huge implications for ships like the deimos and zealot for the kind of fleets we run. Unfortunately hacs are suffering badly from power creep as the t1 cruisers have been buffed a lot but still, 1600 plate deimos with a big agility increase could be nice.

It's actually only a 25% reduction in the mass of 1600 plates, and that's if you have the new skill to V

KwarK

United States44245 Posts

January 26 2013 18:36 GMT

#28600

On January 27 2013 03:33 Shootemup. wrote:

Show nested quote +

It's actually only a 25% reduction in the mass of 1600 plates, and that's if you have the new skill to V

They're cutting the mass by 20% and introducing the skill which cuts it by 25% (if V) of the remaining 80% bringing you to 60% of the current total. You're bad.