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 : ... 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 ... : last (89)

Author Topic

Sito Jaxa
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:39:00 - [1501]
 

With all this anti-botting talk I must say I'm worried that CCP will make a knee-jerk reaction that will ultimately give rise to tremendous RMT pressures in the game.

The biggest weapon CCP has against RMT are PLEX, hands down. Many players sell PLEX to get ISK as the safe alternative to conventional RMT. The trouble is that many of people consuming plex are doing so for their bot accounts. There are thousands of bots in EVE and every one of those bots pays at least one account by buying PLEX. If CCP stepped up action against bots the /casual/ botters would be all but gone, the value of PLEX would drop, and the serious RMT elements would reap huge profits (inverse relationship between PLEX value and RMT isk price). This would just lead to a new generation of very devious RMT professionals stepping up hacking and other unsavory ways to make ISK. So not only does CCP then lose many, many accounts (their bottom line is effected), but they expose all of the legitimate players to increased motive for keylogger trojans, etc.

I want to advocate finding another solution besides mass bans and 'tough on crime' mentality that clearly works so well (think of the war on drugs). CCP could use its anti-botting energy to tweak game mechanics that are easily exploited, leading to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of bots. If making isk legitimately were at all comparable to what bots can do, then maybe people wouldn't be driven to botting by hundreds of hours of mind numbingly repetative actions required to pay for endgame content. At the very least I just want to advocate that CCP think through their changes and address structural deficiency instead of just hammering whatever nail sticks up the most.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:03:00 - [1502]
 

Originally by: Sito Jaxa
snip This would just lead to a new generation of very devious RMT professionals stepping up hacking and other unsavory ways to make ISK.


I think this is one reason why CCP is taking so long to get the framework going. They want to have counters in place for when the bot users try to adapt.

Originally by: Sito Jaxa
snip CCP could use its anti-botting energy to tweak game mechanics that are easily exploited, leading to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of bots. If making isk legitimately were at all comparable to what bots can do, then maybe people wouldn't be driven to botting by hundreds of hours of mind numbingly repetative actions snip


Like what? Can you give an example? And I do not mean a vague description like "something not repetitive", but a detailed description of a change to game mechanics. And remember, to meet your criteria, it must make isk at a comparable rate to the bots even for a player that is on for a short time, vs that same player running 20 bots 23/7. Because if those 20 bots can make more isk, there is still incentive to bot. Also, it has to not make the game so complex that new players run screaming. Think about that "eve learning curve" cartoon. Its already a cliff.

Also remember that after a day at the office some of us want to have our minds numbed. We do not want to have to intensely play some mini-game just to mine.

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:24:00 - [1503]
 

Originally by: Sito Jaxa
With all this anti-botting talk I must say I'm worried that CCP will make a knee-jerk reaction that will ultimately give rise to tremendous RMT pressures in the game.

The biggest weapon CCP has against RMT are PLEX, hands down. Many players sell PLEX to get ISK as the safe alternative to conventional RMT. The trouble is that many of people consuming plex are doing so for their bot accounts. There are thousands of bots in EVE and every one of those bots pays at least one account by buying PLEX. If CCP stepped up action against bots the /casual/ botters would be all but gone, the value of PLEX would drop, and the serious RMT elements would reap huge profits (inverse relationship between PLEX value and RMT isk price). This would just lead to a new generation of very devious RMT professionals stepping up hacking and other unsavory ways to make ISK. So not only does CCP then lose many, many accounts (their bottom line is effected), but they expose all of the legitimate players to increased motive for keylogger trojans, etc.

I want to advocate finding another solution besides mass bans and 'tough on crime' mentality that clearly works so well (think of the war on drugs). CCP could use its anti-botting energy to tweak game mechanics that are easily exploited, leading to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of bots. If making isk legitimately were at all comparable to what bots can do, then maybe people wouldn't be driven to botting by hundreds of hours of mind numbingly repetative actions required to pay for endgame content. At the very least I just want to advocate that CCP think through their changes and address structural deficiency instead of just hammering whatever nail sticks up the most.


There is absolutely no reason not to do both. Changing the game mechanics to be less do-able by bots is going to result in bot subs not being renewed.. so just get rid of them anyway.

And I'd say it is a misconception that all of RMT = Bot. There are quite a number of RMT companies that simply hire cheap labor for 10-15 hour days to sit at the computer and do the work.

Ban bot users, ban illegal RMT sellers AND buyers, and change game mechanics to make it harder to bot, and make it easier for bots to be hunted by the players themselves. Sure don't hammer one nail.. Hammer all of Them.

If a person/corp/alliance can not handle the game within the rules set by the company.. they obviously are failures and should probably leave. Plenty of people with busy rl lives, that follow the rules, get by jus' fine.

The growing value of industry for legit players and the lovely chaotic mess of nullsec as a result of bot (and supercap fleet) death.. would provoke on upturn of legit people staying/joining/creating alts.. and more corps/alliances in nullsec. So instead of 50k Sundays = maybe 20k seperate people + alts n loads of bots.. the eventual result would be 50k Sundays.. with say 30k individual people. Having more DIFFERENT people is better for the game ultimately than jonny-bot and his army of bot alts doing nothing for the game except artificial deflation and PLEX price increase just so his one combat main can go risk his Nyx.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:36:00 - [1504]
 

0.0 botters wouldn't be so damn annoying if EVE wasn't designed in such a way that a battleship in 0.0 can make lots of isk with near-100% safety.

That's the fundamental flaw in EVE.

In empire, people use bots to fly really cheap, easily replaceable ships doing courier missions. Killing them barely hurts the botter, as they lose almost nothing.
Again, the problem is with game design - missions too easy, ships are too cheap.

Killing people should hurt - that what's supposed to make EVE special.

If some group of people **** off large number of other people in EVE - it should be possible to completely destroy that group - especially if they don't fight back.

The Old Chap
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:49:00 - [1505]
 

After all this discussion and no moves to address the botting, one can only assume that it is so rife that to get rid of it would have such an impact on CCP's revenue stream that they can't do it without RL economic repercussions.

So the problem will not and can not go away, I'm guessing.

Bhattran
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:49:00 - [1506]
 

Originally by: Ai Shun
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.


Well certain technology DOES need to get 'banned' but I agree targeting VMware isn't the solution.

Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:53:00 - [1507]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
0.0 botters wouldn't be so damn annoying if EVE wasn't designed in such a way that a battleship in 0.0 can make lots of isk with near-100% safety.

That's the fundamental flaw in EVE.



To some extent, you are right. This needs to be changed, but I find it more problematic that playing 23/7 actually gives you a linearly scaled income compared to normal play tims. Is EVE PVE designed for bots, or is it designed for humans who cannot play 23/7 (and are not allowed to share accounts)?

Quote:

In empire, people use bots to fly really cheap, easily replaceable ships doing courier missions. Killing them barely hurts the botter, as they lose almost nothing.
Again, the problem is with game design - missions too easy, ships are too cheap.



What makes you think that they wouldn't use more expensive ships if they had to?

Missions are the easiest part to fix: limit the number of missions that can be done per type, char and day. Will some people complain? For sure, but it's not the only occasion where people will be told by the community that EVE isn't a PVE game ...




Corran Do'Urden
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.04 00:02:00 - [1508]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
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.


I think a few instances were linked above, and as for Unholy Rage, I'm not raging. I'm just rather disappointed at the continued rise of botters with no updates or new measures implemented beyond here and there bans where the player base had to observe and hunt down. I do not think it should primarily be up to your customers to report who's abusing the system. That should be CCP's domain.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.03.04 00:22:00 - [1509]
 

Originally by: Corran Do'Urden
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
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.


I think a few instances were linked above, and as for Unholy Rage, I'm not raging. I'm just rather disappointed at the continued rise of botters with no updates or new measures implemented beyond here and there bans where the player base had to observe and hunt down. I do not think it should primarily be up to your customers to report who's abusing the system. That should be CCP's domain.


I wasn't referring to you raging duder I was referring to the Unholy Rage project where we banned a few thousand botting accounts. I can also tell you that the playerbase is not and never has been the sole or even the primary source of bot hunting.

Corran Do'Urden
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.04 00:29:00 - [1510]
 

I want to say 'oh rearry?' but that's a bad idea. Instead I wish you luck.

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.04 01:18:00 - [1511]
 

Originally by: Corran Do'Urden
...
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.



you make it sound so easy.
A. i've so far shown that every metric proposed, aside from 23/7 play, is not a good metric to determine bots. read back and i'm sure you'll find my posts. i would actually go as far as saying that no one in this thread has yet to come up a single "this exclusively flags a bot" or or even a group of such items for that matter. just a bunch of people claiming it would be "so easy".
a.1 logs would be good to look for consistency - like if they return to the station every X minutes give or take. problem becomes that the bot makers would simply randomize that. i would imagine they already do. then they wouldn't look any different from a real miner as far as logs are concerned.
a.2 npc kills isn't really a good metric because some rat in anoms and kill every rat, while others only chain belts and kill the bigger/longer-to-kill rats. meaning an RP in an anom would kill more than a bot in belts. so again, the only metric that is truly a red flag is 23/7 game play. but i would imagine that only the idiot botters play more than maybe 8-10 hours a day for that very reason.
B. what do you mean by initiated? you dont need to have an account to create one now, do you? and if you;re talking about IPs... one, they are most frequently dynamic, so one would never know if they "actually" match and 2. people who game from subnets, like a college, would all have the same IP. so which accounts to ban?
C. as far as i know they already do ban all associated accounts. but the real problem here is again, how to tell that they are in fact associated. any RMT guy with an IQ over 80 will use the TOR network, or a series of proxies, to mask the relationship between their bots for this very reason.
D. again, i'm pretty sure this is already done as well. but we still have the issues stated above - what metrics can be used to tell that it isn't a legit transfer, and how do you associate laundered isk and earned isk?
E. what i think CCP should respond with: stop talking about how "CCP should really do something" and not providing a single real solution to the problem. criticism is fine, but if you can't do anything to provide a solution then it is pointless and simply rude.

and on that note - maybe people here could start providing solutions, that they have actually THOUGHT thru. not just "its easy, if they mine, ban them!!" or "no real person can run 3 accounts at once!!" or something equally absurd.

Corran Do'Urden
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.04 01:41:00 - [1512]
 


you make it sound so easy.
A. i've so far shown that every metric proposed, aside from 23/7 play, is not a good metric to determine bots. read back and i'm sure you'll find my posts. i would actually go as far as saying that no one in this thread has yet to come up a single "this exclusively flags a bot" or or even a group of such items for that matter. just a bunch of people claiming it would be "so easy".
a.1 logs would be good to look for consistency - like if they return to the station every X minutes give or take. problem becomes that the bot makers would simply randomize that. i would imagine they already do. then they wouldn't look any different from a real miner as far as logs are concerned.
a.2 npc kills isn't really a good metric because some rat in anoms and kill every rat, while others only chain belts and kill the bigger/longer-to-kill rats. meaning an RP in an anom would kill more than a bot in belts. so again, the only metric that is truly a red flag is 23/7 game play. but i would imagine that only the idiot botters play more than maybe 8-10 hours a day for that very reason.
B. what do you mean by initiated? you dont need to have an account to create one now, do you? and if you;re talking about IPs... one, they are most frequently dynamic, so one would never know if they "actually" match and 2. people who game from subnets, like a college, would all have the same IP. so which accounts to ban?
C. as far as i know they already do ban all associated accounts. but the real problem here is again, how to tell that they are in fact associated. any RMT guy with an IQ over 80 will use the TOR network, or a series of proxies, to mask the relationship between their bots for this very reason.
D. again, i'm pretty sure this is already done as well. but we still have the issues stated above - what metrics can be used to tell that it isn't a legit transfer, and how do you associate laundered isk and earned isk?
E. what i think CCP should respond with: stop talking about how "CCP should really do something" and not providing a single real solution to the problem. criticism is fine, but if you can't do anything to provide a solution then it is pointless and simply rude.

and on that note - maybe people here could start providing solutions, that they have actually THOUGHT thru. not just "its easy, if they mine, ban them!!" or "no real person can run 3 accounts at once!!" or something equally absurd.


Unless your university is different, most universities have static IP's. They don't change. Stuff from Comcast, yeah, that changes on whenever you refresh your connection. Mac address can be changed as well, etc, etc. Far as I know I don't share my IP with anyone else. Also, by initiated, Bob uses the guess past to get a 14 day character. Bob sends his new alt a plex to convert into a legit account and proceeds to bot. Hence Bob initiated the botting and should be banned.
Far as I'd wager, a fair amount of statistics would be useful for tracking trends of established botters and then used in comparison to find more. My 'providing a situation' as you so called above.

Sito Jaxa
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:01:00 - [1513]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Like what? Can you give an example? And I do not mean a vague description like "something not repetitive", but a detailed description of a change to game mechanics. And remember, to meet your criteria, it must make isk at a comparable rate to the bots even for a player that is on for a short time, vs that same player running 20 bots 23/7. Because if those 20 bots can make more isk, there is still incentive to bot. Also, it has to not make the game so complex that new players run screaming. Think about that "eve learning curve" cartoon. Its already a cliff.


One fantastic example of CCP moving in the right direction is where they intended PI to go. Where it wound up I'm not sure sure is ideal, but the notion sure had potential.

PI shows it is reasonable that, just like you gain SP over time, you could also make isk over time. Where it gets kludgey is that the logistics involved become a nightmare and again give advantage to bots. It gets more complicated still with the notion of raw material production over time vs raw material production over effort when you consider that the influx of actual ISK into the economy is still from rats and missions (botfest).

So using PI as an example here's a shooting from the hip just thought up vision of how EVE could work in a bot neutral way-

Mineral extractors could be like mini-POS that you plop down right in an asteroid belt. The extractor has its own mining lasers and collects minerals on a 24 hour cycle. This complements PI goods and moon mats which also produce over time.

The next step is ofc manufacturing, which beyond logistics is also already time based.

The final piece to the puzzle which is what would actually change the game is that manufacturers would be able to produce goods that can be sold to NPC entities for ISK. While this sounds odd at first by the current notion of 'player driven economy', consider that currently our ISK comes from missions and bounties and is generated out of nowhere. With this idea there is at least some role-playing notion that people on a planet are buying your goods and that is where the isk is generated.

Players would need to decide on whether they want to produce consumables directly or produce ships/mods to sell to other players, but ultimately the eve economy would be driven by manufacturing. Raw materials would not just produce an endless stream of ships but also contribute to wealth, so when things are quiet in 0.0 and the economy is slower people amassing isk would remove resources from the game, keeping mining and other industries profitable.

Anyway, there's an idea for you to satisfy your request.

Ai Shun
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:25:00 - [1514]
 

Originally by: Corran Do'Urden
Unless your university is different, most universities have static IP's. They don't change.


Not for every single device on campus they don't - at least not usually. If yours do, you're lucky, because universities are some of the prime users of NAT devices, where you are assigned an IP within one of the legitimate private network ranges and the device itself takes care of the NAT tables for routing traffic between the private subnet and the single public IP.

This is a particular problem with the depletion of IPv4 address pool. As you're probably aware, the last blocks were automatically allocated last month (Or the month before?)

Same with Hotels, Internet Cafes and other locations where a number of users on a private network share a single public IP. As soon as you start banning an IP everybody else behind that IP gets blocked.

If I was a student I'd be royally hacked off if somebody three doors down was botting and as a result nobody in our dorm could play EVE anymore. Or if, at some stage, a guest in the hotel was running a bot and now every subsequent guest that may be on a trip and playing EVE for a bit couldn't.

No, I think that needs a bit more thought Corran.

Corran Do'Urden
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:26:00 - [1515]
 

Well, the Cal Poly sucks and blows at the same time then ;p

Kushan
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:05:00 - [1516]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
stuffs
Good posts, Sreegs. Thanks for braving the angry unwashed masses and taking the time to write them.

Natalia Kovac
Minmatar
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:14:00 - [1517]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Jack Gilligan
Edited by: Jack Gilligan on 01/03/2011 15:48:05
Originally by: Ephemeron
First try get an official statement from CCP whether they value their profit margin more or less than they value the hardcore gaming ideals.

CCP is either with us, or they are with the enemy. They need make clear what side they are on. Money or values.


Their complete lack of response (other than to send sniper mods in here to delete or edit comments that embarrass CCP) is pretty damming isn't it?

I'm beginning to think that we should all just start botting, not for sale or anything but just for ourselves. Why not? CCP doesn't punish it or take it seriously. And it would save us the need to purchase overpriced GTC's to sell as PLEX wouldn't it? It'd be like having your own cadre of Tech moons, without the need to defend them or do the POS logistical bullcrap. Heck, I could have that Aeon I've always wanted by next week.

CCP in their silence and inactivity is practically ENDORSING this.



I responded to this thread a few times. I stated that we have a team working on the issue and we'd have information for you in the coming weeks. I stated that we in no way endorse this activity and never will. I am pretty clear on these things and that is our one and only policy.

I understand that there's a lot of concern in the community about this particular issue. I'm rather concerned myself. Let's not pretend however that simply because I've said something's going to take a bit of time to do well or that because my posts were in the early stages of a large thread, that we're ignoring the issue. We've said precisely the opposite and we have nothing to gain from lying to you.

It's a complex issue which requires a careful solution, whether it appears that way outwardly or not. I'd look to Fanfest as a good time to obtain more information on this particular subject as a not-so-subtle hint on when you can expect to hear more.


Why does it take a threadnaught or articles from outside media like Evenews 24 or RPS before you guys will even respond to anything?

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:35:00 - [1518]
 

Originally by: Sito Jaxa
With all this anti-botting talk I must say I'm worried that CCP will make a knee-jerk reaction that will ultimately give rise to tremendous RMT pressures in the game.

From a player perspective te RMT issue is not as important as te non RMT bot issue.

The non RMT botters are the ones botting to gain a huge advantage over other players in terms of funding alliances, spamming capitals and beating those who dont bot.

Sure alliances can buy isk for real life cash from RMTs however they can do that legally anyway and it costs real life cash. The real problem is people farming for themselves at no cost, to gain decisive advantages over other eve players.


Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:56:00 - [1519]
 

Edited by: Richard Aiel on 04/03/2011 04:04:29
Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: CCP Sreegs

a lot of stuff that makes him my new favorite dev



From you telling people to stop being asshats, or ****tards in appropriate childhood epithets, to the very clear "yes we consider this a problem, yes it is a problem, yes there is a team on it and yes there are individuals working on it full time" I have to say you're my favorite dev right now.


Im really not trying to be the above epithet, but months this thread has been around, 50+ pages deep, mostly agreeing withe the issue, lots seeming to quit over it, and a dev comes in, gives us a few honeyed words, points to Fanfest as the solution to all our worries and everyone is just falling lock step in behind him?

A few words and youre all ok with that?
Wow.. its easy to please you all lol

Originally by: DonHel
Is there any way to report bots and actually have something done, or do we have to watch them do it everyday and just live with it. And just occasionally pop their hulks/covetors/retrievers and watch thier pods warp back n forth? I have been watching someones bots for like 10 days now, and am planning to gank them to hell everyday for a bit. But it's in a 0.8 so i can only do it so much before i become an eveil pirate dude bieng shot at by gate guns n such lol


Better question: can we grief the hell out of bots and not expect to get in trouble for griefing single players (as apparently griefing one person IS actionable)


mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:11:00 - [1520]
 

Originally by: Richard Aiel
Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: CCP Sreegs

a lot of stuff that makes him my new favorite dev



From you telling people to stop being asshats, or ****tards in appropriate childhood epithets, to the very clear "yes we consider this a problem, yes it is a problem, yes there is a team on it and yes there are individuals working on it full time" I have to say you're my favorite dev right now.


Im really not trying to be the above epithet, but months this thread has been around, 50+ pages deep, mostly agreeing withe the issue, lots seeming to quit over it, and a dev comes in, gives us a few honeyed words, points to Fanfest as the solution to all our worries and everyone is just falling lock step in behind him?

A few words and youre all ok with that?
Wow.. its easy to please you all lol




Nah, mostly I like that he called everybody asshat ****tards in childhood epithets. But really he's been giving the information he can for now. CCP in general has dropped the ball in how they've utterly failed to deal with botting, but Sreegs specifically has just started with the company and is trying to clean up the **** that's been allowed to pile up. This thread has been around for longer than he's worked for the company. There are 2 options... all the conspiracy paranoia about CCP loving and promoting botting is accurate and Sreegs here is a dev alt meant to distract us for a couple more weeks (a tactic which I'm 99% sure CCP makes use of.) Or, Sreegs here really is as pro as his dev blogs make him sound and he's gonna knock the **** outta botters and as soon as he can tell us how (his deadline being fanfest), he will. We won't really know which is true until suddenly all the 0.0 alliances collapse because they can't cheat any more or battleclinic publishes their own botting software. Whatever the case may be, there's not a lot we can do about it. Either CCP cares or they don't. I think the past 50+ pages might have made the point.

Durnin Stormbrow
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:12:00 - [1521]
 

Edited by: Durnin Stormbrow on 04/03/2011 04:12:34
Originally by: Richard Aiel
A few words and youre all ok with that?
Wow.. its easy to please you all lol


I hear what your saying, and I agree. We've heard words before. Things like "RMT is bad, buy Plex. Mkay?' and 'File a petition & we'll get right on it'.
This time the words are saying 'Wait till FF, then you'll see what we're gonna do'.

I've hung on this long, I can wait till then.

Brannoncyll
The Rip Tide
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:26:00 - [1522]
 

Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Originally by: Sito Jaxa
With all this anti-botting talk I must say I'm worried that CCP will make a knee-jerk reaction that will ultimately give rise to tremendous RMT pressures in the game.

From a player perspective te RMT issue is not as important as te non RMT bot issue.

The non RMT botters are the ones botting to gain a huge advantage over other players in terms of funding alliances, spamming capitals and beating those who dont bot.

Sure alliances can buy isk for real life cash from RMTs however they can do that legally anyway and it costs real life cash. The real problem is people farming for themselves at no cost, to gain decisive advantages over other eve players.




Agreed. While RMT has a negative affect on the game, to the average player it is those that bot to gain an advantage over others that cause the most irritation. It cheapens the experience of those of us who work for our isk, that others have a free ride and can always field superior fleets.

Kengutsi Akira
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:39:00 - [1523]
 

Edited by: Kengutsi Akira on 04/03/2011 04:40:52
Originally by: CCP Sreegs


I wasn't referring to you raging duder I was referring to the Unholy Rage project where we banned a few thousand botting accounts. I can also tell you that the playerbase is not and never has been the sole or even the primary source of bot hunting.


How long were those bans? Cause I keep hearing 3 days

Originally by: Natalia Kovac


Why does it take a threadnaught or articles from outside media like Evenews 24 or RPS before you guys will even respond to anything?


Because outside sources might affect new players coming into the game. IE making less of them.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:39:00 - [1524]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Would it be possible to use a blizzard style authenticator device to not only secure accounts but also to secure the client - prevent it from being hacked?


Firstly, I'm glad this is helpful to you guys even though I'm not able to provide a mountain of information at this time. So <3 for the thanks. As regards authenticators, I've mentioned it in a Dev Blog and Authentication is one of the things we've been looking at. Auth will be an additional topic of conversation during the fanfest presentation.



I have experience in the DRM and copyright protection world and the only kind of program that cannot be hacked is one that is dongle-protected (though some of the non-dongle solutions like CodeMeterAct are pretty tough) with runtime checks against debuggers, viruses, IDE, etc, that lock down the dongle permanently when hack attempts and firmware rewrites are detected. The entire client can be encrypted and if the classes handling graphics loops are blacklisted from the encryption process, performance will not suffer. Dongles also have authentication routines for key pair and digital signing that could also eliminate hacking of accounts and password stealing as well as a host of RSA and AES stream and cipher chaining encryption routines.

It's like Punkbuster on steroids except not as "violating" to the PC. Not only could the software and user be protected from hacking, but any other runtime checks against bot-like code is also safe from being "hacked out" of an encrypted program.

The only prohibition is the cost. Modern dongles are not bank-breaking expensive, but are not as cheap as calculators either, and have more crypto power in them than a computer made in the 90s.


Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.04 05:47:00 - [1525]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
I have experience in the DRM and copyright protection world and the only kind of program that cannot be hacked is one that is dongle-protected


They're so cute when they're idealistic.

What happened to that master key for bluray again?

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.03.04 06:42:00 - [1526]
 

Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
I have experience in the DRM and copyright protection world and the only kind of program that cannot be hacked is one that is dongle-protected


They're so cute when they're idealistic.

What happened to that master key for bluray again?


Blueray was a joke. I get messages every time something out there gets hacked. We find out how and why and then have a laugh. I work for the people whose stuff don't get hacked - software costing anywhere from $3500 to $50K for a license.

What's funny is that those who hack and jailbreak things shrug it off, showing how dumb the manufacturers are and how dumb they thought the consumers are.

A properly applied dongle for a fully encrypted program with runtime checks, authentication calls, and a statically linked (before encryption) library is an extremely tough nut to crack. Nothing is impossible to crack but if it takes more cost to crack it than the software is worth they don't bother.


Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.04 07:08:00 - [1527]
 

In that price class you only got professional software used by companies, they usually just buy it due to high fines when caught and that a few thousand dollar are peanuts compared to wages of those who use it.

However that said, the software that is in that price range and popular is still regulary cracked, if it was so easy to prevent with a dongle i am sure way more companies would use it.

Felstor Olgesh
Minmatar
The Synenose Accord
Posted - 2011.03.04 07:19:00 - [1528]
 

CCP Sreegs, thank you for, at the very least, opening up some lines of communication regarding this issue.

Is there some sort of standardized format that we could use to petition suspicious activity. What sort of information are the CSR folks looking for? Something that would make their life easier.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.04 07:37:00 - [1529]
 

CCP Sreeg; Is it true that you were hired in order to add security features that help ban bots that run all day long, so that they instead have to spend more PLEXes to run a lot of accounts for shorter periods of time each day?

I mean, it makes perfect sense in order to increase CCP profits.

Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.04 08:05:00 - [1530]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Nothing is impossible to crack but if it takes more cost to crack it than the software is worth they don't bother.


Now you're talking. (But just how much money do you think the bluray master key was meant to be 'safeguarding'. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't 30 or 50 thousand dollars.)


Pages: first : previous : ... 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 ... : 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