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 : ... 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 ... : last (89)

Author Topic

Xylengra
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:35:00 - [2371]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Er, CCP Sreegs, they do know. If you ban someone for botting, they know you banned them. If you also ban the account of their main, they know that. If you do not ban the account of their main, they know that too. You cannot ban a player and not have that player know they have been banned.

You know how they are being punished. They know what punishment they have received. The only ones who being kept in the dark are us EULA abiding players.


Amen.

In amongst the Sreegs love ITT, there are small nuggets of truth.

As has been said, over and over, unless CCP names and shames, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are doing anything at all about botting. Notice what he said above... the went after ONE just today. ONE

There is no reason not to let those that do play by the EULA know by publishing banning details, REAL details that are verifiable, other than to hypnotize those that still believe in CCPs ability to, or even intention to, squash the problem of botters. While there is some hearsay evidence that some have been banned, if the efforts were for real there would be squealing from on high from the nullsec alliances that would see noticeable drops in their income.

The evidence that CCP is NOT doing much at all far outweighs any evidence that they are.

The botters are laughing at these claims of action by CCP.

Believe THAT.

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:44:00 - [2372]
 

Originally by: Henry Haphorn
@ Mr Kidd - Since you make it very clear that you want CCP to embrace botting, be hopeful that I don't catch you botting.


OMG, I'm someone with a contrarian point of view! Burn any witches lately?

It's simple. Irresistible paradox. Scratch that, prolly too complicated. Ummmm....*thinking of an example where I don't have to have pictures for the big words*.........got it! Ah nevermind. Sreegs said move on so lets move on.


Rykuss
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.25 23:43:00 - [2373]
 

Originally by: Lelob
Working for stuff is boring


Weak ass argument is weak.






Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.04.25 23:55:00 - [2374]
 

Originally by: Xylengra
....... Notice what he said above... the went after ONE just today. ONE........


To be fair, I think he meant one bot program used by many, not one botter.

Xylengra
Posted - 2011.04.26 00:58:00 - [2375]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: Xylengra
....... Notice what he said above... the went after ONE just today. ONE........


To be fair, I think he meant one bot program used by many, not one botter.


Perhaps, but what I see, especially when we review all the things said, in toto, is deliberate ambiguity.

Lelob
Posted - 2011.04.26 01:51:00 - [2376]
 

Originally by: Rykuss
Originally by: Lelob
Working for stuff is boring


Weak ass argument is weak.








Not my argument. There's nothing wrong with working for your isk, but it becomes a problem when it's tedious, highly repetitive and offers nothing really interesting. Doing boring stuff isn't a motivating factor for continuing to play this game. CCP forcing people to team up together like they have for incursions is a good thing, because it's interesting and fun to interact with other people pushing for a common goal. Mindlessly shooting at a bunch of red x's or mining the same rocks for no other reason then to do something else is not fun. I can understand how it's soothing after a crappy day, but it's also unreasonable to expect people to want to be bored as hell on a continuous basis while playing a game. It's a natural consequence that people will start to look for ways to avoid being bored, while still reaping the benefits of said boring activities, hence, botting.

gonesideways
Posted - 2011.04.26 04:27:00 - [2377]
 


To start then

Why dont we have an option when you click on the toons name in local maybe that is- FLAG BOTTER

Im sure a CCP rep can come online and see in person how they are reacting, maybe run a diagnostic to see if the patterns match up to a bot...just an idea.

EVE is a friggin awesome game in design as well as a ridicuously large undertaking programming wise and I am sure for the most part people aren't taking a shot at the big picture here, but yeah it burns me to try to snag the botter that I KNOW FOR A FACT is there everyday...cloaks on my entry into system, and sits there ALL DAY if I afk in there with a toon. In highsec I think I'd just gank him if I was ever living in hisec...which I cant see happening :D

As far as 'mining is boring' I think for the most part you guys are SOL lol...*but* it might not hurt to create new and interesting effects for the miners...to keep it 'interesting' or a bit more active...maybe random chance of parasitic lifeforms that have to be manually 'swatted' to prevent strip miner damage or something...

I guess a question may be 'Does CCP consider mining to be a passive income'? If treated as such, then bots can and will thrive. If it is intended to be active, then the bots can be removed.




Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.04.26 09:53:00 - [2378]
 

Originally by: Rykuss
Originally by: Lelob
Working for stuff is boring

Weak ass argument is weak.



On the contrary. What you edited into Lelob's post is the most important weakness of CCP's game design philosophy, embracing hard, tedious work instead of intellectually challenging, interesting design. PI is a very good example of this and, guess what..working macros for PI were available at launch.

Mikk36
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.26 10:17:00 - [2379]
 

Edited by: Mikk36 on 26/04/2011 10:24:46
Originally by: Othran
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Originally by: riverini
Originally by: Opertone
ban their Device ID, serial numbers... permanently


I guess u mean local MAC address? if so I approve! armchair hackers, please name countermeasures and how hard could they be?


sudo ifconfig eth0 hw ether 01:02:03:04:05:06



Its even simpler than that. Pretty much every cable router I've ever seen has an option to clone a MAC or enter your own MAC.

Also, every single network card here has the option in its settings to spoof a MAC in Windows 7, Vista or XP. If its not in the settings then you can do it via the registry.

You might have more luck with ADSL routers that can't bridge - most of them don't offer any way of changing the MAC via the web interface. However if the telnet interface is up then its usually just the same as Linux - ie same as your command above.
Your WAN MAC address is only visible to the next router in line, the one that belongs to the ISP. If CCP would like to know that number, they would have to contact Your ISP and ask them for that MAC address. And even if they knew that number, they couldn't do anything useful with it since it's not passed along on the internet.

Chesty McJubblies
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.04.26 11:15:00 - [2380]
 

Edited by: Chesty McJubblies on 26/04/2011 11:15:41
Originally by: gonesideways
... but yeah it burns me to try to snag the botter that I KNOW FOR A FACT is there everyday...cloaks on my entry into system, and sits there ALL DAY if I afk in there with a toon.



This is exactly what I did. I went to the drone regions, found a macro team of randomly named chars, and located their POS. They sat at the POS for a day or two, then must have set me blue, as they continued to rat 23/7. If they had indeed stayed sitting at the POS it would have been less obvious they were macroing. As it was, no matter what time of day I logged in, the POS empty, and they were ratting.

They were duly petitioned, and a day or so later, they were not online. Or since. And it's been about a week.

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.26 11:31:00 - [2381]
 

Edited by: Othran on 26/04/2011 12:29:58
Originally by: Mikk36
Your WAN MAC address is only visible to the next router in line, the one that belongs to the ISP. If CCP would like to know that number, they would have to contact Your ISP and ask them for that MAC address. And even if they knew that number, they couldn't do anything useful with it since it's not passed along on the internet.


The MAC address of the router/modem/NIC is visible to the local machine. Eve runs on the local machine therefore Eve can interrogate the NIC/router/modem as to what the current MAC is. If MAC matches banlist then Eve closes.

Not that it matters anyway as the MAC address can be spoofed and NICs/modems/routers can be replaced.

Edit - frankly the only way to ban all accounts a player has is to enforce an identity check at sign-up (ie insist a REAL credit card, not GTC or PLEX is used) and issue every player with a hardware token for logins. Oh and that would have to be the ONLY login method as well. I can't see it happening anytime soon Wink

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.04.26 15:36:00 - [2382]
 

Originally by: Lelob


Not my argument. There's nothing wrong with working for your isk, but it becomes a problem when it's tedious, highly repetitive and offers nothing really interesting. Doing boring stuff isn't a motivating factor for continuing to play this game. CCP forcing people to team up together like they have for incursions is a good thing, because it's interesting and fun to interact with other people pushing for a common goal. Mindlessly shooting at a bunch of red x's or mining the same rocks for no other reason then to do something else is not fun. I can understand how it's soothing after a crappy day, but it's also unreasonable to expect people to want to be bored as hell on a continuous basis while playing a game. It's a natural consequence that people will start to look for ways to avoid being bored, while still reaping the benefits of said boring activities, hence, botting.


Please describe a way to have mining that:

Returns more reward for more effort
Allows you to change what you mine to adjust to the market
You would find not repetitive and boring
No one would want to bot

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.04.26 16:07:00 - [2383]
 

Quote:

Your WAN MAC address is only visible to the next router in line, the one that belongs to the ISP. If CCP would like to know that number, they would have to contact Your ISP and ask them for that MAC address. And even if they knew that number, they couldn't do anything useful with it since it's not passed along on the internet



Since EvE runs on the client, it may query the local MAC and send it to CCP for storage. In case of ban, the client starts, asks the CCP server for OK to allow log in, the server MAC matches a banned MAC and returns FALSE.

MAC is still a weak choice.
Something better would be to generate a sort of machine dependent GUID factoring in hard disk serial number, BIOS and so on. The GUID would be partially flexible, IE it could store 10 bits of information, checking 7. If the user tries to change some PC pieces, he will still stay banned until less than 7 pieces match the original GUID.

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.26 16:21:00 - [2384]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Something better would be to generate a sort of machine dependent GUID factoring in hard disk serial number, BIOS and so on. The GUID would be partially flexible, IE it could store 10 bits of information, checking 7. If the user tries to change some PC pieces, he will still stay banned until less than 7 pieces match the original GUID.


Still doesn't work (just use another machine) and is a support nightmare.

Ask MS if you don't believe me, they spent billions on machine fingerprinting for Windows activation and still ended up with the same level of piracy*. Much much MUCH higher support costs though Laughing

The only way to accurately ban a given user is to KNOW who that user is. That means no more account activations with anything other than a credit/debit card (and no pre-pay cards either).

I doubt CCP have the remotest idea who a large chunk of their accounts really "belong" to. ie Name, Address, Age etc. PLEX is a double-edged sword for sure.

*certain countries get dirt cheap basic versions of Windows as any revenue is better than none and unpatched versions of Windows are bad PR cos of the crap they spread. tl;dr piracy works - or something Rolling Eyes

Elanor Vega
Posted - 2011.04.27 16:00:00 - [2385]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Mr Kidd
Does anyone here believe that with maximal effort to the extent that CCP could wage war on bots without adversely affecting legit players that we'll be completely bot free?

Very seriously my answer would be NO.

I suggest that CCP stop fighting the bots. People are botting for isk, because content is just Fing boring, they don't have 30 hours a day to play Eve in a competitive way, the grind is just too Fing long in this game. Don't tell me the grind isn't too long. I live in a wh. On most days 200mil/hour PVE is very possible. It still just isn't enough when you consider all the isk sinks, operational costs, etc.

So, my suggestion is CCP, stop fighting the bots. Change the EULA to allow them. Then offer your own "official CCP BOT" to accommodate the game's psspoor, boring, mind-numbingly vacant content where isk making is concerned. If people don't want to buy your bots, fine, they can make their own within limitations, no modding the client. Every expansion/update you can introduce some non-official bot breaking mechanic or something that requires them to adjust their personal bots while the CCP bots keep chugging along.




This is simply not going to happen. Move on.



Thnx for that...

Aquila Draco
Posted - 2011.04.27 22:16:00 - [2386]
 

Edited by: Aquila Draco on 27/04/2011 22:17:37

I must BUMP this thread UP...
because anti Bot war is far from the end... there is a LOT more job to do...

riverini
Gallente
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.04.27 22:36:00 - [2387]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Er, CCP Sreegs, they do know. If you ban someone for botting, they know you banned them. If you also ban the account of their main, they know that. If you do not ban the account of their main, they know that too. You cannot ban a player and not have that player know they have been banned.

You know how they are being punished. They know what punishment they have received. The only ones who being kept in the dark are us EULA abiding players.


APPLAUSE FOR THIS MAN!!!

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.28 00:45:00 - [2388]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: Xylengra
....... Notice what he said above... the went after ONE just today. ONE........


To be fair, I think he meant one bot program used by many, not one botter.


Actually what I was talking about was an additional program that we weren't aware of previously.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.28 00:51:00 - [2389]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena


Er, CCP Sreegs, they do know. If you ban someone for botting, they know you banned them. If you also ban the account of their main, they know that. If you do not ban the account of their main, they know that too. You cannot ban a player and not have that player know they have been banned.

You know how they are being punished. They know what punishment they have received. The only ones who are being kept in the dark are us EULA abiding players.

Edit: grammer


I actually misunderstood your original statement. We work to track all of the accounts and an even action is applied across all of them. This means that if for some reason we only applied a 14 day ban against one of your accounts, then when you hit your second strike we found a new one, we'll apply a 30 day ban across all the accounts. We're also watching other activity.

Basically we don't just action against the account that was flagged.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.04.28 15:54:00 - [2390]
 

Thaks for that Sreegs, you answered alot of questions.

But there is one set keeps floating up: How about name and shame? Is there a legal issue with doing this? Or is it just current policy? If it is current policy, any consideration of changing it?

And please do not say that you do not want to do it because it gives information to the botters. As I said, they already have that information. Naming and shaming them gives them no additional information.

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.28 16:18:00 - [2391]
 

Why name & shame? There's no real point to it.

Giving feedback on botter petitions as in "yes they were botters and have received a ban" or "sorry but they weren't" is all that's really required. Rules on not disclosing GM correspondence cover the specific names but I'm sure we'd get a feel for the effectiveness soon enough.

Xylengra
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:00:00 - [2392]
 

Originally by: Othran
Why name & shame? There's no real point to it.

Giving feedback on botter petitions as in "yes they were botters and have received a ban" or "sorry but they weren't" is all that's really required. Rules on not disclosing GM correspondence cover the specific names but I'm sure we'd get a feel for the effectiveness soon enough.


On the contrary, naming and shaming is THE point.

1. It proves CCP is actually doing something, something we do not have now.
2. It provides actual feedback to honest players, who may have seen or may know some of the ones banned. It's deterrent effect is increased geometrically.
3. It prevents typically wary buyers in the character bazaar from furthering the botter's profit-making by recycling near-permabanned characters.

Roq Godslayer
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:15:00 - [2393]
 

Originally by: Xylengra
Originally by: Othran
Why name & shame? There's no real point to it.

Giving feedback on botter petitions as in "yes they were botters and have received a ban" or "sorry but they weren't" is all that's really required. Rules on not disclosing GM correspondence cover the specific names but I'm sure we'd get a feel for the effectiveness soon enough.


On the contrary, naming and shaming is THE point.

1. It proves CCP is actually doing something, something we do not have now.
2. It provides actual feedback to honest players, who may have seen or may know some of the ones banned. It's deterrent effect is increased geometrically.
3. It prevents typically wary buyers in the character bazaar from furthering the botter's profit-making by recycling near-permabanned characters.



I am thinking naming and shaming will not really work. I feel this way because these are just avatars, and the person behind the avatars would still be held anonymous for privacy concerns.

I do feel however, that CCP could improve on transparency. Perhaps a report on the statistics in the following categories on a monthly basis:

1. Number accounts permatetly banned.
2. Number accounts warned. Types or warning issued.
3. Number of repeat offenders warned. Tell's whether the punishments really work.
4. Systems where botting occured. Give's us an idea of which alliances and corps are supporting these activities without naming and shaming.
5. The amount of ISK that has been removed from the game. (Not just botting but RMT too).

GIGAR
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:17:00 - [2394]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Vincent Athena


Er, CCP Sreegs, they do know. If you ban someone for botting, they know you banned them. If you also ban the account of their main, they know that. If you do not ban the account of their main, they know that too. You cannot ban a player and not have that player know they have been banned.

You know how they are being punished. They know what punishment they have received. The only ones who are being kept in the dark are us EULA abiding players.

Edit: grammer


I actually misunderstood your original statement. We work to track all of the accounts and an even action is applied across all of them. This means that if for some reason we only applied a 14 day ban against one of your accounts, then when you hit your second strike we found a new one, we'll apply a 30 day ban across all the accounts. We're also watching other activity.

Basically we don't just action against the account that was flagged.

As by "activity", i assume you mean botting and/or RMT, there shouldn't be a second chance.
Get banned once, 14 days. Alright, fair enough.
Get banned twice, permanently on the offending account (and possible 30 days on the other accounts, to be fair)

Obviously, this only applies to botting/RMT - other things (*cough* smack in local *cough*) shouldn't require such drastic measures, obviously ugh

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.28 17:29:00 - [2395]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Thaks for that Sreegs, you answered alot of questions.

But there is one set keeps floating up: How about name and shame? Is there a legal issue with doing this? Or is it just current policy? If it is current policy, any consideration of changing it?

And please do not say that you do not want to do it because it gives information to the botters. As I said, they already have that information. Naming and shaming them gives them no additional information.


There are a lot of layers to this type of response and all I can say for now is that it isn't our current policy. We are considering all options.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.28 17:35:00 - [2396]
 

Originally by: Roq Godslayer

I am thinking naming and shaming will not really work. I feel this way because these are just avatars, and the person behind the avatars would still be held anonymous for privacy concerns.

I do feel however, that CCP could improve on transparency. Perhaps a report on the statistics in the following categories on a monthly basis:

1. Number accounts permatetly banned.
2. Number accounts warned. Types or warning issued.
3. Number of repeat offenders warned. Tell's whether the punishments really work.
4. Systems where botting occured. Give's us an idea of which alliances and corps are supporting these activities without naming and shaming.
5. The amount of ISK that has been removed from the game. (Not just botting but RMT too).


I'm sorting out how best to report on progress and it's kind of a tricky situation. To give you a bit of insight, I really don't think telling you we've banned x number of accounts really gives you anything useful, nor does saying we've warned x number.

I'm curious how giving you system names could give you an idea as to the alliance of the botter, given that you don't know who the actual botter is? My concern would be that we're now giving way to corporate witch hunts based on information we've provided.

The amount of isk I'm also a bit concerned about as it's really just a number.

Ultimately what I want to do is try to report items that actually show a measure of success. The only way numbers give anyone any concept of effectiveness is if they know the scope of the problem. If that was known we could just be rid of them and be done with it to be 100% frank with you. So what we're exploring is some creative ways to deliver information that actually speaks to our effectiveness and the work that we're doing instead of spitting out arbitrary numbers and I think we're almost there.

GIGAR
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:40:00 - [2397]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Roq Godslayer

I am thinking naming and shaming will not really work. I feel this way because these are just avatars, and the person behind the avatars would still be held anonymous for privacy concerns.

I do feel however, that CCP could improve on transparency. Perhaps a report on the statistics in the following categories on a monthly basis:

1. Number accounts permatetly banned.
2. Number accounts warned. Types or warning issued.
3. Number of repeat offenders warned. Tell's whether the punishments really work.
4. Systems where botting occured. Give's us an idea of which alliances and corps are supporting these activities without naming and shaming.
5. The amount of ISK that has been removed from the game. (Not just botting but RMT too).


I'm sorting out how best to report on progress and it's kind of a tricky situation. To give you a bit of insight, I really don't think telling you we've banned x number of accounts really gives you anything useful, nor does saying we've warned x number.

I'm curious how giving you system names could give you an idea as to the alliance of the botter, given that you don't know who the actual botter is? My concern would be that we're now giving way to corporate witch hunts based on information we've provided.

The amount of isk I'm also a bit concerned about as it's really just a number.

Ultimately what I want to do is try to report items that actually show a measure of success. The only way numbers give anyone any concept of effectiveness is if they know the scope of the problem. If that was known we could just be rid of them and be done with it to be 100% frank with you. So what we're exploring is some creative ways to deliver information that actually speaks to our effectiveness and the work that we're doing instead of spitting out arbitrary numbers and I think we're almost there.

While I think you underestimate some of the math-wizards that plays EVE, it's good to hear such things :D
Hats of for that!

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:43:00 - [2398]
 

The fact that we only see characters, not the players behind them can be handled. Botting pilots can be put on the wall of shame and bans for botting noted on their character sheet. Both would be removed if the character is transferred to a new account. In essence, we mark the characters that are currently on accounts that were banned.

Character transfer from botting accounts by itself is an issue. A botter can transfer high skilled ratter from a 2-strike account to a clean one. CCP can deal with this in 2 ways: Catch the new account botting so fast that the botter cannot recoup the cost of the character transfer. Or change the rules to block sale of characters from accounts that have had bans.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.28 17:48:00 - [2399]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
The fact that we only see characters, not the players behind them can be handled. Botting pilots can be put on the wall of shame and bans for botting noted on their character sheet. Both would be removed if the character is transferred to a new account. In essence, we mark the characters that are currently on accounts that were banned.

Character transfer from botting accounts by itself is an issue. A botter can transfer high skilled ratter from a 2-strike account to a clean one. CCP can deal with this in 2 ways: Catch the new account botting so fast that the botter cannot recoup the cost of the character transfer. Or change the rules to block sale of characters from accounts that have had bans.


We are aware that people would try to do this and monitor it. We also carry bans across aliases as well as marks.

CCP Sreegs

Posted - 2011.04.28 17:49:00 - [2400]
 

Originally by: GIGAR

While I think you underestimate some of the math-wizards that plays EVE, it's good to hear such things :D
Hats of for that!


Well from that perspective let me amend what I was saying to be that I want to report on what we consider success and we don't have a quota so numbers ain't it.


Pages: first : previous : ... 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 ... : 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