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 : ... 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 ... : last (89)

Author Topic

Chesty McJubblies
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.04.06 02:58:00 - [2191]
 

Edited by: Chesty McJubblies on 06/04/2011 10:15:12
Edited by: Chesty McJubblies on 06/04/2011 03:03:58
Edited by: Chesty McJubblies on 06/04/2011 02:58:33
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Trinneth
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
You are not the only person who finds the three strikes rule to be lenient. As I said in my presentation if it doesn't curb things we'll up the stakes.


Could you explain to us how the three strikes rule was arrived at?

In order for 3 strikes to be the policy, someone at CCP must have argued for it in the face of a widespread belief that CCP was tolerant of non-RMT related botting, so what was their reasoning? What purpose does that second warning serve, and what advantages does 3 strikes have over - say - two strikes?


The three strikes rule is an easily understandable policy that allows for people to become good citizens.


I propose a 17 strikes rule. After all, some might be more stubbourn than others. It might take them longer than others to be freed of their cheating ways. Maybe they are a bit fatter than other people, and need to buy more food with their ratting ISK sales.

And this'd please the accountants. The so-called 'zealots', not so much.

Originally by: Mr Kidd
Originally by: Selinate
Originally by: dexington
Edited by: dexington on 06/04/2011 02:11:41
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
The three strikes rule is an easily understandable policy that allows for people to become good citizens.


Do you have any system to determine if the account is used only for botting, i would believe is possible to make qualified guess whether or not the account is used normal/legal play or only botting. Would the 3 strike rule also apply to eg. a newer account with a hulk pilot that not really has done anything but mine/bot?


What logic is there in players asking how CCP determines whether an account is botting or not?

Unless... out with it. Just ask it. "How can I evade your bot-hunting practices, CCP?"


I think he's trying to determine whether CCP could determine an account is solely used as a bot and forego the 3 strikes.


I think we can safely say that the 23/7 for days, if not weeks, on end activities are pure bots. Even if the player, and that term is obviously used loosely in this thread, does actually play for 15 of those 23 hours a day, he needs a ban, since he obviously cheated. And he needs some sunlight in his pathetic life. o_O

Elyssa MacLeod
Posted - 2011.04.06 05:44:00 - [2192]
 

Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod on 06/04/2011 05:48:58
Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod on 06/04/2011 05:45:33
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I think the most heinous example off the top of my head would be that when a character DOES legally change hands, forcing some new guy to wear a scarlet letter for someone else's actions is a bit of a bummer.



...legally buying a botting account
Why do I have the odd feeling that the botters, the real hard core ones, dont sell off the banned characters as much as keep going till they get permmaed.

Originally by: CCP Sreegs


We are aware of character transfers being a loophole and will be closing it. How is still a matter of internal discussion.

:edit: It's really not much of a loophole but is not where it should be from my perspective


this is why you fail.

seriously.

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I believe the rule may very well turn into two strikes sooner rather than later


So youre more lenient on ppl botting and ruining the game than people that hack the client.
The second there gets you an immediate permaban more often than not, yet botting is a 2 - 3 strike deal.


Sullen Skoung
Posted - 2011.04.06 05:51:00 - [2193]
 

Originally by: Selinate

Shocking. Ever been robbed by a 5'4" Caucasian man? If you did, would you view all Caucasian men of 5'4" as suspicious? Profiling is ethically wrong.


Yeah, SIX YEARS of inactivity doesnt have anything to do with this at all

GregorClegane
Posted - 2011.04.06 06:27:00 - [2194]
 

@CCP Sreegs: Just two matters.

1. Could you confirm that you are aware of what a widespread bot maker said? It may help your team.
Quote:
Here's what I see happening, initially CCP will detect bots by behavior. It's probably how they caught the <removed>, <removed> bot users. Since neither of those two actually change anything within EVE.

After most of them are caught, I see CCP going for the 'injectors'.

You have two flavors, you have the Python injectors (<removed>) and you have the 'process' injectors (<removed> and <removed>). Both are easy to stop but I see the python injectors easier to stop then <removed>/ <removed>. For the Python Injectors you could easily just remove the PyRun_ functions completely, with no way of them to actually inject Python, it'll end pretty damn fast for them.

To disable <removed>/ <removed>in the same way would mean that they'd have to remove the other python functions as well, and those are most likely used by their interal C/C++ functions as well. So that's not really possible. A 'quick' solution would be to mask those functions by using an obfuscator, but that wouldn't stop <removed>(it would stop me, because I'd be too bored to keep searching for the required functions).

Once you're done with the obfuscation path, you'd add checks to the Python functions to detect unauthorized usage. This step would have to be done after the obfuscation, otherwise it would be too easy to crack.

Possible ways of detecting unauthorized usage would be to send the call-stack to the server (for both the c/c++ functions as for the python functions!), this was done by the Blizzard-Warden and while not impossible, very hard to circumvent. The way to circumvent this would be by modifying the code, however if you then have a separate thread/function/whatever to check for code modifications then it suddenly becomes a factor 10 harder.

Once your done with that, here's another simple step. Obfuscate your Python code already, but not in the traditional way. Randomize your byte code! Yes, you have the source for both the Python compiles as you do for the Python runtime. Every patch you change this bytecode and RE'ing the python code has become near impossible.

After that you've pretty much stopped <removed> and <removed>or made their life very hard.

And CCP, at least give me some credit if you decide to implement some of my idea's ;) Even if it's just by a private email which you can easily deny exists. (and yes I know your most likely reading this!)


2. 3 Strikes Policy:
I guess you have already indirectly answered this but... Are you stating that people who have been botting for months/years taking an unfair advantage over legit pilots will just get two warnings before their accounts are permanently banned?
So... all the 'smart' botters will just get away withouth any real punishment if they stop botting after the 1st/2nd strike?

From my point of view Zero Tolerance is the way to go, the 3 strikes policy is telling me that CCP doesn't want to risk their income punishing cheaters since they are aware about how widespread cheating behaviour it is nowadays.

I know corpmates that use bots and haven't even get the 1st warning yet.

Elyssa MacLeod
Posted - 2011.04.06 06:42:00 - [2195]
 

Then theres the

bot player gets 2 strikes, you sell the character, make a new one woo continue...

unless the bot flag is against the account, then yeah, I see how the loophole is small

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.04.06 07:13:00 - [2196]
 

Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/04/2011 07:17:01
Originally by: GregorClegane
1. Could you confirm that you are aware of what a widespread bot maker said? It may help your team.

said bot maker may know his way around the "process injection"-type of bots but most of the stuff he suggests to combat python injection is either already done & circumvented (python call stacks being sent to CCP), has been done in the past and was not successful (bytecode randomization) and/or is already theorized about on publicdemands (and thus not a new idea).

Instead of asking CCP for a job with ideas that are not new at all, he should go back to hacking Rift Razz

edit: I also think he may underestimate how much of the EVE client relies on Python and how much is c++.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.06 09:45:00 - [2197]
 

Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod
Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod on 06/04/2011 05:48:58
Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod on 06/04/2011 05:45:33
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I think the most heinous example off the top of my head would be that when a character DOES legally change hands, forcing some new guy to wear a scarlet letter for someone else's actions is a bit of a bummer.



...legally buying a botting account
Why do I have the odd feeling that the botters, the real hard core ones, dont sell off the banned characters as much as keep going till they get permmaed.

Originally by: CCP Sreegs


We are aware of character transfers being a loophole and will be closing it. How is still a matter of internal discussion.

:edit: It's really not much of a loophole but is not where it should be from my perspective


this is why you fail.

seriously.

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I believe the rule may very well turn into two strikes sooner rather than later


So youre more lenient on ppl botting and ruining the game than people that hack the client.
The second there gets you an immediate permaban more often than not, yet botting is a 2 - 3 strike deal.




I'm not going to bother navigating the terrible quote system here so I'll use A, B and C to reply to your comments.

A) Accounts cannot change hands only characters can. I'll leave your speculation to yourself.
B) If you're going to comment typically you'd provide some input. Why did I "fail"? For not considering an aspect of an account that really isn't worth all that much consideration since it's really not a big deal? I have no idea what you're complaining about here but if you're actually trying to be constructive in any way I'd recommend spending the time to verbalize that you've spent navigating the quote system.
C) Yes, I'm at this point more lenient on botters from a policy perspective than people attempting to hack the game or the client. If you don't see the degrees of malfeasance the same way I do then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.06 09:52:00 - [2198]
 

Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/04/2011 07:17:01
Originally by: GregorClegane
1. Could you confirm that you are aware of what a widespread bot maker said? It may help your team.

said bot maker may know his way around the "process injection"-type of bots but most of the stuff he suggests to combat python injection is either already done & circumvented (python call stacks being sent to CCP), has been done in the past and was not successful (bytecode randomization) and/or is already theorized about on publicdemands (and thus not a new idea).

Instead of asking CCP for a job with ideas that are not new at all, he should go back to hacking Rift Razz

edit: I also think he may underestimate how much of the EVE client relies on Python and how much is c++.


To add to this most of the botmakers, to my experience, are abject liars who wish only to keep making money from their product and frequently sell each other out in order to increase their own personal profits. I've seen some of them log chat channels and I've seen others steal from wallets. These aren't nice dudes. They're not ROBIN HOOD HACKERS just out to help the little guy or MAKE INFORMATION FREE MAAAAAAAAAN. They're in essence, malcode authors trying to make a living selling a product. Once you stop paying for that product they really don't care what happens to you, despite the attempts of some to offer "free" levels of their products or posture otherwise. You're a cash machine, not a brosef or a partner.

Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar
Nomadic Asylum
Posted - 2011.04.06 10:12:00 - [2199]
 

Curious and I can understand completly if you are not allowed to answer.

Are known botters who fall under the 3 strike rule(tbh 1 warning then permaban would be a better system) is it just a account/email ban or will it be a complete IP ban. Now granted there are ways around a IP ban but a lot won't be able to achieve that. Pretty much a account ban like others have said won't achieve much since people will just start a new account then buy a character and continue botting until they cycle starts over.

Morgenholt Blue
RED.Legion
Posted - 2011.04.06 10:16:00 - [2200]
 

Originally by: Brooks Puuntai
Curious and I can understand completly if you are not allowed to answer.

Are known botters who fall under the 3 strike rule(tbh 1 warning then permaban would be a better system) is it just a account/email ban or will it be a complete IP ban. Now granted there are ways around a IP ban but a lot won't be able to achieve that. Pretty much a account ban like others have said won't achieve much since people will just start a new account then buy a character and continue botting until they cycle starts over.


The majority of peoples IP's are dynamic so banning the IP would have no effect other than potentially banning a different innocent player.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.04.06 10:25:00 - [2201]
 

Hi Sreegs, you say you don't want to mark a previously botting character that has been legally bought, however why should a botter be able to legally sell his characters in the first place?

I mean one very simple fix would be to add an overlay on the character portrait where it sais "Botter" or similar. The character would become unsellable. Also it would be a nice feedbackloop for people that do petition botters to see such a piece of text show up on the suspected botters.

Capt Zulu
Posted - 2011.04.06 10:29:00 - [2202]
 

yes but botting can be stopped easily ccp no this. all they have to do is think how long does the average person spend ratting mining then add a little extra time on top and all the other guys that are constantly botting will be caught because of the ISK intack and time spent ingame . the average person has not got time to play 24/7 like most of these bots are running there are prob many ways to detect a bot but ccp are not interested in making eve - online a better game they want to invest there time in to dust

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.06 10:33:00 - [2203]
 

Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Hi Sreegs, you say you don't want to mark a previously botting character that has been legally bought, however why should a botter be able to legally sell his characters in the first place?

I mean one very simple fix would be to add an overlay on the character portrait where it sais "Botter" or similar. The character would become unsellable. Also it would be a nice feedbackloop for people that do petition botters to see such a piece of text show up on the suspected botters.


I think thats a bit extreme. If someone gets hit by the banstick once and learns their lesson then why keep punishing them? Smacks a bit of sackcloth and ashes TBH Sad

A simple solution would be "if you sell the character then you must declare that it has been previously banned".

There could be a read-only message in the Notifications section of the mail client on the character which details the ban. That way the buyer (and potentially any CEO) could verify that you haven't been banned in the past.

The Old Chap
Posted - 2011.04.06 11:15:00 - [2204]
 

Originally by: Brooks Puuntai
Curious and I can understand completly if you are not allowed to answer.

Are known botters who fall under the 3 strike rule(tbh 1 warning then permaban would be a better system) is it just a account/email ban or will it be a complete IP ban. Now granted there are ways around a IP ban but a lot won't be able to achieve that. Pretty much a account ban like others have said won't achieve much since people will just start a new account then buy a character and continue botting until they cycle starts over.


Presumably, you could use a bot account to buy plex to pay for more accounts that you skill-up in case your bot account gets banned. So you just flip to the next account when necessary.

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.04.06 11:24:00 - [2205]
 

Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/04/2011 11:29:08
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
To add to this most of the botmakers, to my experience, are abject liars who wish only to keep making money from their product and frequently sell each other out in order to increase their own personal profits. I've seen some of them log chat channels and I've seen others steal from wallets. These aren't nice dudes. They're not ROBIN HOOD HACKERS just out to help the little guy or MAKE INFORMATION FREE MAAAAAAAAAN. They're in essence, malcode authors trying to make a living selling a product. Once you stop paying for that product they really don't care what happens to you, despite the attempts of some to offer "free" levels of their products or posture otherwise. You're a cash machine, not a brosef or a partner.

very bad example as the hacker GregorClegane referred to appears to be pretty much the opposite to what you describe.

read his forums and you'll see he is getting flamed by his own users for providing his bot (along with the code containing the bot logic) free of charge - the perception being that a "for pay" bot is safer as its user base is more limited and it can stay low-profile for far longer than a fairly potent bot that is provided free of charge.

read his blog and you will find a very valuable resource on reverse-engineering techniques in general - my impression is that his motives are neither commercial nor some strange conception of freedom (and tbh looking at the availability of decompiled EVE client code CCP is already pretty good at making information free) but just the joy of working your way through intellectual challenges.

My only serious endeavor in that direction so far has been to modify part of an obfuscated java program and, man, the thrill when you have worked your way through the obfuscation, did finally "get" the program logic, have realized that all you need is change just a few bytecodes in the right places in your hex editor and see your modifications working for the first time... that's just amazing.

It's the pvp of programming so to speak, not really comparable to just writing your own stuff.

dexington
Caldari
Baconoration
Posted - 2011.04.06 11:26:00 - [2206]
 

Edited by: dexington on 06/04/2011 11:27:02
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
edit: I also think he may underestimate how much of the EVE client relies on Python and how much is c++.


It don't really matter how much or little the client relies on python, it is always going to be easier use python then c++. From the examples i have seen it looks like eve deploys python with the parser, so all you need to do is find a way to inject code, which is not hard, and you are ready to go.

In PHP, i guess the same is true for python, it's in no way impossible to remove the parser and have the scripting engine only run binary code, hardened version often implement some form of signing and/or encryption. Unless CCP is using some bizarre python code, they could at least remove the parser making it harder to inject code and it would also improve on the performance of their own code.

Perramas
Caldari
Pan Caldarian Ventures
Posted - 2011.04.06 12:31:00 - [2207]
 

CCP another tool you can use to fight botting and to discourage people from using them, flag the accounts you suspend the first time so they can never use a plex on that account again.

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.04.06 13:12:00 - [2208]
 

Originally by: Chesty McJubblies

I think we can safely say that the 23/7 for days, if not weeks, on end activities are pure bots. Even if the player, and that term is obviously used loosely in this thread, does actually play for 15 of those 23 hours a day, he needs a ban, since he obviously cheated. And he needs some sunlight in his pathetic life. o_O[/quote



Perhaps, but CCP is not going to make such a circumstance an automatic permaban. It's just not going to happen. They're not going to automatically turn off a source of revenue without giving the customer a chance to mend his/her ways first.

Reonetii
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.06 13:42:00 - [2209]
 

Originally by: GregorClegane
[b]@CCP Sreegs: Just two matters.

I know corpmates that use bots and haven't even get the 1st warning yet.


This is a problem, players like you I HOPE should, if you are concerned for the direction eve is taking, nominate those said players in your corp in a petition. Otherwise you are in league and approve of such behavior.

Greed is the great motivator in eve to bot atm, coupled with laziness.
The huge isk/resource requirements to sustain the large fleet actions and deployment/losses of pos/sov infrastructure kind of promote the need to bot to supplement incomes/losses.
Because select parts of the community have become greedy in their needs and forgone the work together attitude and mundane activities of eve that used to be the way alliances and such were sustained, through that frustration of making "real" people work together (yes they are more trouble than the drones in RMR) it's easier to leave the income resourcing to bot derived gains, whether or not the leaders of these organizations actually endorse bots in their territories or turn a blind eye to the usage, relishing the afk incomes they provide for their war machines, the end result is hollow victory and unsatisfied players in the long run.

If we don't turn it around soon, eve is dead, it becomes so overrun with botting, that real players might as well not bother joining, as they can never match income, or they get so frustrated that there is no social involvement anymore and comradery that once existed.
I sort of sense by the generalized opinions I read, that eve is at this crossroad now. I personally don't "play" anymore, the bots are so prolific, why bother? I am merely letting the subs I have prepaid run out at this stage, hoping a long term solution comes to fruitfulness before that day.

It's going to take not only the CCP team to police the bots, they need us players to keep our eye on our regular systems and CARFULLY log behavior of suspected bots, be careful, watch, watch some more, keep track of actions of said suspects, write it down, submit a reasonable history/time line of observation eg weeks to months, so CCP have some indication that you have been keeping watch and not just reporting a player because he mined and wouldn't chat or respond on the first pass through a belt.

I would go with some flagging system where the player base could enact revenge once a botter was confirmed, rather than a one day ban, give the player a month long red flag, in this time period, also prevent character transfers on said account and characters, giving players a chance to revenge ourselves on the players that ruin the game in the long run, once their month flag is over (by example) then the players are free to rejoin eve socially or dispose of said character if they feel so, if they are caught again, perma ban all linked accounts

2c


djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
Posted - 2011.04.06 13:45:00 - [2210]
 

Maybe the use of sound could be included to hinder botters. Suppose you are required to type in coordinates that are read through the speakers to warp to a belt. In this scenario a pilot would query traffic control and hear something like "coordinates belt one, alpha-romeo-romeo one-two-three" or some sequence like that and this info would need to be typed into the client. Would this not be hard to do for a bot?

dj

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.06 13:51:00 - [2211]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 06/04/2011 13:54:04
Welcome to a world where English is not everyones first language.

Eve has sound?

Some people are deaf, and a larger group just listens to other stuff while playing eve.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_recognition



Quote:
The majority of peoples IP's are dynamic so banning the IP would have no effect other than potentially banning a different innocent player.

Tbh I doubt it, granted it might be different in other countries, but here everyone got semi-static IP addresses (as in: ISP does not guarantee your IP does not change, but they do hand out the same one everytime to your MAC address if you reboot your modem/router, and that pretty much only happens for most people during either internet or power outages).

Now I do not think IP banning has any effect, but I do hope that every account from that IP address, both new ones and old ones, get very high on the list of accounts to keep an eye on, and are permabanned when they look funny.


Aessoroz
Nohbdy.
Posted - 2011.04.06 13:56:00 - [2212]
 

Edited by: Aessoroz on 06/04/2011 13:56:11
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Edited by: CCP Sreegs on 05/04/2011 23:20:22
Originally by: Grey Stormshadow
There is rather easy way to make life of (mining) bots much harder...

I know that people are against captcha but if this was implemented to work with the report bot button, it would efficiently stop the bot and also provide data about characters "after report" behauvior to devs...

So... in nutshell the idea is that when some player hits report bot button, reported character gets notification in mail and link to some captcha. The catch is that reported player can not undock or do any market orders before the captcha has been completed.




Captcha has been discussed in the past. At this point in time we're not implementing it. That doesn't mean we never would, it just means not at this time. We're going to fight this particular fight using a somewhat standard tried and tested security toolbox in some places and be more creative in others, but at the end of the day we're going to trend the numbers down and the measure of success for ourselves will be a steady downward trend in botting, in botting-related income and in sites offering said bots. Ultimately as an initial salvo we're sending the message that this isn't going to be easy anymore.

:edit: Ultimately this increases our focus on RMT as well


Main reason why captcha's are dumb and useless these days: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/inside-indias-captcha-solving-economy/1835

Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
Posted - 2011.04.06 14:47:00 - [2213]
 

Originally by: Aessoroz
Edited by: Aessoroz on 06/04/2011 13:56:11
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Edited by: CCP Sreegs on 05/04/2011 23:20:22
Originally by: Grey Stormshadow
There is rather easy way to make life of (mining) bots much harder...

I know that people are against captcha but if this was implemented to work with the report bot button, it would efficiently stop the bot and also provide data about characters "after report" behauvior to devs...

So... in nutshell the idea is that when some player hits report bot button, reported character gets notification in mail and link to some captcha. The catch is that reported player can not undock or do any market orders before the captcha has been completed.




Captcha has been discussed in the past. At this point in time we're not implementing it. That doesn't mean we never would, it just means not at this time. We're going to fight this particular fight using a somewhat standard tried and tested security toolbox in some places and be more creative in others, but at the end of the day we're going to trend the numbers down and the measure of success for ourselves will be a steady downward trend in botting, in botting-related income and in sites offering said bots. Ultimately as an initial salvo we're sending the message that this isn't going to be easy anymore.

:edit: Ultimately this increases our focus on RMT as well


Main reason why captcha's are dumb and useless these days: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/inside-indias-captcha-solving-economy/1835


Yea... everything can be passed with one way or another. The main idea of my suggestion was to provide some method to "lock" reported player to station and prevent market modifications untill player performs some kind of action.

In my suggestion player would get "harmless" mail which would not actually do anything if player was fighting or doing something else in space. The mail would require attention only after he docks to station.

Captcha could as well be replaced with some other thing what requires player attention. It would not be - by any means - a main method to identify or remove botting. Just additional functionality to report bot button which would also halt the bots for a while and give extra data about target behauviour after report has been made.

...but as Sreegs said - it's not on the menu atm so will leave the idea there.

WarpOutNow
Posted - 2011.04.06 15:09:00 - [2214]
 

Yeah, you people are perfectly right. **** up the game for the legit players, only so botters have it (a little bit) harder. The anti-botting measures you are suggesting sound A BIT more annoying than the botters are...

inb4
>get out of here botter

I just don't want EVE Online to evolve in CAPTCHA Online
or LOLISCANURPC Online
ugh

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.04.06 15:26:00 - [2215]
 

Edited by: Mr Kidd on 06/04/2011 15:27:34
There are already automated tools for correctly determining a captcha. Some have varying levels of success. But I'm sure any captcha challenge would give the challenged the opportunity to get a new captcha until they solve it. Since we're talking about botting I don't guess it would be very hard to implement automated captcha answering considering bots already successfully incorporate things like OCR.

Ludacrys
Posted - 2011.04.06 17:23:00 - [2216]
 

Captchas for updating market orders would get rid of a lot of bots

dexington
Caldari
Baconoration
Posted - 2011.04.06 17:26:00 - [2217]
 

Originally by: Ludacrys
Captchas for updating market orders would get rid of a lot of bots


once the bots have implemented ways of bypassing the captcha, it's just going to annoy normal users.

Pandadora
Posted - 2011.04.06 20:40:00 - [2218]
 

Originally by: dexington
Originally by: Ludacrys
Captchas for updating market orders would get rid of a lot of bots


once the bots have implemented ways of bypassing the captcha, it's just going to annoy normal users.


Which would probably drive regular players to use a capcha bot, to ease that problem. :-)

Rasz Lin
Caldari
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
Posted - 2011.04.06 21:00:00 - [2219]
 

I ignore sites that use Google captchas because its too difficult for me :( :)

Burnharder
Posted - 2011.04.06 21:09:00 - [2220]
 

Captcha is totally the wrong route to go down to kill botting. Any efforts on that front have to be secret client mods, reverse engineering of botting programs and so on. I don't expect CCP will ever tell you what their tactics are here, because you don't want to give a heads-up to the bot developers. It's better if the player using a bot isn't sure if he's going to get caught and banned, too. That will make him more wary of doing it in the first place.


Pages: first : previous : ... 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 ... : 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