Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 09:31:00 -
[1951]
Edited by: Othran on 27/03/2011 09:31:59
Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae can someone say to me what was said on fanfest about botting? in short bullets...
i am finding on many places some hints... but its all unclear...
What I got from it :
1) Background bot monitoring/detection software is in place - a load of people (1000 or so) who used RoidReaver got banned;
2) Current GM "decisions" on macroing s/w are now basically null and void. The security team will make the calls now, not random GMs. The ToS and EULA will be the final arbiter of decisions - where there's a conflict then ToS/EULA wins;
3) No mass banning, slow burn as evidence is accumulated;
4) Report Bot menu option as petitions weren't working effectively;
5) Three strikes and you're out - unspecified ban for first offence, 30 days for second, permaban on third offence.
I suspect that none of the ratting bots have been hit yet. There's one system "out east" which I've been watching for 3 months now - I know who the bots are, I know the typical ratting figures per day and theres no change visible yet. Likewise there's another system in Stain that I've been watching for months - I'm hoping to see a change in ratting figures fairly soon, certainly before 20 April when I have to decide whether to resub or not. We'll see.
|
Sullen Skoung
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:03:00 -
[1952]
Originally by: Othran
1) Background bot monitoring/detection software is in place - a load of people (1000 or so) who used RoidReaver got banned;
source for numbers?
Quote:
2) Current GM "decisions" on macroing s/w are now basically null and void. The security team will make the calls now, not random GMs. The ToS and EULA will be the final arbiter of decisions - where there's a conflict then ToS/EULA wins;
so theyre doing what they should have been doing all along then? Enforcing the ToS/EULA? Hope that works better than it ever has in the past
Quote:
3) No mass banning, slow burn as evidence is accumulated;
1000 IS mass, hence why I asked about your numbers above
|
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:07:00 -
[1953]
Sreegs said several hundred in the presentation and then at another point mentioned RoidReaver and 1000. Can't remember whether it was in response to a question on forums or live.
Anyway 1000 accounts out of 360,000 is hardly a "mass banning". Its 0.28% of the active accounts
|
Everard Headbutt
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:16:00 -
[1954]
Originally by: Othran
What I got from it :
1) Background bot monitoring/detection software is in place - a load of people (1000 or so) who used RoidReaver got banned;
2) Current GM "decisions" on macroing s/w are now basically null and void. The security team will make the calls now, not random GMs. The ToS and EULA will be the final arbiter of decisions - where there's a conflict then ToS/EULA wins;
3) No mass banning, slow burn as evidence is accumulated;
4) Report Bot menu option as petitions weren't working effectively;
5) Three strikes and you're out - unspecified ban for first offence, 30 days for second, permaban on third offence.
I suspect that none of the ratting bots have been hit yet. There's one system "out east" which I've been watching for 3 months now - I know who the bots are, I know the typical ratting figures per day and theres no change visible yet. Likewise there's another system in Stain that I've been watching for months - I'm hoping to see a change in ratting figures fairly soon, certainly before 20 April when I have to decide whether to resub or not. We'll see.
Didn't see the whole presentation (still waiting for it to be upped to youtube) but didn't sreegs say he wanted the eula to be the final word, but it depended on people higher up in the chain who still hadn't made a decision?
|
Florestan Bronstein
Amarr Taishi Combine
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:17:00 -
[1955]
Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 27/03/2011 10:17:38
Originally by: Othran Sreegs said several hundred in the presentation and then at another point mentioned RoidReaver and 1000. Can't remember whether it was in response to a question on forums or live.
there are some complaints on the (public) forums of a popular mining bot with a name that is similar to RoidReaver but the whole thread is only about 30 posts with about 5-10 people complaining about having some of their accounts banned.
Interestingly enough the bot author announces that he has "been given a general sense of the detection routines currently used" by his "source".
(never heard of a bot called "RoidReaver" so either it's some obscure mining bot or CCP just uses it as a generic name so as not to advertise specific bots)
|
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:24:00 -
[1956]
Originally by: Everard Headbutt Didn't see the whole presentation (still waiting for it to be upped to youtube) but didn't sreegs say he wanted the eula to be the final word, but it depended on people higher up in the chain who still hadn't made a decision?
Yes but I think the intent here is that if the EULA/ToS doesn't allow some s/w which common sense says it should then the EULA/ToS needs to be rewritten so it explicitly DOES allow that s/w. Having GMs (even senior ones) effectively undermining a legal agreement shouldn't be happening at all.
The message was very much "this is the security teams' area now" - or at least that's what I got from it.
|
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:26:00 -
[1957]
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein (never heard of a bot called "RoidReaver" so either it's some obscure mining bot or CCP just uses it as a generic name so as not to advertise specific bots)
Nor have I - he actually mentioned it in this thread, he may have called it a different name at the presentation, can't remember TBH.
|
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Amarr PORSCHE AG
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:32:00 -
[1958]
Originally by: Othran Edited by: Othran on 27/03/2011 09:31:59
Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae can someone say to me what was said on fanfest about botting? in short bullets...
i am finding on many places some hints... but its all unclear...
What I got from it :
1) Background bot monitoring/detection software is in place - a load of people (1000 or so) who used RoidReaver got banned;
2) Current GM "decisions" on macroing s/w are now basically null and void. The security team will make the calls now, not random GMs. The ToS and EULA will be the final arbiter of decisions - where there's a conflict then ToS/EULA wins;
3) No mass banning, slow burn as evidence is accumulated;
4) Report Bot menu option as petitions weren't working effectively;
5) Three strikes and you're out - unspecified ban for first offence, 30 days for second, permaban on third offence.
I suspect that none of the ratting bots have been hit yet. There's one system "out east" which I've been watching for 3 months now - I know who the bots are, I know the typical ratting figures per day and theres no change visible yet. Likewise there's another system in Stain that I've been watching for months - I'm hoping to see a change in ratting figures fairly soon, certainly before 20 April when I have to decide whether to resub or not. We'll see.
THNX a lot...
now I "JUST" want to see results...
_______________________________________________
"Everybody's at war with different things... I'm at war with my own heart sometimes" (by 2Pac) |
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:18:00 -
[1959]
Other notes from the presentation:
The 3 strikes are a short ban, a 30 day ban, a perma-ban. If this system is not reducing the use of bots, it will be adjusted.
Users of various bot types will wake up one day wake up to bans. Watch their forums for rage.
Sreegs feels isk gained from botting should be removed from the game, just like RMT isk. But did not say if that would happen.
Anti-bot software will be added to the client. It will concern itself with just the security of client, not with whatever else is running on you computer.
My comment about CCP decompiling bot programs came from Sreegs DEV blog on phishing, not the presentation at fanfest.
|
Sullen Skoung
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:31:00 -
[1960]
Wonder how long the "slow burn" will take to have an effect, and wether the bots will replicate faster than the burn...
|
|
Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Horizon Corp.
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:55:00 -
[1961]
Let's see how many of the "devil's advocate" wannabe posters have disappeared. |
Sullen Skoung
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:15:00 -
[1962]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Let's see how many of the "devil's advocate" wannabe posters have disappeared.
Yeah, its sad how many people can be appeased with honeyed words
|
Paul Mustaka Hekard
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 23:52:00 -
[1963]
Edited by: Paul Mustaka Hekard on 28/03/2011 00:05:14 Reported a macro hauler and got an odd response from the "Polaris System" stating that it had been timed out due to lack of response from character. Anyone have any idea what this is; are they waiting for a response from the macro? I certainly did not receive any correspondence to respond to...just curious if anyone has seen this before or if it is part of a newer system dealing with macro petitions.
|
Xylengra
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 00:03:00 -
[1964]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Let's see how many of the "devil's advocate" wannabe posters have disappeared.
Don't know if you include me in that label, but I haven't disappeared by any means.
I'm just waiting for the cognitive dissonance to start with those that just automatically accept that anyone banned is therefore guilty, as if these claimed changes and these claimed bans actually reduce the problem.
Taking the '1000' accounts banned figure at its face, unless that number was at least 60% nullsec macro ratters, then all CCP has done is hurt highsec miners who might amass 15 million per hour, as opposed to 8-10 million per hour, which will not affect the game in any meaningful way. Yes, yes, we all need to wait and see, or as an ex-wife used to say, 'hide and watch', but anyone who thinks that macro miners are the root of the problem are sorely mistaken.
|
Minarete
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 01:04:00 -
[1965]
I am going to be very very interested to see how this all pans out against the economy etc.
I am one of the maniac fools that mines too much, and I cant see other "Miners" picking up the slack of mineral stock pile depletion even if the price doubles or triples, it is just too *F*ing boring, and I do it while I am working at home.
My main purpose for mining, is to supply for my own T2 Production, which does not require a whole lot of T1 minerals. I do not sell that much, and actually buy more than I mine myself.
I do mine about 4-6 times more Ice than my own PoS requires, and sell the excess, only again, because it is easy, but also boring as *F*, the price of that doubling, would not in anyway make me rich.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 03:16:00 -
[1966]
Originally by: Minarete I am going to be very very interested to see how this all pans out against the economy etc.
I am one of the maniac fools that mines too much, and I cant see other "Miners" picking up the slack of mineral stock pile depletion even if the price doubles or triples, it is just too *F*ing boring, and I do it while I am working at home.
My main purpose for mining, is to supply for my own T2 Production, which does not require a whole lot of T1 minerals. I do not sell that much, and actually buy more than I mine myself.
I do mine about 4-6 times more Ice than my own PoS requires, and sell the excess, only again, because it is easy, but also boring as *F*, the price of that doubling, would not in anyway make me rich.
EVE's economy is built on the assumption that botting would be permitted (as it has implicitly been in the past). I think because of that fact, EVE's economy is going to need some serious reconstruction. Regardless, botting and using botting as a crutch for the economy, when it is explicitly against the EULA, is absolutely unacceptable.
I would rather see a lottery where players are randomly given resources than see the continued implicit approval/crutch of botting. At least that would even the playing field for those who adhere to the EULA. That's a horrible idea, I know, but it illustrates how much I would like to see bots disappear from EVE.
To reduce shock, iteratively: 1) Burn away a significant portion of bots. 2) Damage control on EVE economy.
|
Consortium Agent
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:55:00 -
[1967]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Let's see how many of the "devil's advocate" wannabe posters have disappeared.
Just waiting for the release of the session to YouTube. No sense discussing it further until everyone who missed fanfest or the live stream has a chance to see it and make their own judgements... but thus far my position on bots and the problem has not changed. They're still a problem until words == results.
|
coolzero
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:04:00 -
[1968]
Edited by: coolzero on 28/03/2011 12:04:17 policy pict fanfest Jack of all trades, master of none...
|
Consortium Agent
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:05:00 -
[1969]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
EVE's economy is built on the assumption that botting would be permitted (as it has implicitly been in the past). I think because of that fact, EVE's economy is going to need some serious reconstruction.
Actually, it's not. I can double the prices in any area except perhaps Jita on any item, period. Anyone can who knows how predictable (and lazy) people are. I can also tank the prices on any item in any area, including Jita, period. Eve's economy is built on supply and demand - and manipulation of supply and demand and price. Losing bots would only allow the real players to make more ISK than they are capable of making now because of the excess supply of resources. Furthermore, ISK would itself become more valuable and, therefore, more conserved. As it is now, bots make ISK supply so easy those who use them spend like there's no tomorrow and do drive an economy that is less valuable today than it was years ago. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the eve economy would only prosper with the reduction and eventual elimination of as many bots as possible. Everything, including ISK, simply becomes more valuable than it is now. Supply and demand return to normal levels and the real players absorb the changes and move on. We do it every time they make a change to Eve and add or remove items from the markets or give us new resources to exploit (Tech II, Tech III, PI - to name only the most recent changes that 'affected' the eve economy).
|
Chesty McJubblies
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:32:00 -
[1970]
Amusing quote from the bot site Kappas quoted from above...
Quote: I hate to say it, but we could be in trouble here... just lost 5 of my 14 accounts today alone. and ITS A SUNDAY! good thing they only gave me a 3 day ban.
Edit: well, now I know they are watching me, just lost another a few seconds after i did the original post. I think pretending to pvp in them will get the rest of the bots safe... bot with -1.9 sec status... lol..
|
|
Hairy Beta
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:34:00 -
[1971]
Edited by: Hairy Beta on 28/03/2011 12:34:06 lol, roidreaver seems to be okay.
http://www.publicdemands.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?6928-So..-how-many-of-you-have-been-banned-in-this-mini-wave
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:38:00 -
[1972]
So you can pretty much bot all you want since you only get a few days ban max the first time anyway? Followed by a 30 days ban of what i assuem is only the account you bot on?
|
Chesty McJubblies
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:17:00 -
[1973]
Originally by: Furb Killer So you can pretty much bot all you want since you only get a few days ban max the first time anyway? Followed by a 30 days ban of what i assuem is only the account you bot on?
Yes, you're basically safe to bot as much as you want until you get the 2nd ban. As to whether or not all your accounts get banned, that's another thing altogether. They don't want to do too much banning, they just want to appease the anti-botters for a few months. In the bot forums, one guy posted a highly plausible scenario about that, it made interesting reading.
|
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:53:00 -
[1974]
Edited by: Othran on 28/03/2011 13:53:37
Originally by: Hairy Beta Edited by: Hairy Beta on 28/03/2011 12:55:56
roidreaver seems to be okay.
http://www.publicdemands.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?6928-So..-how-many-of-you-have-been-banned-in-this-mini-wave
Lovely its a .co.uk and its being used for commercial purposes so we can get the whois populated correctly - and if its false registrant info we can get the domain removed from the registrant too. Nice and easy too, not like .com domains where the vast majority have incorrect registrant info and nobody will do anything about it.
You'd imagine CCP might have a clue about things like this.......
Edit - Nominet case number assigned and in progress.
|
Rykuss
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:06:00 -
[1975]
The slap on the wrist approach they are still taking with this is ridiculous. It's done jack diddly squat to deter anyone from botting as I see all of the local bot corps are going just as strong as ever. Hell, they've even added a few.
|
Puchat Aivoras
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:46:00 -
[1976]
Edited by: Puchat Aivoras on 28/03/2011 14:50:03
Originally by: Othran Edited by: Othran on 28/03/2011 13:53:37
Originally by: Hairy Beta Edited by: Hairy Beta on 28/03/2011 12:55:56
roidreaver seems to be okay.
http://www.publicdemands.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?6928-So..-how-many-of-you-have-been-banned-in-this-mini-wave
Lovely its a .co.uk and its being used for commercial purposes so we can get the whois populated correctly - and if its false registrant info we can get the domain removed from the registrant too. Nice and easy too, not like .com domains where the vast majority have incorrect registrant info and nobody will do anything about it.
You'd imagine CCP might have a clue about things like this.......
Edit - Nominet case number assigned and in progress.
And that accomplishes what? you know his/her name and company? If this person is THAT deep into botting not only is their real name not on a single one of their accounts, but they are probably running them all through a VPN service to give them multiple IPS so ccp wont be able to do jack with the info.
What we need to do is make a statement that they are not welcome in our game. this one here is one of the bot authors http://www.publicdemands.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?6923-PLEX-for-Japan It is the same one that bragged he had 12 bots going 23/7 and didn't get touched with the ban wave. he claims his program does 120mil a day per bot on their forums. By his post that means he donated 43,200,000,000 in isk or about 115 plex at 375 mil each. Now something like that has to be easy to track that isk should be removed from the donation pool, back tracked to him and all his accounts banned!
This would say that we are in no way OK with bot isk, no matter what it is used for. It would also remove most if not all of the programers accounts forcing him to start from scratch or at best delay his code release till the ban was over and force him to acquire all new accounts.
|
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Amarr PORSCHE AG
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:49:00 -
[1977]
Originally by: Vincent Athena Edited by: Vincent Athena on 27/03/2011 14:30:04 Other notes from the presentation:
The 3 strikes are a short ban, a 30 day ban, a perma-ban. If this system is not reducing the use of bots, it will be adjusted.
Users of various bot types will one day wake up to bans. Watch their forums for rage.
Sreegs feels isk gained from botting should be removed from the game, just like RMT isk. But did not say if that would happen.
Anti-bot software will be added to the client. It will concern itself with just the security of the client, not with whatever else is running on you computer.
My comment about CCP decompiling bot programs came from Sreegs DEV blog on phishing, not the presentation at fanfest.
Edit: typos
ok... it's progress... BUT... 2 small bans before real ban??? so... we all can bot untill we get 2 bans... and then we sell that chars... buy new one, put it on new acc and again... :/ thats not a progress... :(
and about the rest... i see realy small success... :( i hope thats just begining...
_______________________________________________
"Everybody's at war with different things... I'm at war with my own heart sometimes" (by 2Pac) |
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:59:00 -
[1978]
Edited by: Othran on 28/03/2011 15:01:43 It accomplishes something in that you find out who the owner of the .uk domain is - or who he purports to be.
.uk domain names have fairly strict rules - part of which is that if you run a commercial site you must provide accurate contact info, this overlaps into Distance Selling Regulations (UK consumer law) as well.
In the case of that particular domain, well its got a nameserver in RIPE IP space ostensibly allocated to a US LLC company that doesn't seem to exist. Same nameserver for a mining bot which has two .com addresses. Not even going to bother looking at the whois for the .coms as it'll be garbage and it'll be a USA registrar.
So in this instance (if I'm right) we can get the .co.uk pulled either because the registrant info is wrong or the registrant does not do any business within the UK (which he doesn't). Now at that point we can get RIPE involved via Nominet and get the IP allocation pulled.
All of that can be done EASILY. Its not the usual whack-a-mole crap you have with .com and US registrars who don't even attempt to validate registrant info.
Anyway if it annoys the domain holder then I like it.
Its not rocket science.
Edit - oh and a .co.uk domain attracts significantly less in the way of merchant fee "premiums" than a .com so you push costs up. If not you **** the bot vendor off and that's good....
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:27:00 -
[1979]
Originally by: Othran In the case of that particular domain, well its got a nameserver in RIPE IP space ostensibly allocated to a US LLC company that doesn't seem to exist. Same nameserver for a mining bot which has two .com addresses.
ns1.publicdemands.co.uk (178.79.137.18) is the same ip running the forum, the server is probably hosted by linode.com, who the ip also is assigned to. The servers running the forum, are located somewhere in england most likely close to london where linode.com also have facilities and hardware.
Can't really see what the problem should be, looks perfectly legit to me.
|
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:42:00 -
[1980]
Originally by: dexington
Originally by: Othran In the case of that particular domain, well its got a nameserver in RIPE IP space ostensibly allocated to a US LLC company that doesn't seem to exist. Same nameserver for a mining bot which has two .com addresses.
ns1.publicdemands.co.uk (178.79.137.18) is the same ip running the forum, the server is probably hosted by linode.com, who the ip also is assigned to. The servers running the forum, are located somewhere in england most likely close to london where linode.com also have facilities and hardware.
Can't really see what the problem should be, looks perfectly legit to me.
It would to you. Now **** off.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |