open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked EVE Needs a Memory-Check Anti-Bot Tool
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

SC13NC3
Posted - 2010.12.04 20:48:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: SC13NC3 on 04/12/2010 21:11:20
First of all I'd like to direct your attention to this:

EDIT: Apparently linking from here is broken, so here's a reddit link. Sorry.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/eg1uv/the_eve_botting_scene_in_graphic_detail/


Everyone knows this has been going on for a while. Without intervention, this sort of thing will ultimately kill EVE.

Money sinks and PLEX alone cannot handle this 200B a month across [x] number of botters.

Could CCP develop a punkbuster-like tool to monitor memory usage? I don't know much about that sort of thing so I'm just wondering if its possible.

shady trader
Posted - 2010.12.04 22:39:00 - [2]
 

Been suggested before.

There are three problems.

1) punkbuster style tools only detect the common cheats. There are teams that support the macro miners with custom software.

2) False positives, give then number of programmes that people run in parallel with eve will cause false positives. CCP would either have to manually investigate each false positive or have the system automatically ban innocent people.

3) a Lot of players would be unhappy being spied on.

So you only catch the stupider botters and annoy a lot of the player base.

Want to know more? do a search.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.04 23:53:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: SC13NC3
EVE Needs a Memory-Check Anti-Bot Tool


No, it really doesn't.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.04 23:56:00 - [4]
 

Holy ****.

That thread is a goldmine.

And to the above, yes, yes it does.

But to be honest I don't think CCP cares.

Stig Sterling
Posted - 2010.12.05 00:42:00 - [5]
 

Yes, we do need some sort of check. But as many have already stated, PB's don't catch multi-box programs, which is what most of the botting programs are made with. So integrating a check wont insta solve the problem. And even if a program could stop "one" bot program, the people who make bots could just redesign them.

so... what to do?

kerradeph
Gallente
CATO.nss
Posted - 2010.12.05 08:24:00 - [6]
 

there is a security check that looks at the typing speed and key press time when entering passwords. make an alteration on this where it measures times between commands and symmetricality of the actions made by the player. if they are too close or too short for a human to be doing then it throws a server friendly visual mark to the account that must be answered to see if it is a human or bot.

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2010.12.05 10:06:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: kerradeph
there is a security check that looks at the typing speed and key press time when entering passwords. make an alteration on this where it measures times between commands and symmetricality of the actions made by the player. if they are too close or too short for a human to be doing then it throws a server friendly visual mark to the account that must be answered to see if it is a human or bot.

Computers are really great at being random too.

GIGAR
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.05 10:19:00 - [8]
 

Suddenly, everything makes sense.
-.-

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.12.05 11:00:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Kara Sharalien on 05/12/2010 11:01:16
Edited by: Kara Sharalien on 05/12/2010 11:00:26
Originally by: SC13NC3

Could CCP develop a punkbuster-like tool to monitor memory usage?


Punkbuster is a disgusting piece of software. It installs two versions of itself, one of which runs at startup, harvests data and clogs up incredible amounts of memory. It randomly kicks people out of games for no reason, and increases latency in every game it is used in.

The current levels of RMT do not cause problems for me. Oh, I'm sure you could rattle off a list of reasons why it impacts me personally, but the reality is, I have fun playing eve with the current levels of RTM. Punkbuster completely ruined my battlefield 2 experience. It ruined my BF2142 experience. It prevented me from playing Americas army at all, and it did nothing to help my experience with BC2. Punkbuster is ****ty, crummy software that cannot tell the difference between a wallhack and the steam overlay. Not only is it incapable, it doesn't even try.

You want to know what will ultimately kill eve? It will be CCP implementing software that intrusively destroys legitimate players experiences, in an attempt to curb a very small minority cheating.

To punkbuster (or any other intrusive anti cheat software) implementation, Kara says **** NO.
Evil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very Mad

Reeno Coleman
Posted - 2010.12.05 12:44:00 - [10]
 

first of all EVE needs some Devs that care....

It's not that hard finding the accounts grinding grinding belts 23 hours a day in that big database which is Eve.

Sinister Dextor
Posted - 2010.12.05 13:43:00 - [11]
 

Punkbuster is a horrible piece of ****.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2010.12.05 13:54:00 - [12]
 

As I see it the best way to stop botting in any game is to make the gameplay harder to automate.
* More randomness
* More intelligence, you have to use human intelligence to solve problems
* Language understanding, following written or spoken traces, treasure hunts
* Important hints only spoken by the game not written
* Visual interfaces that are hard to decode for computers

It's always been known that computers are crap at logical reasoning and understanding, and that's why you should have a lot of that in games to prevent botting. You should essentially implement everything that AI programs fail to do today.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2010.12.05 14:10:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 05/12/2010 14:10:24
EVE does not need client side apps that stop bots.

Also, please take at least a basic course of programming and computer architecture before using something like "tool to monitor memory usage" in your sentence.

COMM4NDER
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.05 14:37:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien
Edited by: Kara Sharalien on 05/12/2010 11:01:16
Edited by: Kara Sharalien on 05/12/2010 11:00:26
Originally by: SC13NC3

Could CCP develop a punkbuster-like tool to monitor memory usage?


Punkbuster is a disgusting piece of software. It installs two versions of itself, one of which runs at startup, harvests data and clogs up incredible amounts of memory. It randomly kicks people out of games for no reason, and increases latency in every game it is used in.

The current levels of RMT do not cause problems for me. Oh, I'm sure you could rattle off a list of reasons why it impacts me personally, but the reality is, I have fun playing eve with the current levels of RTM. Punkbuster completely ruined my battlefield 2 experience. It ruined my BF2142 experience. It prevented me from playing Americas army at all, and it did nothing to help my experience with BC2. Punkbuster is ****ty, crummy software that cannot tell the difference between a wallhack and the steam overlay. Not only is it incapable, it doesn't even try.

You want to know what will ultimately kill eve? It will be CCP implementing software that intrusively destroys legitimate players experiences, in an attempt to curb a very small minority cheating.

To punkbuster (or any other intrusive anti cheat software) implementation, Kara says **** NO.
Evil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very Mad


Agree, Punkbuster is utterly crap and so is their devteam. Punkbuster does not work on Linux and they told that they never will fix issues with wine etc.

As i play this game on Linux box punkbuster will kill my client and so will my subscription

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.12.05 15:09:00 - [15]
 

200B/month? Is that the extent of the "problem"?
At least a macro user is actually present in game and can be killed, whereas passive incomes from things like datacores and moons does not require an online character at all.

Look at the games that do have this sort of Orwellian measures .. are they free of macros?

Bad idea now just as it has always been.

If you want to reduce the amount of botting then there is a very simple solution: Remove their safety nets.
By making a space-holder directly responsible for what goes on in their space, CCP can crack down with righteous vengeance on not just the macros but those aiding/abetting them by turning a blind eye.

How: CCP identifies a botting ring in region X. Alliance which holds that region has not reported any untoward activity and there has been no significant killing/haressment of the evil-doers .. macros are banned as is the alliance.

Has the added benefit of getting rid of a bunch of useless "instant gratification" alliances who are not afraid to ruin it for everyone to further their own interests.

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.12.05 19:46:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Daedalus II
As I see it the best way to stop botting in any game is to make the gameplay harder to automate.
* More randomness
* More intelligence, you have to use human intelligence to solve problems
* Language understanding, following written or spoken traces, treasure hunts
* Important hints only spoken by the game not written
* Visual interfaces that are hard to decode for computers

It's always been known that computers are crap at logical reasoning and understanding, and that's why you should have a lot of that in games to prevent botting. You should essentially implement everything that AI programs fail to do today.


Let me put it to you this way, if it can be written for a player to use in EVE, it can be decoded for a bot to be made to mimic the player.

No matter how complex the game is made, it can always be botted.
Now I'll go through each point, in order.

1) EVE cannot be random. Its a computer game. Random is impossible. No matter what method is used to mimic randomness, it can be found, decoded, and made to work for a bot.
2) And how does this change mining?
3) First off, there are plenty of computer programs that understand language (to the extent that would be used in a game). Second, how does this work for mining?
4) So what. Those "spoken" words still must be sent as computer data. Easy for a program to intercept and interpret faster than we could.
5) 99% of EVE bots don't even use the UI. They use a direct command input. Thus, visual changes are useless.

So, anymore great ideas?

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.05 20:24:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Corina Jarr

So, anymore great ideas?


What about a script that looks at players accounts based on a percentage of server uptime that they play, starting with the accounts online 23/7. Then it cross references this list with a list of accounts who perform actions at repeated intervals?

I also like the idea of alliances eing responsible for their space but that will simply never happen.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2010.12.05 20:24:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Corina Jarr

Let me put it to you this way, if it can be written for a player to use in EVE, it can be decoded for a bot to be made to mimic the player.

No matter how complex the game is made, it can always be botted.
Now I'll go through each point, in order.

1) EVE cannot be random. Its a computer game. Random is impossible. No matter what method is used to mimic randomness, it can be found, decoded, and made to work for a bot.
2) And how does this change mining?
3) First off, there are plenty of computer programs that understand language (to the extent that would be used in a game). Second, how does this work for mining?
4) So what. Those "spoken" words still must be sent as computer data. Easy for a program to intercept and interpret faster than we could.
5) 99% of EVE bots don't even use the UI. They use a direct command input. Thus, visual changes are useless.

So, anymore great ideas?

Just because one computer can code it does NOT mean another computer can decode it. Look at public encryption for example. Even though the key is known it is very very hard for another computer to decode the message, because the code is built up in such a way that it's hard to solve by brute force, but easy to solve if you have the key. With some thinking the same mechanics can be built into a game.

Things can indeed be random, enemies sure as hell can be more random than they currently are, making them a lot harder to figure out how to handle automatically. Missions can be a lot more random. Mining can be modified to not be as brain-dead as it is currently.

Language recognition (from Wikipedia):
Quote:
Many of the problems above are considered AI-complete: to solve one problem, you must solve them all. For example, even a straightforward, specific task like machine translation requires that the machine follow the author's argument (reason), know what is being talked about (knowledge), and faithfully reproduce the author's intention (social intelligence). Machine translation, therefore, is believed to be AI-complete: it may require strong AI to be done as well as humans can do it.

That is, language understanding is believed to be a problem that needs to be solved by a truly intelligen AI. They don't exist yet, hence doing word problems that require reasoning, knowledge and social intelligence would currently be impossible for a computer to solve.

There are plenty of ways to comfuse computers, no matter how clever programs they use, but none of them are simple fixes (because if they were there wouldn't be any botting). Things like this have to be thought of when the game is created and is probably very hard to append later on.

In combination with this some sort of mechanic to determine if the program is the original or not must be run to make sure the clients insides aren't compromized. That way we force the bot to use visual input. The server must be able to send requests and the client be able to answer with some sort of checksum of its running parts or something, I'm no expert. If the client is compromized it's a lot harder to stop the bots, so this needs to be the first step really.

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.12.05 20:46:00 - [19]
 

I concede on the language bit. I thought you meant simple things like understanding words and phrases.
(However, never use Wiki to prove/disprove something, its almost as bad as a tabloid on accuracy)

But this:
Quote:
Things can indeed be random, enemies sure as hell can be more random than they currently are, making them a lot harder to figure out how to handle automatically. Missions can be a lot more random. Mining can be modified to not be as brain-dead as it is currently.
is wrong.

No computer program can be random. It is 100% impossible. It can mimic randomness, but can never be random.

As for coding/decoding.
The people who made the best bots out there for EVE (best as in most efficient/effective) reverse engineered the client. If any change was made, they'd do the same thing. Considering they make RL money from it, there is no reason they would stop until it started to hit their wallet.

Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari
Deep Space Nomads Corp
Posted - 2010.12.05 20:49:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

How: CCP identifies a botting ring in region X. Alliance which holds that region has not reported any untoward activity and there has been no significant killing/haressment of the evil-doers .. macros are banned as is the alliance.

Has the added benefit of getting rid of a bunch of useless "instant gratification" alliances who are not afraid to ruin it for everyone to further their own interests.

So what you are saying is, that if there is someone using macros in my alliance, I should be banned?
Overkill.

Owledge
Posted - 2010.12.05 20:49:00 - [21]
 

I guess we can't expect CCP to talk extensively about strategies against macro users because that could diminish the effect of their efforts.
But in my WoW time, I pondered quite a lot on that problem and figured out that there's a great tool for automatisation while avoiding false positives, and that is a bit of one-time effort of logical and statistical ingeniuity (profiling) that would save most of the effort and would only require minimum human effort in the end, because automatisms could present a very clear picture in many cases. The result would be a list of suspects sorted by probability of being a macro, and then you go through that list with a minimum of very targeted and specialized human activity in order to clear up little remaining doubt.
You know, when you see a lineup of suspicious factors about a potential macro user and you think "IN NO WAY is that a person behind it", then you can come up with a quick check that will logically determine whether that's the case. It just takes some brain-muscle and time to consider all possible cases of false positives, but in the end the effort will be worth it.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2010.12.05 22:46:00 - [22]
 

All speculations and ideas aside, I think the only viable way to go for CCP would be to use some sort of expert system that looks for typical usage patterns. An AI system that runs on the server, looking for clients that behave "different" from a standard client.

Not looking at something specific but at the usage all in all, counting together a "bot score" similar to a modern spam filter finding spam.

Sure you can build bots to try to circumvent it, and you can get a few false positives, but as long as you have a human looking at it before any action is taken I think it could be pretty effective.

With all data available it should be reasonably easy to see unusual patterns. A few prime indicators would probably be ip address, how quickly commands are given, how long it stays connected. Any client staying connected for a long time several days in a row would be highly suspect. While you can go around that with a bot that doesn't run all day, CCP would still have reduced the botting time significantly with just that simple check, and that would just be a small part of the expert system.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2010.12.05 23:23:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Daedalus II
Not looking at something specific ...


A pattern where a player is logged in 23.5 hours a day and spends all "his" time doing the same thing that brings ISK is a pretty specific thing to look for Laughing

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.05 23:47:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Daedalus II
Not looking at something specific ...


A pattern where a player is logged in 23.5 hours a day and spends all "his" time doing the same thing that brings ISK is a pretty specific thing to look for Laughing


I think it would be safe to say that if they do this for multiple days in a row they're either botting or account sharing - both of which are bannable offenses.

Of course all that would happen is the number of botting accounts would go up as they programmed the macros to shift accounts every few hours. Hey more account monies for CCP - I smell win.

Direstorm
Posted - 2010.12.06 00:26:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Direstorm on 06/12/2010 00:31:03
Edited by: Direstorm on 06/12/2010 00:27:01
Originally by: Corina Jarr
I concede on the language bit. I thought you meant simple things like understanding words and phrases.
(However, never use Wiki to prove/disprove something, its almost as bad as a tabloid on accuracy)

But this:
Quote:
Things can indeed be random, enemies sure as hell can be more random than they currently are, making them a lot harder to figure out how to handle automatically. Missions can be a lot more random. Mining can be modified to not be as brain-dead as it is currently.
is wrong.

No computer program can be random. It is 100% impossible. It can mimic randomness, but can never be random.

As for coding/decoding.
The people who made the best bots out there for EVE (best as in most efficient/effective) reverse engineered the client. If any change was made, they'd do the same thing. Considering they make RL money from it, there is no reason they would stop until it started to hit their wallet.


The person you're talking at doesn't think random means what you think it means. And for this application, 'pseudo-random' (as in random number generator) is simply good enough. There are things that can be done to reduce the number of bots in eve. Some of the ones that spring to mind:

*Server-side generated CAPTCHA. Randomize it in pieces; eight randomly-generated letters have 36^8 possible solutions, far too many to brute-force. Even if you take out all the 1's, I's L's, O's and 0's, you're left with plenty of captcha symbols to catch bots with.

*Automatically log accounts out after 18 hours of continuous play. There are situations where this would affect legitimate gameplay but they're few and far between, and a simple notice 15, 10, and 5 minutes in advance would reduce complaints to almost 0. To log back in, you have to complete...another captcha.

*Have any belt that's being mined spawn rats every 15 minutes. If the first few waves aren't killed off, have them escalate (IE, frigates, frigates, cruisers, bc's, bs's, and more bs's). Have them despawn 15 minutes after the belt is no longer being mined.

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.12.06 01:42:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Direstorm
*Server-side generated CAPTCHA. Randomize it in pieces; eight randomly-generated letters have 36^8 possible solutions, far too many to brute-force. Even if you take out all the 1's, I's L's, O's and 0's, you're left with plenty of captcha symbols to catch bots with.

*Automatically log accounts out after 18 hours of continuous play. There are situations where this would affect legitimate gameplay but they're few and far between, and a simple notice 15, 10, and 5 minutes in advance would reduce complaints to almost 0. To log back in, you have to complete...another captcha.

*Have any belt that's being mined spawn rats every 15 minutes. If the first few waves aren't killed off, have them escalate (IE, frigates, frigates, cruisers, bc's, bs's, and more bs's). Have them despawn 15 minutes after the belt is no longer being mined.


The problem with the captcha things is some people (like me) cannot read them. At all. I have to call someone over every time one shows up on the web. Also, screen readers (and there are plenty out there) can get past them.

The auto log-off, I have nothing really against. I don't play 18 hours straight. But again, captcha not a good idea.

I really like the belt rat escalation idea, though mostly cause then I could make a fortune having someone tank for an hour or so and then I come and kill the rats.

Hellaciouss
Genco
Posted - 2010.12.06 05:53:00 - [27]
 

Or they could just...oh...I don't know...actually investigate and ban them and all account they've delivered money to and study their buy/sell orders and who buys those buy/sell orders? I mean, who buys mass quantities of things that are severely over prices by a few zeros? No one, only accounts transferring money.

The problem is CCP not policing it enough. People have been reporting botters for years now and the same ones are still in the game.

Facts are ccp makes a lot of money from their subscriptions and doesn't want to lose that money.

KaiserSoze434
Posted - 2010.12.06 11:17:00 - [28]
 

Here's an easy fix. True noob NPC non-wardec corps for the same amount of time you get the rookie. After that you get dumped into an NPC corp that is targetable in faction warfare. Then you can fix the problem yourselves.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.12.06 12:01:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: SC13NC3
Could CCP develop a punkbuster-like tool to monitor memory usage? I don't know much about that sort of thing so I'm just wondering if its possible.


Rule #1: You cannot trust client systems that you don't control.

You want to run punkbuster or Warden on a computer you don't control, right? How do you know it's working properly? How do you know it hasn't been sandboxed into its own virtual machine? How do you know your punkbuster hasn't just been replaced with someone else's punkbuster?

You cannot trust client systems that you don't control.

What does CCP control? They control their hardware, their sol simulators, their network, their routers. Even that much is questionable.

So how do you spot botters? I'd simply start with placing restrictions on hours played per day per account. Show me a normal human who can fly their ships 23/7 without seriously damaging themselves. I've managed 72 hours once (writing the final draft of my final year project in my Engineering degree), but by the end of it I was in no shape to drive a car, operate a nuclear reactor, or engage in meaningful conversation with a human: I realised it was time to get some sleep when I caught myself trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the 21" CRT.

Yes, restrictions on login hours will be a not-so-stealth nerf to AFK cloakers. Cry a river, build a bridge and get over it.

Ultimately the botters will end up buying more accounts to keep making their ISK, since a bot can keep earning enough ISK/month to pay for its PLEX, but at least we've tripled the cost of running that bot. Someone else gets that ISK to spend on actually playing the game.

How much playtime is enough? How about an average of eight hours a day for any 14 day period, with a burst allowed of 12 hours a day, 36 hours over four days? Would you really want to spend a three day long weekend playing EVE from sunup to sundown? Leave the computer for meals, and log out when you leave.

I'm sure CCP has figures on logged-in hours for their players. I expect the frequency distribution graph shows a bunch of players playing more than 150 hours a week, then there's a long slow slope from about 0 players playing 140 hours a week up to a peak at about 28 hours a week, with another peak close to the four hours mark (people logging in once a day just to update their market/PI). CCP could draw a line at the 90th percentile and say, "that's how many hours you get to play in one month."

Perhaps rather than artificially restricting play times, CCP could simply change PLEX from 30 day subscriptions to N hours of gametime? (N being defined as that 90th percentile calculated above) Then the bots can keep happily botting away, the afk cloakers can keep afk cloaking away, 23 x 7 (24 x 7 soon), and the rest of the EVE community gets to benefit from the extra ISK being redirected into the high velocity economy.

Hours-per-month or hours-per-PLEX restrictions will also serve to encourage players to get off the computer and look after their personal health... bah, who am I kidding, they'll just log in their other accounts, or spend the rest of the evening playing GTA.

Regardless of the validity or efficacy of restricted playing hours, punkbuster and warden are not the answer in any way shape or form. The only people these programs inconvenience are the honest folks who just want to play the game.

shady trader
Posted - 2010.12.06 18:56:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: KaiserSoze434
Here's an easy fix. True noob NPC non-wardec corps for the same amount of time you get the rookie. After that you get dumped into an NPC corp that is targetable in faction warfare. Then you can fix the problem yourselves.


1) you are destroying one of the reasons CCP have stated they created NPC corps, a place for players who don't want get involved in wars.

2) The Botters just create corps and when decc'ed use the 24 hour window to corp hop to their next one. Some have tried this to avoid looking like a bots in the past.


There is only one solution to the RTM problem. make it unprofitable. Either CCP completely undercuts them on price -not recommended as it effects the majority of real players.

Or Take-out the buyers, no warning. CCP find you have brought isk, the first you here about it is the e-mail telling you your accounts have been terminated, assets deleted, your credit card, physical address and e-mail address have been black listed for cheating.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only