I know I am persona non grata but I am posting this anyway. If the team wants to get rid of bots, then the team has to put out a blanket ban on bot accounts. If you don't, you have to find a solution where manual players and bot players can co-exist. Just rebalancing rewards does nothing to increase the number of loots available to manual players.

Based on the data Crab Radio and I have collected, the core complaints are: (1) concentration of rewards going to botters; and (2) looting is much more profitable than mining. Simply put, no player would want to loot if mining was more profitable than looting. However, this would cause emissions to explode.

I want to pitch my solutions for complaints one and two, in turn. A proposed solution for number 1: cap the number of loot missions per day or put an added cooldown when the player wins the loot. By capping looting missions, you decrease the number of mines a bot can target. This opens up new targets for human looters. Now, add the complexity of the extra cooldown for winning the loot, and you take out the fact that looters are taking a bigger risk because they earn less rewards. Crabada quants will need to run the math on this to make sure looters still have a slight monetary incentive versus miners. Looters playing and winning are needed to control inflation. Otherwise, everyone would just mine (increasing inflation).

A proposed solution for issue number 2: increase miner's revenge to 50%, lower the amount of rewards a looter can earn, and burn the difference between the old earnings and the new earnings. This will help reduce TUS emissions and make mining a more attractive option for players.

Truthfully, I would like to see everything I outlined above as a comprehensive solution. My proposal is to do the following: (1) increase cooldown, (2) increase miner's revenge to 50%, and (3) lower rewards to looters and burn what the looter would have previously earned. It is vitally important the quants run the math on this and make sure that looting is slightly more lucrative, while at the same time not increasing inflation.

We have to balance emissions v. people having an enjoyable experience.