open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked WE ARE FED UP!!!! TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE ABOUT RMT AND BOTTING!!!!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 ... : last (89)

Author Topic

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.03 13:53:00 - [1471]
 

Originally by: Shandir
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Part of what we're trying to get done is achieving precisely this. As I said, solving the problem has multiple angles to it, one of which is being able to properly follow through and action on reports by players and on top of that repeat offenders. It's not to say there's not some of this going on today but it could be done a lot better. We have a solution to that and as soon as we're ready to implement (like REALLY soon) I'll let you guys know.

Is it legally impossible (I find this difficult to believe) to publish the character/account names of a player who breaks the EULA? To name and shame them without revealing RL personal information.
Similarly, is there a legal reason why a player reporting an incident is never informed of the result of it - or is this simply policy? If so, why is this so?


I'm having a hard time quoting this soooo let's see how it works. We would never publish account names. Not publishing character names would be a policy decision which would involve a lot of discussion. What I can say is that we'll explore every option.

Players being informed of results is a policy decision. I'm not on the customer service side, but I can say this I think... We've always considered administrative action to be between us and the person being actioned. There could be any number of reasons for this that I could only guess at but the most obvious is that we need to be able to maintain with our players that the contents of their petitions will remain confidential between them and us. Maintaining that trust is pretty important to us so we'd have to be very careful about any instances where we may think about changing that.

Don Kartel
Posted - 2011.03.03 14:14:00 - [1472]
 

Edited by: Don Kartel on 03/03/2011 14:15:25
Here is a few idea's

restrict eve so it doesn't run in VMWARE - easily done if you do a graphics driver check on startup - Just make the VWWARE SVGA driver unsupported.

Ban the use of ISboxer - apparently this is allowed but more people use if for botting than what they make out they use it for.


Allow players to scan down/hack giant secure containers in space - Botters use these for re-supply of ammo and to dump loot. Dead give away when you go into a system and think there is a bot and you see containers called loot and ammo or salvage on directional scan.

Give a solution to perma cloakers either probing them our or decloaking.

Some of these ideas don't help the problem because people will just put up pos's but POS's cause logistics problems and fuel costs isk so reduces the income of them.


Burnharder
Posted - 2011.03.03 14:19:00 - [1473]
 

Originally by: Don Kartel

restrict eve so it doesn't run in VMWARE - easily done if you do a graphics driver check on startup - Just make the VWWARE SVGA driver unsupported.



I didn't think VMWare ran D3D 9, or at least support is patchy (up to shader model 2.0).

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.03 14:31:00 - [1474]
 

Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Don Kartel

restrict eve so it doesn't run in VMWARE - easily done if you do a graphics driver check on startup - Just make the VWWARE SVGA driver unsupported.



I didn't think VMWare ran D3D 9, or at least support is patchy (up to shader model 2.0).


EVE can be run in VMware today.

Rorriana
Posted - 2011.03.03 14:38:00 - [1475]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Don Kartel

restrict eve so it doesn't run in VMWARE - easily done if you do a graphics driver check on startup - Just make the VWWARE SVGA driver unsupported.



I didn't think VMWare ran D3D 9, or at least support is patchy (up to shader model 2.0).


EVE can be run in VMware today.


Is there any information from the technical/procedural side of botting that will be helpful to you in your endeavors CCP Sreegs? I assume you guys have a compiled list of current botting software, as well as sample of them, and samples of the source code of the bigger open source ones as well?

Just want to be sure there is nothing that we as players cna do to assist, because currently the only thing we can do is report players, which due to a complete lack of transparency appears to us to have no effect()despite assurances to the contrary).

Darth Vapour
Posted - 2011.03.03 15:09:00 - [1476]
 

This Fanfest thing had better be something epic like the on-screen running of a massive banning script. And not a bunch if slides explaining all the fancy new tools CCP has come up with to better detect bots in the future.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.03 15:16:00 - [1477]
 

Originally by: Darth Vapour
This Fanfest thing had better be something epic like the on-screen running of a massive banning script. And not a bunch if slides explaining all the fancy new tools CCP has come up with to better detect bots in the future.


Whoah let's not set the bar TOO high there brosef

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.03 15:17:00 - [1478]
 

Originally by: Rorriana


Is there any information from the technical/procedural side of botting that will be helpful to you in your endeavors CCP Sreegs? I assume you guys have a compiled list of current botting software, as well as sample of them, and samples of the source code of the bigger open source ones as well?

Just want to be sure there is nothing that we as players cna do to assist, because currently the only thing we can do is report players, which due to a complete lack of transparency appears to us to have no effect()despite assurances to the contrary).



If you want to contribute the best thing you can do is send any samples or information you might be concerned about to [email protected] I've said in the past that we do reverse engineer these things but we can't always be aware of every single thing that's out there, so if there's particular information you think we should be privvy to that's always the best place for it to go.

Durnin Stormbrow
Posted - 2011.03.03 15:31:00 - [1479]
 

Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 03/03/2011 15:32:20
Originally by: Shandir
Is it legally impossible (I find this difficult to believe) to publish the character/account names of a player who breaks the EULA? To name and shame them without revealing RL personal information.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that 'our' characters only belong to us through the limited license of our subscription, subject to the terms of the EULA. If a player violates the EULA, CCP has the right to revoke the limited license (perma ban), and full ownership of the character reverts to CCP. So long as CCP does not reveal any information about the real world player associated with the account, I should think that they can do anything they like with the reputation and/or 'property' of any unlicensed character.

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Players being informed of results is a policy decision. I'm not on the customer service side, but I can say this I think... We've always considered administrative action to be between us and the person being actioned.

Given a reasonable amount of time for an account holder to petition, I'd love to see a wall of shame listing characters banned and why. Major busts might even be worth a news article. Given the negative press and buzz that Eve has been getting for loose enforcement of the rules, I should think that would be just the thing to get the word out that CCP is taking action.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:01:00 - [1480]
 

Thanks for the posts.
Know it sucks to wade into this hornests nest where no post other than "I have solved botting and every bot has been banned"(and actually have it done) would make people happy.

That said

We really need to see some action rahter than words on this. We all see botters and the effects of botters and they are not diminishing in number.

Better punishments for the acount and all those that benifited are needed.
(whats the down side to paying for an acount in plex and botting then giving the isk to my main)

Make this punishment known...If i was looking at botting the risk of losing my main would be a strong deterent.

Punish the alliances and corps who support botting.

Public shaming would be nice....list charcters and the corp/alliances that benifited.

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:14:00 - [1481]
 

Edited by: Othran on 03/03/2011 16:19:16
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Darth Vapour
This Fanfest thing had better be something epic like the on-screen running of a massive banning script. And not a bunch if slides explaining all the fancy new tools CCP has come up with to better detect bots in the future.


Whoah let's not set the bar TOO high there brosef


Lets not set it too low either otherwise a lot of us will be thinking "mmm more snow".

You may be the "new guy" but you're the company and the company has "history" on things like this....

I think you should expect to be providing a framework that we can ALL understand - players, GMs, devs, whoever. Anything less and I think you'll have an uncomfortable time - both online and at fanfest.

Edit - and by "framework" I mean some clear concise PUBLIC rules about what happen to people who deliberately set out to cheat. This isn't like some accidental exploit so I'd like to see a clear PUBLIC chart of what the process is - eg first time = 1 week ban; second = 3 months; third = permaban

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:32:00 - [1482]
 

postin in epic long thread

makin noise bout bots.

dunno what to do bout them, but they are making my veldspar nearly worthless.

love the veldspar dude.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.03 16:38:00 - [1483]
 

Originally by: Othran
Edited by: Othran on 03/03/2011 16:19:16
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Darth Vapour
This Fanfest thing had better be something epic like the on-screen running of a massive banning script. And not a bunch if slides explaining all the fancy new tools CCP has come up with to better detect bots in the future.


Whoah let's not set the bar TOO high there brosef


Lets not set it too low either otherwise a lot of us will be thinking "mmm more snow".

You may be the "new guy" but you're the company and the company has "history" on things like this....

I think you should expect to be providing a framework that we can ALL understand - players, GMs, devs, whoever. Anything less and I think you'll have an uncomfortable time - both online and at fanfest.

Edit - and by "framework" I mean some clear concise PUBLIC rules about what happen to people who deliberately set out to cheat. This isn't like some accidental exploit so I'd like to see a clear PUBLIC chart of what the process is - eg first time = 1 week ban; second = 3 months; third = permaban


Those public rules would be a small part of any Framework. As I said, this isn't a feature. It doesn't fit within the rubrick of anything you've had to experience like a feature. I'm not promising you a new spaceship or mechanic, so let's not get confused about promises and deliverables. I'm talking about security process and some things we'll be doing from a technical and business perspective to deliver on that process. It's there. It's happening and it's moving. I think there's a very big difference.

I'm not here to wow you with explosions and features and pretty shiny things. I'm here to talk to you about how we think about security and some specific items we've implemented and will be implementing going forward.

Lady Cazana
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:42:00 - [1484]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Othran
Edited by: Othran on 03/03/2011 16:19:16
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Darth Vapour
This Fanfest thing had better be something epic like the on-screen running of a massive banning script. And not a bunch if slides explaining all the fancy new tools CCP has come up with to better detect bots in the future.


Whoah let's not set the bar TOO high there brosef


Lets not set it too low either otherwise a lot of us will be thinking "mmm more snow".

You may be the "new guy" but you're the company and the company has "history" on things like this....

I think you should expect to be providing a framework that we can ALL understand - players, GMs, devs, whoever. Anything less and I think you'll have an uncomfortable time - both online and at fanfest.

Edit - and by "framework" I mean some clear concise PUBLIC rules about what happen to people who deliberately set out to cheat. This isn't like some accidental exploit so I'd like to see a clear PUBLIC chart of what the process is - eg first time = 1 week ban; second = 3 months; third = permaban


Those public rules would be a small part of any Framework. As I said, this isn't a feature. It doesn't fit within the rubrick of anything you've had to experience like a feature. I'm not promising you a new spaceship or mechanic, so let's not get confused about promises and deliverables. I'm talking about security process and some things we'll be doing from a technical and business perspective to deliver on that process. It's there. It's happening and it's moving. I think there's a very big difference.

I'm not here to wow you with explosions and features and pretty shiny things. I'm here to talk to you about how we think about security and some specific items we've implemented and will be implementing going forward.



PWND by the new guy

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:59:00 - [1485]
 

Edited by: Vincent Athena on 03/03/2011 17:01:05
CCP Sreegs, you said that you are relatively new, and others on your team are even newer. This made me curious...

Does your team have a cool name, like team gridlock?
When did CCP decide a bigger, better team was needed for security issues? How did they come to that conclusion?
How did CCP handle the bot issue before your team was formed?
How many are on the team? Is it still growing?
What other security issues does the team deal with? I know of phishing, botting, RMT, hacking... others?

Edit: Can you fix the typo on the title of this thread?

Thanks again for your posts. This tread has gone from a grim depressing flame fest to fun and hopeful.

P.S. Others may want to re-read Sreegs blog on phishing. I get the idea that the framework to be used to fight bots will be like the one presented for combating phishing, and the frameworks for the various security issues will be all interconnected.

Rorriana
Posted - 2011.03.03 17:28:00 - [1486]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Rorriana


Is there any information from the technical/procedural side of botting that will be helpful to you in your endeavors CCP Sreegs? I assume you guys have a compiled list of current botting software, as well as sample of them, and samples of the source code of the bigger open source ones as well?

Just want to be sure there is nothing that we as players cna do to assist, because currently the only thing we can do is report players, which due to a complete lack of transparency appears to us to have no effect()despite assurances to the contrary).



If you want to contribute the best thing you can do is send any samples or information you might be concerned about to [email protected] I've said in the past that we do reverse engineer these things but we can't always be aware of every single thing that's out there, so if there's particular information you think we should be privvy to that's always the best place for it to go.


Silly question CCP Sreegs, if you don't mind.

Do you guys have anyone on your team who is experienced running bot/macros in MMOs or dealing in RMT?


CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.03 17:52:00 - [1487]
 

Originally by: Rorriana
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Rorriana


Is there any information from the technical/procedural side of botting that will be helpful to you in your endeavors CCP Sreegs? I assume you guys have a compiled list of current botting software, as well as sample of them, and samples of the source code of the bigger open source ones as well?

Just want to be sure there is nothing that we as players cna do to assist, because currently the only thing we can do is report players, which due to a complete lack of transparency appears to us to have no effect()despite assurances to the contrary).



If you want to contribute the best thing you can do is send any samples or information you might be concerned about to [email protected] I've said in the past that we do reverse engineer these things but we can't always be aware of every single thing that's out there, so if there's particular information you think we should be privvy to that's always the best place for it to go.


Silly question CCP Sreegs, if you don't mind.

Do you guys have anyone on your team who is experienced running bot/macros in MMOs or dealing in RMT?




I'll answer the one above this in a bit, but yes to the bot/macro question and no to the dealing in RMT if you're referring to running an RMT ring.

We'll spend some time introducing and going over the various backgrounds of some of the team at FF.

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.03 18:35:00 - [1488]
 

Edited by: Othran on 03/03/2011 18:36:11
Originally by: Lady Cazana
PWND by the new guy



Oh I do hope thats true.

We've heard plenty of fine words from CCP before - LONG before the new guy was here - so lets see what happens. If there isn't a significant reduction in bots then we know its just more fine words and no actions....

Trinneth
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.03.03 19:21:00 - [1489]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
We'll spend some time introducing and going over the various backgrounds of some of the team at FF.


Thanks for posting in this thread Screegs - you may not be able to give us much in the way of specifics until Fanfest, but just knowing you'll be talking about how you intend to deal with the issue at Fanfest is a lot more encouraging than the previous radio-silence was.

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2011.03.03 19:28:00 - [1490]
 

Dev communicating with players is always a good sign and brings hope for the future.

Waiting for fanfest then.




Corran Do'Urden
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.03 19:39:00 - [1491]
 

I think the end result of this discussion is this:

CCP must take a far more aggressive stance against botting. What does that entail?
A: Banning accounts that are known for botting. How? Any of the previously mentioned
warping off, logs, tracking methods as stated before. Hours in game, NPC kills, so
many tools already exist for similar purposes.
B: Banning accounts that initiated the character. If you've PLEX'd that account into
existence, there's a record of that. That character should disappear as well for
being the creator of the bot.
C: Any alts or other registered accounts linked into that account. Why? If getting
caught as a botter becomes extremely hazardous to any and all EVE characters linked
to them, a lot of characters will stop. If not, then it's a win situation for CCP.
It would be a win as the banned botter will now have to make a new account and PLEX
them up to continue botting. That is more subscription fees, promptly followed by
another ban.
D: The transferred ISK is deleted. Everyone knows that's possible. It's not hard.
E: Stop talking about the changes upcoming and the measures that will be implemented.
Actually implement them. Everyone's tired of hearing 'Change will come, just wait.'
It's been 5 years. Incarna is on this same waiting scale. Difficulty of banning?
Minor. Difficulty of creating an entire world inside of every star base with optimal
functionality? Hard.

The sad part is we could all force CCP into acting. How? By stopping playing for 2 months.
Massive subscription loss would force a confrontation either way. Either way, CCP needs to
step up their game and act instead of talking, otherwise they're going to have a continually
angered player base that will start shrinking.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.03 20:40:00 - [1492]
 

Originally by: Corran Do'Urden
I think the end result of this discussion is this:

CCP must take a far more aggressive stance against botting. What does that entail?
A: Banning accounts that are known for botting. How? Any of the previously mentioned
warping off, logs, tracking methods as stated before. Hours in game, NPC kills, so
many tools already exist for similar purposes.
B: Banning accounts that initiated the character. If you've PLEX'd that account into
existence, there's a record of that. That character should disappear as well for
being the creator of the bot.
C: Any alts or other registered accounts linked into that account. Why? If getting
caught as a botter becomes extremely hazardous to any and all EVE characters linked
to them, a lot of characters will stop. If not, then it's a win situation for CCP.
It would be a win as the banned botter will now have to make a new account and PLEX
them up to continue botting. That is more subscription fees, promptly followed by
another ban.
D: The transferred ISK is deleted. Everyone knows that's possible. It's not hard.
E: Stop talking about the changes upcoming and the measures that will be implemented.
Actually implement them. Everyone's tired of hearing 'Change will come, just wait.'
It's been 5 years. Incarna is on this same waiting scale. Difficulty of banning?
Minor. Difficulty of creating an entire world inside of every star base with optimal
functionality? Hard.

The sad part is we could all force CCP into acting. How? By stopping playing for 2 months.
Massive subscription loss would force a confrontation either way. Either way, CCP needs to
step up their game and act instead of talking, otherwise they're going to have a continually
angered player base that will start shrinking.


I may have missed it somewhere in my time as a player but could you please point me in any direction whatsoever regarding the 5 years of statements from CCP that this particular problem will be addressed? It's an honest question because I don't ever recall this much outrage until the past couple of months, nor do I recall any promises to resolve the problem prior to Unholy Rage.

Rorriana
Posted - 2011.03.03 21:15:00 - [1493]
 

Edited by: Rorriana on 03/03/2011 21:22:55
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I'll answer the one above this in a bit, but yes to the bot/macro question and no to the dealing in RMT if you're referring to running an RMT ring.

We'll spend some time introducing and going over the various backgrounds of some of the team at FF.


I won't make FF sadly, but I hope to catch a recording of that panel. Thanks for answering questions today Sreegs, we all appreciate it greatly!

EDIT: Unneeded info removed

Durnin Stormbrow
Posted - 2011.03.03 21:41:00 - [1494]
 

Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 03/03/2011 21:43:37
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I may have missed it somewhere in my time as a player but could you please point me in any direction whatsoever regarding the 5 years of statements from CCP that this particular problem will be addressed? It's an honest question because I don't ever recall this much outrage until the past couple of months, nor do I recall any promises to resolve the problem prior to Unholy Rage.


You'll have to excuse some of our more jaded players (myself included), but this is a problem that's been around for a long, long, time. I couldn't find anything promising to resolve the issue prior to Unholy Rage, but these threads should give you some background on why we're a bit cynical…

Some ancient (2004) history on the issue, just for flavor...
http://eve-search.com/thread/122291

Seem familiar?
http://eve-search.com/thread/273924

CCP does care...(circa 2006)
http://eve-search.com/thread/362920/author/CCP

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:06:00 - [1495]
 

Originally by: Soi Mala
You guys should find this hilarious...

For the last couple of weeks, my corporation has been greifing an alliance - Wardecs, camping the pipe to their 0.0 home, afk cloakers etc.

One guy in particular has parked a few of his alts in their space, particularly the ratting systems, where he afk cloaks most of the day, every day. If he happened to be around while targets were out, he'd probe and blackops bridge for us etc. You might argue about the lameness of these tactics etc but that is beside the point. A few days ago, his alt accounts received mails stating that they had been banned for 3 days, reason: use of a macro/bot.

Really? These accounts that had been sat perfectly inactive? Not killed rats, not mined, not done anything? What exactly were they macroing? He was asked to explain why he was logged in all the time, as this was highly suspicious, as opposed to just logging in and probing when he needed to. Apparently this is behavior exhibited by RMTers.

He appealed and luckily got the bans lifted, but the whole thing caused megalols amongst the corp. Perhaps the funniest thing in my eyes, wasn't the lack of reasoning, but the fact that it was only a 3 day ban... Seriously, that is supposed to stop these botters? Hardly the kind of punishment i'd class as "unholy rage".



CCP being CCP as far as efficiency go...

What is frightening is that they think a three days ban is somehow a deterrent.

Delianora
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:08:00 - [1496]
 

Why can't we move ice to low sec--all of hi sec ice?

Why can't you just move it for a WEEK and see what happens as a test?

Why can't you have a client side delayed local so botters can't warp away when a neutral enters the system?

If you can't do that--why can't you program a CCP invisible shuttle that is a bot that just warps from system to system all day. It would trigger bot programs to "warp to safe and cloak". Since regular people CANT SEE IT--then BOOM you have logs on every botter in every system every night? What is wrong with that idea?


mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:13:00 - [1497]
 

Originally by: Delianora


If you can't do that--why can't you program a CCP invisible shuttle that is a bot that just warps from system to system all day. It would trigger bot programs to "warp to safe and cloak". Since regular people CANT SEE IT--then BOOM you have logs on every botter in every system every night? What is wrong with that idea?




That only works until the botters make a simple change of comparing the local list to the in-system players list, and ignores people who are in-system but not on local. That would only work if there was no local, and I don't think this is the time to remove it yet.

Ai Shun
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:20:00 - [1498]
 

Originally by: Don Kartel
restrict eve so it doesn't run in VMWARE - easily done if you do a graphics driver check on startup - Just make the VWWARE SVGA driver unsupported.


Please, no. I keep different Hyper-V based VM's for different purposes. That way I can snapshot and drag them to any node as I need to reallocate resources, etc. Banning the use of technology isn't the real answer to the problem.

Burnharder
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:20:00 - [1499]
 

Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow
Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 03/03/2011 21:43:37
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I may have missed it somewhere in my time as a player but could you please point me in any direction whatsoever regarding the 5 years of statements from CCP that this particular problem will be addressed? It's an honest question because I don't ever recall this much outrage until the past couple of months, nor do I recall any promises to resolve the problem prior to Unholy Rage.


You'll have to excuse some of our more jaded players (myself included), but this is a problem that's been around for a long, long, time. I couldn't find anything promising to resolve the issue prior to Unholy Rage, but these threads should give you some background on why we're a bit cynical…

Some ancient (2004) history on the issue, just for flavor...
http://eve-search.com/thread/122291

Seem familiar?
http://eve-search.com/thread/273924

CCP does care...(circa 2006)
http://eve-search.com/thread/362920/author/CCP



The hilarious thing about those threads is that they come interspersed with google adverts for macros.

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:35:00 - [1500]
 

Originally by: Don Kartel

restrict eve so it doesn't run in VMWARE - easily done if you do a graphics driver check on startup - Just make the VWWARE SVGA driver unsupported.



Frankly there would be reasons to run EVE in a VMware instance... beside the boot.ini thing one must remind the IGB used to permit a site you visited to execute anything, and it was only discovered when one posted a decompiled client, the vulnerabilities having likely been in for years...

With such a record if I didn't consider a Windows Box throwaway (as in wipeable without remorse) I'd definitely consider running EVE in a VMware instance... Also it's very likely CCP own QA department abuse VMWare, because VMWare is one of the best thing that happened to QA in years...


Pages: first : previous : ... 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 ... : last (89)

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