Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sir Elliot
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:07:00 -
[1]
Mitnal,
Can you please clarify for us what may and may not be discussed in market discussion in relation to the botting problems?
Is discussing the economic impact of bots permitted or not?
Is discussing ways to defeat bots (which are a very active form of competitor) permitted or not? We are clearly permitted to discuss non-bot competition and how to defeat it.
Market Discussion is usually a very wide-ranging and free wheeling forum. Eve has a 3 trillion ISK/Day economy, and that covers a lot of activity. Please, let us know clearly what topics are not permitted in such a broad catagory.
|
Ebolak
Vengeance Asset Relocation Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:10:00 -
[2]
Im sure you can say anything you want, as long as you dont discuss any ingame items that have the word lock in it.
|
Solisk
Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:20:00 -
[3]
I'm going to hazard a guess. Another thread lock and Generic Moderator Response #326?
|
Lui Kai
Logistics Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:24:00 -
[4]
In the previous thread, which was one of the better discussion threads on this topic yet, we were advised to petition if we wanted to "discuss the matter."
I've chosen to take this as an open invitation to discuss this problem with the GM team, and have submitted the following petition. I recomend those who, like me, want to discuss this topic submit this petition as well - as we are apparently not allowed to discuss it on the forums with our peers, and were directed to petition for an equally engaging and productive discussion with CCP by a CCP representative.
Petition follows:
In referance to: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1065890
CCP Mitnal directed to file a petition if we wished to continue discussing the topic of market bots in eve. Thus, I am filing that petition.
As it is apparently against forum rules to post ways of defeating these bots and scripts, I would like to know if CCP has any intention of combating this growing problem.
If so, could they please publicly confirm this effort. While I understand that speaking on specifics is unwise - a simple acknowledgment of the problem would be appreciated by the community.
If they do not intend to combat it, are they currently aware of the problem? Do they feel it is a problem at all? Are they unconcerned, as long as those using bots are paying subscribers?
I apologize for clogging the petition system with such an extemporaneous and question-laden petition, but as Mitnal directed me to do so, and as these questions are apparently illegal to discuss with the community, I saw no other outlet for this issue.
Thank you for your time.
---------------- Ambulation Answers
|
Frenden Dax
Dax Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:25:00 -
[5]
Prediction: that post above will be wiped by a mod for "talking about GM communications" or whatever.
|
Bocryn
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:27:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Bocryn on 06/05/2009 03:27:20 Prediction:
People will use this link to find the original contents of the message...
http://eve-search.com/thread/1065931
|
Solisk
Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Frenden Dax Prediction: that post above will be wiped by a mod for "talking about GM communications" or whatever.
Yup. Basically what CCP is telling us is that they will not allow any public discussion on this issue at all, at any time.
The logical conclusion? CCP is a bunch of commies.
|
Frenden Dax
Dax Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:29:00 -
[8]
That's ok though, we're the people, the populace, the users of EVE. Communism is about the people's rights and wishes, right?
Right?
*crickets*
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:33:00 -
[9]
Well.. I would suggest give the thing a name (how about Jon Doe?) and let the Mods guess if you're talking about defeating a player or not. They obviously don't want discussions about bot-defeating-methods and moderation. Work around that.. if any group of players should be able to do it, then the ones from MD
Forge '07 on Sale
|
Dzil
Caldari Second Quadrant Ice Division
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:43:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Tres Farmer Well.. I would suggest give the thing a name (how about Jon Doe?) and let the Mods guess if you're talking about defeating a player or not. They obviously don't want discussions about bot-defeating-methods and moderation. Work around that.. if any group of players should be able to do it, then the ones from MD
This idea is win. Henceforth, I support the notion that we refer to potential market bots as John Doe.
|
|
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:47:00 -
[11]
Good suggestion Lui Kai. I've already filed a less politely worded petition. Personally, I view CCP's continued attitude towards botters (they don't care, and don't want you to care) to be as damaging to their reputation as the moon mineral exploit. CCP needs to step up and provide some genuine communication about this. Censorship is never the answer.
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari Flux Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:53:00 -
[12]
Anyone wanna have a bet going on whether or not Sir Elliot is going to get a 2 week ban?
Blueprint Store |
Sir Elliot
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:56:00 -
[13]
What for?
I've requested legitimate clarification on posting guidelines for the community, because several individuals are clearly interested in discussing this topic in a mature, adult way.
Surely asking what the rules are isn't, itself, a violation of the rules?
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 03:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Brock Nelson Anyone wanna have a bet going on whether or not Sir Elliot is going to get a 2 week ban?
Hm.. 50M on he won't be banned.
Btw.. this John Doe.. where is he active the most.. just Jita or also other Hubs?
Forge '07 on Sale
|
Lui Kai
Logistics Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 04:03:00 -
[15]
He tends to operate in Forge, but outside of Jita itself - thus why running a locator agent helps in offering to trade him his reward. ---------------- Ambulation Answers
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 04:36:00 -
[16]
Rule 13 of the Forum rules
Do not post about bugs and exploits.
Bugs and exploits should be reported through the proper method by filing a report for our Quality Assurance department. You can find the form here. Issues discovered while playing on the Chaos test server should be noted in the Patch Review channel. Discussions about unverified problems in the game can cause unnecessary panic in the community. When there is an issue the community needs to be aware of, we will make an official statement about it.
I advise any player that observes EULA-breaking activity, especially if you have evidence, to file a petition under rules and policies, exploits.
Please note it is standard policy to lock all threads discussing exploits, bots are considered exploits and hence threads directly referencing them risk being locked.
To clarify some points made above, we do not remove posts where the petitionee spells out his petition, only where GM correspondence is included.
Why would Sir Elliot get a two week ban? We would prefer it if issues about the forums are raised via petition in categories Other Issues-Forums but asking a question would not lead to a ban.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Sir Elliot
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 04:45:00 -
[17]
Thank you for taking the time to respond clearly and concisely Mitnal, it is appreciated.
We will work to find a middle ground, as discussed in previous thread.
|
arjun
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 05:41:00 -
[18]
its the fecking job of ccp to ensure the eula is valid for all players. ccp earns from bot accounts so the only hope is to spread the message of this product going slowly down the drain to keep players from joining. ccp needs to feel PAIN for alowing macros in their game. bots are everywhere except in pvp and specialised production. real players hard works value is diminished drasttically because they can not really compete with bots in any economical way. make more noise also/especially in outside media about this problem or nothing will ever change. ccp hopes the topicwill die down again so that they can continue to earn that dirty money from bots/isk sellers.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 06:06:00 -
[19]
I would see the logic in regards to actual game mechanics. The bots and macroing however is not really a mechanic exploit, its a blatant breaking of the rules.
I think its a problem if any discussing the impact and problems about this is shut down.
This way the talk goes elsewhere and becomes a lot of rumours and pseudo myths. Since the extend of the problem cant be directly known by the playerbase, letting them discuss its possible ramifications and its suggested solutions might actually be useful.
If the threads goes in paranoid propaganda directions inciting hysteria I might see the point of closing it..
I thin the "dont tell" policy is actually making the myth and rumours stronger..
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Crimsona Endarius
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 07:51:00 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Mitnal When there is an issue the community needs to be aware of, we will make an official statement about it.
Has there ever been an official statement on non-player-grinders? Does this mean they are not considered an issue? Is everything working as intended?
Seriously, at least other multiplayer hosts strive to remove exploiters, yes, even those who shall not be named.
You see a message every now and then "over 800 exploiters were removed in last month".
Report a bot exploit in EVE? "We'll look in to it".
|
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 12:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Crimsona Endarius
Originally by: CCP Mitnal When there is an issue the community needs to be aware of, we will make an official statement about it.
Has there ever been an official statement on non-player-grinders? Does this mean they are not considered an issue? Is everything working as intended?
Seriously, at least other multiplayer hosts strive to remove exploiters, yes, even those who shall not be named.
You see a message every now and then "over 800 exploiters were removed in last month".
Report a bot exploit in EVE? "We'll look in to it".
You have to appreciate that exploits are pretty easy to detect... well easy to detect who is using them anyway once you know how to reproduce the exploit.
Bot programs are a bit more sinister, and lately here have gotten incredibly complex with their ability to complete tasks in the game. As such they are quite a bit more difficult to detect as well.
There are also issues where a person might be actually still behind that screen, but doing other things.
...like farming WoW at the same time |
Robot Robot
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 14:50:00 -
[22]
well, as someone who was reading that other thread with interest, it seems likely to me that the specific reason that other thread got locked was because a couple of threads veered dangerously close to "even if market bots don't exist yet, here is exactly what a clever programmer would have to do to create one."
regardless, it seems that the general consensus is that (whether market bots exist or not) there also can and likely do exist actual obsessive players who behave exactly as we expect these bots to behave. and certainly discussing how to best them is not verboten.
|
Dzil
Caldari Second Quadrant Ice Division
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 14:59:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Robot Robot well, as someone who was reading that other thread with interest, it seems likely to me that the specific reason that other thread got locked was because a couple of threads veered dangerously close to "even if market bots don't exist yet, here is exactly what a clever programmer would have to do to create one."
regardless, it seems that the general consensus is that (whether market bots exist or not) there also can and likely do exist actual obsessive players who behave exactly as we expect these bots to behave. and certainly discussing how to best them is not verboten.
Well, the interesting point at the beginning of the prematurely terminated discussion of the man formerly known as John Doe was that opening a trade with him seemed to disrupt his activities for hours. Now, I agree there are some really obsessive EVE players, but I would assume they would wake up between slurps of Jolt and close the trade window, rather than keel over from disfunction at the slightest change to their environment.
Yet still, this needs to be confirmed, no offense to Sir Elliot, by a few more people, preferably those denying the existence of John Doe. After that, the story gets interesting. There are cults of players convinced that John Doe is the worst thing that every happened to the game, but they currently don't have much influence as they can't really prove he exists. Give them that proof, and I think you'll have whole corporations dedicated to hunting down and eliminating this elusive figure.
|
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 22:02:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Dzil
Yet still, this needs to be confirmed, no offense to Sir Elliot, by a few more people, preferably those denying the existence of John Doe.
You might want to check out Chribba's thread in General Discussion. One of the most respected players in the game provided verifiable, well-documented evidence... and seven pages later, still hasn't received a lock or blue post. His John Doe isn't exactly the same as the market John Doe we've been trying to discuss, but it's darn close.
|
Zezzix
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 20:51:00 -
[25]
I have to say, as a relative noob, the prohibition of speech on this topic seems silly.
Since there is now a "workaround" for the conversation, it's also pointless to prohibit these discussions. From now on you're going to be trying to hit a moving target as the term of reference changes. You might want to read this story about circumventing Chinese censors.
More to the point, for noobs like me these discussions are an incredibly valuable lesson in what to look for (so that i can present the evidence you demand) and how to effectively play with cheaters. I've seen posts here and there with a couple of simple solutions to handle John and Jane Doe (Jane is his miner wife). Something as simple as a periodic popup that asks u a question that John and Jane Doe cant answer would be a good first step. But I'm not holding my breath. |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 23:34:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Tesal on 08/05/2009 23:39:49
Originally by: arjun ...bots are everywhere except in pvp and specialised production...
How do you know that? Why are those areas immune to botting?
I agree with the proposition that the EULA and TOS are selectively enforced by CCP.
I also agree with the proposition that bots are a game breaking problem *if they exist*.
I disagree with the idea that you can separate the economy from pvp. The economy is used to fund pvp, and pvp provides the space and resources for the economy. It is a closed loop. If you somehow are able to break that loop at will you gain nearly unlimited power. You can burn through cap ships like other people use cruisers. Your only limit is how many ships you can bring to a fight. And if you have found ways to break other limits, you can break that one too eventually.
|
Chaos Dreams
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 02:08:00 -
[27]
I don't think the prohibition is necessarily a case of CCP sticking its head in the sand.
Instead, look at it like this: Say hypothetically someone out there is running a market bot. Some enterprising player figures out a way to make said program fail, they then rush to the forums to spread the good news. Problem is that there's nothing to stop the hypothetical bot's creator from also reading the forums. So really all you're doing is helping debug and stress-test the bot.
So if you come here and go "Do X and the bots fail!" all the programers know future versions need to include those circumstances.
That's really the kind of thing CCP doesn't want anyone talking about. I haven't seen any restrictions against discussing their speculative existence. They just don't want discussions that could ultimately lead to better and harder to detect versions.
|
Agiosgeogios
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 10:04:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Tesal Edited by: Tesal on 08/05/2009 23:39:49
Originally by: arjun ...bots are everywhere except in pvp and specialised production...
How do you know that? Why are those areas immune to botting?
Specialised production you can easily chop up into parts and make a bot for that i think but on the pvp matter all you can do is make a bot that copies what one char does e.g. target, shoot, warp. But the dynamic nature will make you lose allot of ships that way. Lets say u use 10 chars that follow the lead of 1 (via a bot if you call it that?), now they are bubbled and some are out and others are not, you warp and say 3 are in the bubble just or individually tackled b00m they die. If it would have been a indivdual playing he might have gotten out of that bubble just or mwd away from say a slow tackler but a bot would not. Just the first example that comes to mind.
I have succesfully seen people pilot up to 5 chars in pvp at once but tbh they are a bit krazy (hello enderhawkins :p).
A bot in pvp will be a turkey shoot.
|
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 10:54:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Agiosgeogios A bot in pvp will be a turkey shoot.
If someone was to create a bot that was capable of PvP of any value, they should hand the code over to CCP so they can improve their NPC AI.
But more seriously... As someone who has long disliked the shabby nature of PvE when compared to PvP and has broken down Sleeper mechanics such that they are not, to me, any more challenging than a tough traditional NPC, I would hope that one day CCP employs someone with the distributed computing and AI knowledge sufficient to introduce good AI into EVE NPCs without breaking the servers. As a person with a long history with both the software development disciplines I mention here along with experience of managing server load in distributed systems, I feel particularly frustrated by the state of the NPC 'intelligence' when I see so much untapped potential. Obviously I do appreciate what CCP have achieved, both with software and hardware, but that doesn't change the fact that I feel some areas show very little achievement or improvement over the many years that this fine game has been running with me as an enthusiastic player.
Sorry, went way off topic there...
|
Ami Nia
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.10 15:52:00 -
[30]
Originally by: CCP Mitnal Please note it is standard policy to lock all threads discussing exploits, bots are considered exploits and hence threads directly referencing them risk being locked.
I think this is were the problem is.
An exploit is when there's a way to use an unintended game mechanic. Technically it could be considered a "desing level" bug (contrast to normal "implementation level" bugs). Also, sometimes, a normal "implementation level" bug could open up the door for an exploit when the error results not in an unusable implementation but in an unwanted implementation (equivalent to an implementation of a different and design, so in fact the implementation bug behaves as if it was a design bug).
There's a very good reason not to discuss this sort of problems publicly. It's the same reason information system security problems should not be immediately publicized: fear could ensue in the players at large AND more people could become able to use the exploit.
It's common in most communities that this problems should be reported privately to the developers and that an ETA for action shall be immediately acknowledged by the developers themselves (silence on this is generally taken as to mean 2 months or less depending on gravity before the problem goes public regardless of developers actions).
Anyway, no matter what the policy is for exploits and bugs, the point here is that "bots are considered exploits". They should not. First of all the existence of bots is no secret as they have been around since years before EVE was developed. Second they have nothing to do with the eve design or implementation. They can be considered an EULA violation, but calling them an exploit is nonsense.
I urge CCP to have an internal review of this topic and reconsider the classification of bots considered at large. Macro mining/trading/missioning etc. has been discussed multiple times and did not always result in a lock. Plus it should NOT result in a lock.
I urge you to clarify and distinguish between talking about the non-secret existence of bots/macros and their actual effects (something that should be a valid topic for public discussion) and discussions on techniques to develop and install better bots/macros, especially discussions on how the peculiarities of the EvE implementation make it hard/easy to use specific technique to do botting/macroing (THIS is something that would cross the border and be very much like discussing bugs/exploits in the design or implementation of EvE).
Military experts call it a Templar, a fighter drone used by Amarr carriers. -- Sheriff Jones
apochribba -- Aurora Morgan
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |