open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The EVE Security Taskforce & Report a bot
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic

Dalilus
Posted - 2011.08.20 20:47:00 - [91]
 

I have been reading for years in these forums about bots and players, corps and alliances that base their livelyhood on bots. Besides banning accounts that regularly use bots will you also be banning corps and alliances that encourage the use of bots?

A while back one of my alts was mistakenly identified as a bot and it took a petition or two plus a few weeks or so for more than one GM to give that alt a clean bill of health. Game time lost plus a bit more was given to me for the missunderstanding. I suggest CCP be severe in punishing players that for lulz, tactical advantage, bullying or having nothing else to do but scam report others as being bots.

CCP Pollux

Posted - 2011.08.21 16:11:00 - [92]
 

| The time of change - from a reactive past into a reactive and proactive future

Without getting into the details just yet, we have decided that it’s time for us to be less reactive and more proactive about security, asking us “What if?” before asking us “Now, what?”. The main difference between reactive thinking and proactive thinking on security is if you ask yourself a certain question after an incident occurs, or before it occurs. Out-of-the-box thinking was the mindset that the EVE Security Task Force (now EVESec) has been founded with, and this is exactly what has been expected from us from the very first day. The emerging changes this fundamentally different approach has yielded are slowly starting to show the expected result but there is still a long way to go.

How does this relate to cheating? In terms of cheating, this allowed us to address the issue with a fundamentally different mindset. How? Instead of focusing on how cheating unfolds, we have focused on what system inadequacies make certain types of cheating possible and how these inadequacies are used in order to cheat. With the knowledge we have gathered by reevaluating our systems, using this exact mindset, we have set out a prototype system and will develop the required systems to combat cheating at all levels, reactively and proactively. These systems are currently under development and will be known as the guards who continuously watch EVE.

*Note*
The upcoming blog will discuss all the above and as well cheating (Fundamental traits of cheating and the malicious intent),
hostile environments (Malicious action on the EVE Client and interactions with the world of EVE), vulnerabilities
(The repetitive nature of gameplay mechanics) exploits (Third-party add-ons, automations, macro and bots) and
reactive and proactive countermeasures (Adaptive Software Protection and Dynamic Anti-Cheating Systems), in great detail.

As many of you will now be aware, the Report-Bot feature is a very small component of a much bigger and complex system to come.

CCP Pollux

Posted - 2011.08.21 17:00:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Bruno Bummel
Are automatic detection routines in place to check on people online 23.5/7 that are doing the same thing all day long? A little confirmation that this is beeing worked on is more than enough.

Yes, there are.

CCP Pollux

Posted - 2011.08.21 17:15:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Will future devblogs expand on your succesful persecution of certain types of bots?


Yes. We intent to release blogs about our ongoing progress. Further more, from now on we intend to open and maintain an active dialog with our community regarding this kind of issues.

CCP Pollux

Posted - 2011.08.21 17:54:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Ciar Meara
Are their additional accounts also targetted or just the one caught botting


Yes, in the investigation process we take into account all relevant aspects and factors, including the relationships between the account/s being investigated and other accounts.

CCP Pollux

Posted - 2011.08.21 19:57:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Chribba
Edited by: Chribba on 16/08/2011 12:57:56
Hopefully it will be for the better. Keep up the good work!

also edit/I would like Pollux view input on automated login... software(?). There are password manager software out there that have limited types of macro features, so that they will auto-fill in your user details for websites, programs, etc

What is the stance on using said technique to make the login proceedure easier, as configured properly all needed to do from the password manager is to press "go" kinda - for example KeePass has such features.

/c

Chribba, there is a post of GM Lelouch here regarding the current allowed automation. As the purpose of this automation is not to automate gameplay nor to obtain an unfair advantage within the game, it should be allowed. Still what kind of interactions with the EVE Client will be allowed in future is subject to change.

CCP Pollux

Posted - 2011.08.21 21:07:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Celine Cavin-Guang
If a player receives a (presumably justified) 14 or 30 days ban, is that account marked permanently or not?

Permanently.

CCP Pollux

Posted - 2011.08.21 21:12:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Dalilus
I have been reading for years in these forums about bots and players, corps and alliances that base their livelyhood on bots. Besides banning accounts that regularly use bots will you also be banning corps and alliances that encourage the use of bots?

We ban all those who break the rules, no matter if it's a player, a corporation or an alliance.

Somatic Neuron
Posted - 2011.08.22 04:46:00 - [99]
 

What about using macro programs for the physically disabled, that cannot play the game without the use of said aids? Surely some means must be made available for them to not be discriminated against?

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.22 18:53:00 - [100]
 

Ive often wondered if this part of EULA:

"3.You may not use macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. "

was written the way it was to allow for assistive software for the handicapped.

Splatacus
Posted - 2011.08.23 17:49:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Splatacus on 23/08/2011 17:49:50
I think you are all barking up the wrong tree. Making detection of bots faster by adding single features that a human needs to respond to will result in the same way that the bots currently operate - more response routines such as talking in local, warping to different safe spots, randomize undock-intervals and so on. CAPTCHA's excluded, if it can be done within the game, it can presumably be botted.

Some angles

1. Make the environment for bots unprofitable. WoW did this by virtually eliminating the value of "gold". This (thankfully) will not work in EVE which is reliant on gathering activities.
2. Monitor outside programs that run the bots. Not an expert myself of course but I understand that the bots function by simulating mouse clicks / keystrokes across a static UI. Randomizing the UI ever so slightly would break that system requiring re-calibration of the bot by a human and is guaranteed to p**** off every legit player in the game as well. So thats probably not an option. And the more sophisticated way of doing this would be to scour the players harddrive for botting software. I recall WoW doing this with mixed results but I am sure EVE players will choke on the concept that CCP is snooping in their drives, even for a "good" cause.
3. Holistic analysis of players and their activity. For example follow the log-in pattern, track where the mouse is going, track the exact intervals between actions and response times to a challenge. Whilst lag will throw some error into it, bots will -at least initially, see above - be detectable. The more parameters CCP can measure and not publish, the more data they would have to play with.

Since 1. is out, 2. presumably also, the last remaining thing is 3, a more comprehensive analysis of player's actions inside the game. I am pretty sure CCP Pollux does just that right now but the line to intrusion is pretty thin. And EVE does have an unforgiving player base.

Many replies say that bots live deep in null-sec and hence would not be reported but reporting may serve as a first flag from which CCP can start analyzing the other parameters.

One thing CCP may want to publish is the ship type / system, ore mined / system / hour. That is not really secret. Build an API that then allows identification of systems that are occupied with hulks and nothing else in low/null sec and let players search for these system and I am sure the problem is solved pretty quickly....

And for clearly identified bots, rather than banning them, make their life miserable. Outlaw them, slow down their docking, disable their cloak, disrupt their lasers send them a few waves of BS rats with warp scramblers. And yes, add a bounty ;-) Banning them? Pff, they just roll another one.

Btw, just for sake of scale of the problem, what do CCP (and players) think the proportion of bots actually is on the economy? 1%, 10%, 80% ? I have no data, anyone?

Soldarius
Caldari
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
Posted - 2011.08.24 04:28:00 - [102]
 

CCP Pollux, I'm pleased with what I'm reading here, and in your blog. Keep up the good work.

Celine Cavin-Guang
Posted - 2011.08.25 10:28:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: CCP Pollux
Originally by: Dalilus
I have been reading for years in these forums about bots and players, corps and alliances that base their livelyhood on bots. Besides banning accounts that regularly use bots will you also be banning corps and alliances that encourage the use of bots?

We ban all those who break the rules, no matter if it's a player, a corporation or an alliance.



You rule! Very Happy

Marian Lula
Posted - 2011.08.25 23:47:00 - [104]
 

Interesting article however did I miss something about this BOT reporting.

Theoretically I can report anyone…I don’t like that player and BAM reported.

Could CCP explain how they would monitor and control this? If a player is reported as a BOT and a 14 ban is added however the player was not using a BOT. What can the player do? If one writes to a GM, nothing happens with proven record.

Marka Jita
Posted - 2011.08.27 07:11:00 - [105]
 

Soooooo, absolutely every ice-miner in hi-sec is a bot because of their monotonous behaviour. (Miners are huge of time locked on one ice and orbiting and haulers are always travel in a direction of one station, ....)

Ok, i can start reporting everyone from today who is watching TV and mining simultaneously ....

JESUS OMG...

Rolling Eyes

sYnc Vir
Caldari
Wolfsbrigade
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:04:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: sYnc Vir on 30/08/2011 15:04:03
So being a miner I've seen the odd high sec botter, or at lease those I thought were bots. So I reported them, heard nothing about it but Haven't seen either of the two people since.

So either job done, or they moved system.

However I personal think it would be alot easier if CCP would just removed Hulks from fitting Active reppers. To solo mine in high sec in a hulk you dont need a shield booster. Null Sec Im told you cant tank rats at all without the capital reps from a rorqual, which means buffer high resist anyway.

So while it wouldn't stop bots mining it would make it harder, and lower the number of AFK guys as well. Not to mention increase every hulks ehp so 3 thashers dont alpha them. 200m Isk ship 6000 ehp Rolling Eyes Add damage control and shield buffer 24000 ehp Shocked.

Might not be the best idea in the world and if it gets anywhere could you see fit to give the hulk like 20 more powergrid. I dream of Mid Extender.

Pacing Triers
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:28:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: CCP Pollux
Originally by: Dalilus
I have been reading for years in these forums about bots and players, corps and alliances that base their livelyhood on bots. Besides banning accounts that regularly use bots will you also be banning corps and alliances that encourage the use of bots?

We ban all those who break the rules, no matter if it's a player, a corporation or an alliance.



Are you going to provide a figure on the number of corporations/alliances banned for systematic botting? If the figure is zero could you then describe the criteria on which a ban will be applied?

Sassums
Gallente
Posted - 2011.09.01 06:59:00 - [108]
 

I knew this feature would be a bad idea.

Sure enough my alternate character gets a "Ban"

Naturally CCP doesn't communicate for what reasons the suspension was given. Now I have to sit and wait for a response from them, not only do they normally take forever, I have to wait for a Senior GM which the little petition window says will take even longer.

So why this whole rig amoral because CCP screwed up?

I was playing the character yesterday just fine, mining in a WH, to come back today to find it banned. What is up with that?

CCP this is unacceptable.

Reiner SCT
Posted - 2011.09.01 12:26:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Cassina Lemour

I've noticed a decline in mining bots, but there are others, the most annoying type are the complex camping bots, which won't be making lots of repetitive actions, but equally unfair.



That's true - many 2/10 Creo-Corp complexes in high sec are occupied by bots or semi-bots, especially in Metropolis Region.

Sassums
Gallente
Posted - 2011.09.01 17:31:00 - [110]
 

What about the players that play semi-afk.

Such as those of us who set up a mining operation, and then watch a movie - only paying enough attention to move the mined materials to an Orca or jetcan them for another ship to pick up

Arndt Eistert
Posted - 2011.09.09 13:40:00 - [111]
 

So...the witch hunt has begun. I have the feeling that we're back in The Middle Ages again...
Quote:
We strongly recommend against using the Report Bot Feature with any other intent than the one it has been designed for. Abuse of this feature will have consequences.

^^^ I hope it does ! Otherwise... God help us !


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

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