Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 74 post(s) |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
1836
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
When we were young we all knew that in the future, "robots" and "computers" would do all our work for us while we pranced around in spandex overalls. Well, the future is here and apart from the spandex overalls and the prancing we were mostly right. But as it turns out...we are still required to do some things on our own. Like mining. And running missions.
CCP Sreegs just wrote a blog about what happens to those who don't do those things on their own.
Check out the blog right here and if you have any questions, Sreegs and gang will be here to address them. CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |
|
Karl Planck
136
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
FIRST \o/ If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1451
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
best. devblog pic. ever. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Developer | @katrinat |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
2727
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
ALMOST!
|
|
Cass Lie
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Typo: "don't to bad things"
And good job Sreegs/CCP. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
538
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
******* Sreegs |
|
Sirius Cassiopeiae
Perkone Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
4th :)
edit:
7th... :p |
Janos Saal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
My ***** is throbbing. EVE is dead |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
117
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban! |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1043
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:best. devblog pic. ever.
A great picture for a great devblog! CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
|
plan q
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
so im taking it soundwave is going to be trolled at fanfest :D dont worry just spread the news that it is CCP Sreegs birthday :D |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nice to see.
Keep up the good work
I like the character lock to accounts, too. That should provoke some tears. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Squizz Caphinator
Woopatang Happy Endings
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
Awesome, friggin awesome. http://evewho.com - Alliance and Corporation Member Listings http://evechatter.com - Free Alliance and Corporation forums for all. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
Yes! YES!
I can already taste the tears when "I'll just trade characters on the- wait- why can't I transfer?" occurs. Botter tears, best tears. <3 |
MissBolyai
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
Congratulations on your first useful action in your career with CCP (in game and out) |
Karl Planck
136
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban!
CCP Sreegs wrote:What I mean is that a fraction of people actually get a second warning and the amount of people in all time who have ever hit a third was something ridiculous like 3%.
Meaning 1st time perma banning is hurting the people who learned their lesson and still want to play =P If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Frogzuk
Genesis Nation Gentlemen's Agreement
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban!
I agree with this .. botting and rmt kills eve ... and i wager that a lot of players have left because of these things .. keep up the good work ccp |
Grarr Dexx
No.Mercy Merciless.
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
You say that the recidivism rate for the third strike is as low as 3%, but what percentage of the accounts related to one or two strikes actually remain subbed? These people are spoiled beyond the rules of Eve and the warning system probably forces them to quit altogether. |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:39:00 -
[19] - Quote
It's getting quite disturbing how no dev seems to respond to your posts on this point. They're *really* obvious... why are they not banned?
|
Daedra Blue
Atomic Biohazard
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban! That is a LOSE-LOSE scenario.
Because although illegal we still use the stuff they bot, and ccp still gets accounts payment. Turning them into legal players is a WIN-WIN. |
|
Sirius Cassiopeiae
Perkone Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:41:00 -
[21] - Quote
Quote:BUT WAIT, THERE IS EVEN MORE! From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. This is to prevent people trying to circumvent the rules by recycling accounts. Yes we know people pointed out this could happen last time around and if you'll remember we said "We'll keep an eye on it and if it becomes a problem we'll deal with it". Here is us dealing with it. We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. If you care about your dudes don't to bad things.
THNX A LOT
and,
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE MAKE THAT PERMANENT!!!!!
If you put it on timer botters will make a little more accs and when time pass out sell the old one that was locked and buy new one for reserve. And you will have that bad circle of recycling chars started again, only circles will be a little bigger (more chars in the same circle). You see that we were right last time and you didn't listen, listen us this time and keep locked chars permanently locked to that account. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Yeah, so now I want to hear Soundwave speaking in Japanese. Next video devblog please
Also keep up the good work on the bot front folks "Fools! I'll show them all!"
What do you mean that one's already taken? |
Mikelii
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:41:00 -
[23] - Quote
Darius Johnson for CEO. |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
261
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
SREEGS |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
510
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
The character transfer lock will have some interesting effects. Up to now the botters have tended to drive up the PLEX, first by having a pile of accounts that consume them, then via RMT. But they also consumed PLEX via character transfers. Now, all those ways of driving up the PLEX are gone. Will we see a PLEX price drop, or even crash? That depends on just how much of the PLEX market was bot driven, and how elastic it is. Interesting times ahead!
I was unaware of the pause in bot killing. That explains alot. Nice to see the system back in business. Keep up the good work Sreegs & Co!
P.S. can we get a higher resolution version of that picture? What is all that? I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES The Citadel of Asgard
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:45:00 -
[26] - Quote
Nice blog, epic pic
Making them sticky to an account is really good.
Still would be nice to some how SEE if someone was banned. Recruiters could use that info to interrogate oh I mean interview the applicant. |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:46:00 -
[27] - Quote
Actually read the devblog now - good news to read. Sreegs - could you share figures on how many of those 'large percentage' of botters who do not get a second warning, also do not continue their subscription? That is to say, are these people who are not getting a second warning really turning into good players, or are they simply making new accounts? |
Sarmatiko
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:48:00 -
[28] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Yeah, so now I want to hear Soundwave speaking in Japanese. Next video devblog please Yes, ask him to say "Anata no banana punyu-punyu dane" on camera |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:49:00 -
[29] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:You say that the recidivism rate for the third strike is as low as 3%, but what percentage of the accounts related to one or two strikes actually remain subbed? These people are spoiled beyond the rules of Eve and the warning system probably forces them to quit altogether.
We have that number as well and it's actually also very low. I'll have it all put together and prettied up for Fanfest but if you can find my presentation from EVE Vegas somewhere I'm pretty sure there's a slide in there that shows all these percentages. At least at the time.
It takes a few months to gather really good data on this so we're going off of old rates, but as someone else mentioned, the general idea is to change behavior and turn people into good law abiding citizens. |
|
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:49:00 -
[30] - Quote
OH ccp, what are you doing to make sure they don't just RMT away the accounts? (sell the account for real money) when they get locked... |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:52:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:The character transfer lock will have some interesting effects. Up to now the botters have tended to drive up the PLEX, first by having a pile of accounts that consume them, then via RMT. But they also consumed PLEX via character transfers. Now, all those ways of driving up the PLEX are gone. Will we see a PLEX price drop, or even crash? That depends on just how much of the PLEX market was bot driven, and how elastic it is. Interesting times ahead!
I was unaware of the pause in bot killing. That explains alot. Nice to see the system back in business. Keep up the good work Sreegs & Co!
P.S. can we get a higher resolution version of that picture? What is all that?
We have things in place to measure a lot of stuff. One thing we've noticed historically is that when we have the system running the CPU per user count on the server goes way down, which provides a quality of life improvement for everyone in EVE and helps with the lag monster. I'll come up with some nice interesting data in the next couple of weeks to share with everyone.
The stuff in the photo is from an area outside of the city where tremendous piles of fish are hung out to dry, similar to how the rotten shark or hakarl is treated after it's pulled out of the ground. I was on my way to walk around a really cool geothermal area and this was on the way and I couldn't resist. |
|
KFenn
Percussive Diplomacy PERCUSSIVE PIZZA TIME DIPLOMACY
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:52:00 -
[32] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:OH ccp, what are you doing to make sure they don't just RMT away the accounts? (sell the account for real money) when they get locked... In all honesty, what can they do? If they suspect the account has been involved in RMT they can close it, but it's really, really hard to detect that. Commanding Officer of the Treacle Tart Brigade SLAPD Director |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:54:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:OH ccp, what are you doing to make sure they don't just RMT away the accounts? (sell the account for real money) when they get locked...
RMT is a different problem that we're dealing with and we're not ready to have a discussion about that yet, but it's being worked on and there's a huge gap between "being worked on" meaning "we're doin' thangs" and "ready to tell players what we're doing". |
|
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Command Fleet Coordination Coalition
156
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:55:00 -
[34] - Quote
Good move CCP.
Your move botters. http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:55:00 -
[35] - Quote
Sreegsalicious
I too would like a little more data on the recidivism stats. I mean, only 3% go on to further warnings mean that only 3% are stupid enough to get CAUGHT botting again on the same accounts. How many of those with first warnings unsub? How many moved chars around (prior to this latest tweak)? In short, is it that they are actually no longer botting, or that they're hiding it better?
Also, if you really want to teach the lesson, nuke their wallet totals and assets with the first offense. Not entirely, just as much as you can reliably trace to automated activities. They're botting for isk, threaten the isk on the first strike and you alter the risk/benefit equation of botting at ALL by quite a bit. It might dissuade some people from botting in the first place. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
510
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:57:00 -
[36] - Quote
OK I got a question: "1000 to 2000 bans": Say one player has 5 accounts, 2 of which were botted, and you ban them. I know you an all 5 accounts, but how do you count that in your 1000 to 2000 total? Is that counted as
One ban because you issued a ban against one player, Two bans because you banned 2 botting accounts, Five bans because you banned all five accounts? I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Fictional Hero
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:57:00 -
[37] - Quote
That is a lot of words and you didnt say anything that hasnt been said before. I thought the purpose of the Dev Blogs was to tell us stuff, instead you say things like "charts will be at fanfest". It makes it seem that you did this as a fanfest publicity stunt, which you said wasnt.
tl;dr
Lock thread due to lack of content.
or
gas thread ban op.
|
Chiggy W
Hard-Luck Industries
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:59:00 -
[38] - Quote
Awesome work, and I'm extremely glad that you've prevented the mongs from transfering charaters. I want to pick up on one point tho
Quote: "Three strikes is too weak" - Here we disagree but there's a reason why. I've shown charts before and I'll have a set at Fanfest that shows that we're effective at changing behavior by using these bans (with a caveat). What I mean is that a fraction of people actually get a second warning and the amount of people in all time who have ever hit a third was something ridiculous like 3%. There's some new things though related to this that I'm going to be a good egg and share with you though in a separate paragraph.
Have you guys considered the fact that most accounts only get dinged once because they just start up a new account once they get caught? I mean you've got to be a real mouthbreather to continue botting on an account that has been dinged once, so I think the metric that 1 temp ban is enough may be slightly flawed. Ultimately I guess it doesn't matter because even if perma-banned, the hardcore botters/RMT'ers are just going to start another account anyway, but I am certainly interested to know if you guys have considered this point, and how many accounts have their chars sold then go inactive after the first warning.
Anyway, keep up the good fight, I love to see this scum removed from game, and please catch them as they inevitably come scurrying back like the cockroaches they are.
Great work guys! |
Reynald Tork
Order of three swords
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:59:00 -
[39] - Quote
"We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. "
Lock a character to account must be permanent, forever and ever! |
Ferria
MARS. Cascade Imminent
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
woohoo, and yes best pic ever. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:02:00 -
[41] - Quote
jonnykefka wrote:Sreegsalicious
I too would like a little more data on the recidivism stats. I mean, only 3% go on to further warnings mean that only 3% are stupid enough to get CAUGHT botting again on the same accounts. How many of those with first warnings unsub? How many moved chars around (prior to this latest tweak)? In short, is it that they are actually no longer botting, or that they're hiding it better?
Also, if you really want to teach the lesson, nuke their wallet totals and assets with the first offense. Not entirely, just as much as you can reliably trace to automated activities. They're botting for isk, threaten the isk on the first strike and you alter the risk/benefit equation of botting at ALL by quite a bit. It might dissuade some people from botting in the first place.
As I alluded to in the blog there's things in the works regarding reclaiming illegally gained assets but it's really not mature enough at this stage to comment on aside to reassure you that a discussion's being had and it's pretty much 100% likely that something will be done.
Whether they're no longer actually botting isn't something I can get into without getting specific about how the detections work. Suffice to say that from a purely analytical perspective, I'd be pretty happy as a player if all that was occurring was bad behavior being limited. That's NOT the entire scope, but it is the partial reason for the three strikes rule. Behavior has to change.
I have the unsub numbers but I want to work with current data. It's not high and I'll show it at fanfest which is just a couple of weeks away. I don't recall it off the top of my head. I am old, have a terrible memory and a fever atm.
:edit: I'll also note that those stats will now change as the data that I do have relates only to cases where characters could be transferred. I expect the number to go down. |
|
Aquila Draco
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
]Quote:BUT WAIT, THERE IS EVEN MORE! From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. This is to prevent people trying to circumvent the rules by recycling accounts. Yes we know people pointed out this could happen last time around and if you'll remember we said "We'll keep an eye on it and if it becomes a problem we'll deal with it". Here is us dealing with it. We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. If you care about your dudes don't to bad things.
It MUST stay forever. MUST Don't ruin what you have done with some timers that will undo impact of locking. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:04:00 -
[43] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:OK I got a question: "1000 to 2000 bans": Say one player has 5 accounts, 2 of which were botted, and you ban them. I know you an all 5 accounts, but how do you count that in your 1000 to 2000 total? Is that counted as
One ban because you issued a ban against one player, Two bans because you banned 2 botting accounts, Five bans because you banned all five accounts?
The number is based on accounts. When one account is banned and tagged for botting all of that player's accounts go with it. So if you only bot on 2 of your accounts but you have 5 all 5 are getting tagged and banned. |
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
628
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:04:00 -
[44] - Quote
Give some numbers, like nuber of bans per for each of those strikes ???!!! |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:05:00 -
[45] - Quote
Aquila Draco wrote:] Quote:BUT WAIT, THERE IS EVEN MORE! From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. This is to prevent people trying to circumvent the rules by recycling accounts. Yes we know people pointed out this could happen last time around and if you'll remember we said "We'll keep an eye on it and if it becomes a problem we'll deal with it". Here is us dealing with it. We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. If you care about your dudes don't to bad things. It MUST stay forever. MUST Don't ruin what you have done with some timers that will undo the lock.
There's no discussion about changing it at this time. I'm just leaving us an out because I like to talk like I'm in court and someone's going to read this back to me in the future. It happens sometimes on the Internet. |
|
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:06:00 -
[46] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban! That is a LOSE-LOSE scenario. Because although illegal we still use the stuff they bot, and ccp still gets accounts payment. Turning them into legal players is a WIN-WIN.
The saying goes - You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
My personal opinion is that obviously hardcore botters will continue to search out ways to do so regardless of how many strikes or temporary bans they get. I hold no hope for them being reformed and I fervently applaud CCP's additional steps to lock down both the account and all chars on them once discovered.
Now, at the same time I don't see people who bot in completely contrasted black or white. I'm sure that there are a lot of those who have the single dinky highsec mining alt-bot running while they're at work. Botting, sure, but not as egregious as the more invested botters who have any number of accounts concurrently engaged in botting 23/7 in high-ISK situations... these latter types are by far going to be the most unrepentant ones and deserve no additional chances simply because they wouldn't change, they'd just look for another way around the system.
/T
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:07:00 -
[47] - Quote
Fictional Hero wrote:That is a lot of words and you didnt say anything that hasnt been said before. I thought the purpose of the Dev Blogs was to tell us stuff, instead you say things like "charts will be at fanfest". It makes it seem that you did this as a fanfest publicity stunt, which you said wasnt.
tl;dr
Lock thread due to lack of content.
or
gas thread ban op.
There's plenty in the blog that hasn't been said before sir as there's some things being done that haven't before. The reason you need to wait for Fanfest for charts and such is any existing data would be old (You'd get that from reading the blog) and I'd like to show current data which takes time to actually exist. |
|
|
GM Grave
Game Masters C C P Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
<3 ESTF
The Love & Order GM Team-¬ have been thoroughly researching the Mayan calendar and writings of Nostradamus. Thus far we foresee that its going to be a bad year for the bad guys... GM Grave | Senior Game Master | Law & Order Group |
|
Elanor Vega
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:09:00 -
[49] - Quote
Sirius Cassiopeiae wrote:Quote:BUT WAIT, THERE IS EVEN MORE! From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. This is to prevent people trying to circumvent the rules by recycling accounts. Yes we know people pointed out this could happen last time around and if you'll remember we said "We'll keep an eye on it and if it becomes a problem we'll deal with it". Here is us dealing with it. We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. If you care about your dudes don't to bad things. THNX A LOT and, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE MAKE THAT PERMANENT!!!!! If you put it on timer botters will make a little more accs and when time pass out sell the old one that was locked and buy new one for reserve. And you will have that bad circle of recycling chars started again, only circles will be a little bigger (more chars in the same circle). You see that we were right last time and you didn't listen, listen us this time and keep locked chars permanently locked to that account.
Underlined -> WTF.
This guy have a point. If you put timer on locking its like you didn't do this at all. Lock must be permanent.
Edit:
CCP Sreegs wrote:Aquila Draco wrote:] Quote:BUT WAIT, THERE IS EVEN MORE! From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. This is to prevent people trying to circumvent the rules by recycling accounts. Yes we know people pointed out this could happen last time around and if you'll remember we said "We'll keep an eye on it and if it becomes a problem we'll deal with it". Here is us dealing with it. We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. If you care about your dudes don't to bad things. It MUST stay forever. MUST Don't ruin what you have done with some timers that will undo the lock. There's no discussion about changing it at this time. I'm just leaving us an out because I like to talk like I'm in court and someone's going to read this back to me in the future. It happens sometimes on the Internet.
Didn't see this... but only that you know that even thinking about not permanent lock is a bad idea. |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:09:00 -
[50] - Quote
@Sreegs - what is the current policy with regard to ISK / Assets on a proven botter's multiple accounts? Do you /dev/null all their ISK, or some of it, or none? Do you asset strip them? Do you take ISK/Assets from the botter's non-botting accounts, and do you do this only for ISK you can prove comes from a botting account?
I personally think that when a botter has multiple accounts, you should strip the botting account dry of all ISK (possibly even leave them negative if they transferred any out you can't reclaim) and any items they could potentially sell, as well as stripping any ISK that was transferred via any method between accounts/characters. Probably should be more lenient to single-account botters, as they are more likely to just up and leave, but still try to strip any botting related ISK and don't be light on the estimation. |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
618
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Could you tell us how much isk there is in the game in total and pr character, and how much minerals there is in total in the game (in refinable state and non-refinable state (supers etc)), and how this has progressed the past 5 years? |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
Chiggy W wrote:Awesome work, and I'm extremely glad that you've prevented the mongs from transfering charaters. I want to pick up on one point tho Quote: "Three strikes is too weak" - Here we disagree but there's a reason why. I've shown charts before and I'll have a set at Fanfest that shows that we're effective at changing behavior by using these bans (with a caveat). What I mean is that a fraction of people actually get a second warning and the amount of people in all time who have ever hit a third was something ridiculous like 3%. There's some new things though related to this that I'm going to be a good egg and share with you though in a separate paragraph.
Have you guys considered the fact that most accounts only get dinged once because they just start up a new account once they get caught? I mean you've got to be a real mouthbreather to continue botting on an account that has been dinged once, so I think the metric that 1 temp ban is enough may be slightly flawed. Ultimately I guess it doesn't matter because even if perma-banned, the hardcore botters/RMT'ers are just going to start another account anyway, but I am certainly interested to know if you guys have considered this point, and how many accounts have their chars sold then go inactive after the first warning. Anyway, keep up the good fight, I love to see this scum removed from game, and please catch them as they inevitably come scurrying back like the cockroaches they are. Great work guys!
We didn't overlook that, but the solution to that is larger than the current discussion as working around that would lead to changes in design or how accounts are handled. We're moving into a world where that becomes less and less of a possibility but that can't happen overnight and the new team's existed for about a month or something. We need to progress in steps and if all I could deliver out of the door was The Ultimate Solution we'd never get anywhere.
Point being I think that yes, we do consider that fact and yes we'd like to make it less and less of an option. |
|
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
141
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:11:00 -
[53] - Quote
CCP Sreegs best Sreegs
This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Someday, this signature may save my life. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
748
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:******* Sreegs Shipping from Amazon.co.jp to Europe costs a lot, ne?
Why I moved, much cheaper manga~~~ 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
Shandir wrote:@Sreegs - what is the current policy with regard to ISK / Assets on a proven botter's multiple accounts? Do you /dev/null all their ISK, or some of it, or none? Do you asset strip them? Do you take ISK/Assets from the botter's non-botting accounts, and do you do this only for ISK you can prove comes from a botting account?
I personally think that when a botter has multiple accounts, you should strip the botting account dry of all ISK (possibly even leave them negative if they transferred any out you can't reclaim) and any items they could potentially sell, as well as stripping any ISK that was transferred via any method between accounts/characters. Probably should be more lenient to single-account botters, as they are more likely to just up and leave, but still try to strip any botting related ISK and don't be light on the estimation.
Today, as in like right now, assets aren't touched but I don't see it staying that way. |
|
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:14:00 -
[56] - Quote
Quote:From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. :sadface: (had toyed with the idea of getting a cheap alt on the character bazaar after the temp bans run out) but +1 nevertheless.
this is a big improvement. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Could you tell us how much isk there is in the game in total and pr character, and how much minerals there is in total in the game (in refinable state and non-refinable state (supers etc)), and how this has progressed the past 5 years?
CCP Diagoras has probably produced stats like that. I'll ask around tomorrow. Don't have it immediately available to me. |
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:15:00 -
[58] - Quote
CEO of my heart.
Any stats kept as to bans resulting from people doing the right-click, "report bot" option? I recall a fair number of pods attempting to ice mine (well, until they were sent back to their medical station...) |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
518
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:20:00 -
[59] - Quote
Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names.
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
618
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:21:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Could you tell us how much isk there is in the game in total and pr character, and how much minerals there is in total in the game (in refinable state and non-refinable state (supers etc)), and how this has progressed the past 5 years? CCP Diagoras has probably produced stats like that. I'll ask around tomorrow. Don't have it immediately available to me. It would be awesome to see just how much monetary inflation there's been, it feels like it's been a tonne the last 3 or so years. |
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
378
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:22:00 -
[61] - Quote
I like the part about locking all the botters accounts. Now I think I could see this working, or at least having an actual effect on botting. Good job CCP.
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
292
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:24:00 -
[62] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names.
Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so. |
|
Dalmont Delantee
D.I.C.A.D. Solutions Black Thorne Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:26:00 -
[63] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban! That is a LOSE-LOSE scenario. Because although illegal we still use the stuff they bot, and ccp still gets accounts payment. Turning them into legal players is a WIN-WIN.
And that is exactly how it would be sold to the board! |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
510
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Sreegs, at the last fanfest you had a content person on your team. Do you still have such a person now? Any discussions on changes to game content to make botting either harder or less inviting? I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
292
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:31:00 -
[65] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Sreegs, at the last fanfest you had a content person on your team. Do you still have such a person now? Any discussions on changes to game content to make botting either harder or less inviting?
The team you're referring to was the ESTF which was a multi-disciplinary group of volunteers working on the problem in our spare time. The team is now formalized as a part of the development process and while I don't have a "content" person per se on the team I do have an ESTF-ish stakeholder group that I reach out to if we need things.
What you're asking about as regards content does happen and actually works both ways, where sometimes if a content change is being made we'll be consulted to ensure that it's not enabling terrible things. Best answer I can give as I don't have anything right this second to point at, but I'll mention it when I do. |
|
Woo Glin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
408
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:32:00 -
[66] - Quote
It would be interesting to see the distribution of suspected bots/bans by profession (mining/ratting/market) and the system security status. It would tie in well to a lot of the current CSM issues like isk inflation, supercapital proliferation, and improvement of mining as a career choice. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
292
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:34:00 -
[67] - Quote
Woo Glin wrote:It would be interesting to see the distribution of suspected bots/bans by profession (mining/ratting/market) and the system security status. It would tie in well to a lot of the current CSM issues like isk inflation, supercapital proliferation, and improvement of mining as a career choice.
That'll be on my list for the graph elves to work on. I'm pretty surprised I've never built that chart before. |
|
eXeler0n
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:38:00 -
[68] - Quote
Good thing! It would be a nice idea to give them a -10 security status. So they have to work for the bad things they have done :) And everybody can shoot them ^^ And tag them as botters until they are outlaws :) Read this: http://www.quafe.de German Pirate Blog |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
How many accounts did the largest botting network that received a ban have? |
Devore Sekk
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban!
Zero tolerance doesn't work anywhere, and it won't in Eve.
A warned player will either quit playing (so pointless to ban them) or start playing legitimately (a subscriber that would have been banned and probably wouldn't return). A small percentage will continue botting, and will eventually be gone. Many MMO players come from games where botting is officially against the rules, but seldom if ever enforced. No point dropping the hammer on them once they learn the lesson. |
|
s1n1ster m1n1ster
Beyond Divinity Inc
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:45:00 -
[71] - Quote
its all well and nice
BUT
preventive action so that botting isnt possiblt or atleast harder?
any news on that front?
|
Gevlin
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:46:00 -
[72] - Quote
That is nice to see the all the accounts are being tagged if one account is being botted. The Boosting alts, though they do no botting they do multiply the mining bots reward. A boosting bot does take a bit to train.
Please keep moving forward. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Broken Toys
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:47:00 -
[73] - Quote
Devore Sekk wrote:Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban! Zero tolerance doesn't work anywhere, and it won't in Eve. A warned player will either quit playing (so pointless to ban them) or start playing legitimately (a subscriber that would have been banned and probably wouldn't return). A small percentage will continue botting, and will eventually be gone. Many MMO players come from games where botting is officially against the rules, but seldom if ever enforced. No point dropping the hammer on them once they learn the lesson.
Zero tolerance works fine if it involves capital punishment. Exactly 0% commit the crime second time ;) |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
295
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:54:00 -
[74] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names. Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so. Not trying to quibble here, but seriously - in game sanctions for in game actions.
Since you've locked the character to the account now, there shouldn't be any problem. Unless I've missed something (because naming (in-game) names surely *can't* be illegal)!.
TY - love the blog/action/picture.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
351
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:55:00 -
[75] - Quote
I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:57:00 -
[76] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
There's really no way to answer this. It's something that will have to play out with time. The last time around we were seeing that 2k average on a bi-weekly or so basis with low levels of recidivism but I suspect that locking the character transfers and some other goodies we're working on will reduce that.
Really time will tell. The only psychic prediction I can make with any reasonable accuracy is that I will be drinking entirely too much at Fanfest! |
|
Kane Hart
Sanitized Souls Sanctuary Pact
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:59:00 -
[77] - Quote
Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.
I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.
I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.
As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol |
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:02:00 -
[78] - Quote
Make it so 2nd warning they can no longer send isk, trade in station or create contract from the botting character!! |
Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:02:00 -
[79] - Quote
Such an awesome thing the picture says it all for me.
Feel like opening a bottle of champagne ;)
Great job, keep it coming.
CSM7 Industry Voting Guide
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:03:00 -
[80] - Quote
Kane Hart wrote:Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.
I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.
I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.
As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol
Sorry I keep missing this. It's not being ignored. It's also not my department. I'll follow up on it tomorrow. |
|
|
Kane Hart
Sanitized Souls Sanctuary Pact
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:03:00 -
[81] - Quote
Tetragammatron Prime wrote:Make it so 2nd warning they can no longer send isk, trade in station or create contract from the botting character!! Ahh so make them 100% useless so all they can do is spam local chat and help channel and harass the players and such :)? |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3348
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:04:00 -
[82] - Quote
Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either?
|
Kane Hart
Sanitized Souls Sanctuary Pact
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:05:00 -
[83] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Kane Hart wrote:Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.
I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.
I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.
As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol Sorry I keep missing this. It's not being ignored. It's also not my department. I'll follow up on it tomorrow. Thanks, But my suggestion is give them idiots a warning if you guys do plan on doing things. They been allowed to do it for years and It might be slightly wrong to ban everyone without some kind warning but then again you gave isk botters a fair warning to stop or be ***** slapped before so haha you guys are pretty fair.
Thanks :) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
351
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:06:00 -
[84] - Quote
I don't eat into the "they abandon account at first ban". Maybe now, they try dump it on the market fast but surely it will change after characters get un-transferrable. In the future they will keep a pool of new alts "growing" and keep the flagged accounts till they are busted
Shandir wrote: I personally think that when a botter has multiple accounts, you should strip the botting account dry of all ISK (possibly even leave them negative if they transferred any out you can't reclaim) and any items they could potentially sell, as well as stripping any ISK that was transferred via any method between accounts/characters. Probably should be more lenient to single-account botters, as they are more likely to just up and leave, but still try to strip any botting related ISK and don't be light on the estimation.
With what said above, CCP will want to keep those who only got caught once and "smarted up" (most will be casual botters that will get scared to sh!t). Money is money.
Thus, going out to great efforts nuking the bejeezus of their assets and money would push the casual botters much more into quitting than what CCP probably wants to.
I can foresee a penalty but not above a thresold that will make casual botters rage quit. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Devore Sekk
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:09:00 -
[85] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Zero tolerance works fine if it involves capital punishment. Exactly 0% commit the crime second time ;)
Except for the innocent and semi-innocent who get caught under that bus. Which is the point. The big stick is there. If a bigger one is needed, I'm sure CCP can build one. |
KrakizBad
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
384
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:09:00 -
[86] - Quote
Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know! http://blog.beyondreality.se/Incursion-hose Remove all incursions from hisec |
Jarnis McPieksu
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:15:00 -
[87] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know!
As a trader, I can say from how the market has changed in Jita, yes.
|
Jita Alt666
940
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:17:00 -
[88] - Quote
Great blog. Good to see the nuking is active again. Nice to see characters locked to account after first warning. I would encourage you to keep this permanent but understand the need to not state that categorically in a thread being read by 300000 aspies.
Asuri Kinnes wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names. Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so. Not trying to quibble here, but seriously - in game sanctions for in game actions. Since you've locked the character to the account now, there shouldn't be any problem. Unless I've missed something (because naming (in-game) names surely *can't* be illegal)!. TY - love the blog/action/picture.
Introduction of naming and shaming will open up another area of meta gaming that most players will dislike. |
Andrea Griffin
149
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:18:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Sreegs, you are my favorite developer. No offense to the rest of the CCP crew, they're great as well, but you hold a very special place in my heart. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:18:00 -
[90] - Quote
naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:19:00 -
[91] - Quote
Kane Hart wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Kane Hart wrote:Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.
I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.
I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.
As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol Sorry I keep missing this. It's not being ignored. It's also not my department. I'll follow up on it tomorrow. Thanks, But my suggestion is give them idiots a warning if you guys do plan on doing things. They been allowed to do it for years and It might be slightly wrong to ban everyone without some kind warning but then again you gave isk botters a fair warning to stop or be ***** slapped before so haha you guys are pretty fair. Thanks :)
You can also just block the toons so you don't have to look at it. It only takes a few minutes. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:21:00 -
[92] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective.
I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :) |
|
Brunaburh
Aurora Security Transstellar Operations
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:26:00 -
[93] - Quote
What about an asset lock for 30 days on top of the 14 day suspension, so the character can't trade assets/isk/plex?
This would prevent the character from transferring ISK out to create a new account after the ban went into effect. |
Dalmont Delantee
D.I.C.A.D. Solutions Black Thorne Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:34:00 -
[94] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Devore Sekk wrote:Bubanni wrote:Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban! Zero tolerance doesn't work anywhere, and it won't in Eve. A warned player will either quit playing (so pointless to ban them) or start playing legitimately (a subscriber that would have been banned and probably wouldn't return). A small percentage will continue botting, and will eventually be gone. Many MMO players come from games where botting is officially against the rules, but seldom if ever enforced. No point dropping the hammer on them once they learn the lesson. Zero tolerance works fine if it involves capital punishment. Exactly 0% commit the crime second time ;)
Sadly some people see capital punishment as a crime.
Well not sadly exactly....but that discussion is not for this thread!
When I first read there wasn't permabans 1st go I was upset. But I do think the potential of asset removal will be a decent punishment as well as PERM no character selling on that account/s |
Dalmont Delantee
D.I.C.A.D. Solutions Black Thorne Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:36:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective. I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :)
Data protection issues on ingame names/corps/alliances? Not sure that counts...:P
More likely a PR issue, especially if all the negative talk about certain alliances/corps being botters pans out as being true :P |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
311
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:40:00 -
[96] - Quote
Dalmont Delantee wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective. I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :) Data protection issues on ingame names/corps/alliances? Not sure that counts...:P More likely a PR issue, especially if all the negative talk about certain alliances/corps being botters pans out as being true :P
Yes, there can be DPA issues with in-game names. I really don't want to devolve into that conversation because I'm not a lawyer and someone would find something I'm wrong about and I'd just be sad and wrong at the same time, but I will say the DPA is a PART of the discussion. |
|
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:41:00 -
[97] - Quote
Brunaburh wrote:What about an asset lock for 30 days on top of the 14 day suspension, so the character can't trade assets/isk/plex?
This would prevent the character from transferring ISK out to create a new account after the ban went into effect. Why do that when you can watch where it goes, sneaking up behind them with a banhammer in your pocket. If they're sending ISK to alt accounts, then those accounts are worthy of investigation, and as soon as you can prove that they're not doing it to troll an innocent person, ban. |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:42:00 -
[98] - Quote
I have a three questions.
1) The first is in regards to the confiscating of large assets. When this is implemented will this include Supers and Titans bought with botting ISK? If so, how long do you think it will be before we can look forward to some titan pilot tears?
2) Will you be looking at botting activities retroactively? If not, why? It isn't exactly fair to go after current botters and give those who have gained the benefits of botting but aren't CURRENTLY botting a free pass.
3) Has CCP discussed at any point a "If you can't beat them, join them" sea change and looked at providing more automation for dull and repetitive tasks such as mining (perhaps making killing bots a new form of PVE)? |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:44:00 -
[99] - Quote
Anyone banned should have their character portraits hair shaved off and some sort of 'Botter' tattoo stamped on their forehead for eternity. |
Rojo Ocho
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:49:00 -
[100] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either?
Sreegs, was wondering if you could confirm this or not. Thanks. |
|
Elanor Vega
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:53:00 -
[101] - Quote
Rojo Ocho wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either? Sreegs, was wondering if you could confirm this or not. Thanks.
I hope for positive response on this... |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1049
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:54:00 -
[102] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It would be awesome to see just how much monetary inflation there's been, it feels like it's been a tonne the last 3 or so years.
Our previous QENs contain a lot of detailed information especially, but not only, about money, inflation, ISK sinks and faucets. Fresh numbers (but no QEN though) will get released next week. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
312
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:56:00 -
[103] - Quote
ps3ud0nym wrote:I have a three questions.
1) The first is in regards to the confiscating of large assets. When this is implemented will this include Supers and Titans bought with botting ISK? If so, how long do you think it will be before we can look forward to some titan pilot tears?
2) Will you be looking at botting activities retroactively? If not, why? It isn't exactly fair to go after current botters and give those who have gained the benefits of botting but aren't CURRENTLY botting a free pass.
3) Has CCP discussed at any point a "If you can't beat them, join them" sea change and looked at providing more automation for dull and repetitive tasks such as mining (perhaps making killing bots a new form of PVE)?
1) I would say that however this is implemented the size of assets won't matter, but I can't speculate on timeframes or even 100% guarantee it today. I'll just let you guys be pleasantly surprised if it happens. EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT
2) Best I can say here is that we CAN go retro but no decision has been made there yet.
3) We're always happy to discuss game design changes, but that's not my department and I can't really comment on it except to say yes we've discussed and continue to discuss design changes. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
312
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:57:00 -
[104] - Quote
Rojo Ocho wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either? Sreegs, was wondering if you could confirm this or not. Thanks.
I need to check on this. Can't answer right now. |
|
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
520
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:58:00 -
[105] - Quote
And now for an even more unrealistic request from me...
Can you copy paste (names excluded of course) some of you favorite botting tears from the petitions from the banned accounts? Please. <3
|
KrakizBad
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
384
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:00:00 -
[106] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:KrakizBad wrote:Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know! As a trader, I can say from how the market has changed in Jita, yes. Plenty of incidental evidence, I agree. I just want to hear it officially. It's also possible the last round of patching screwed up their performance, which has happened before. http://blog.beyondreality.se/Incursion-hose Remove all incursions from hisec |
Gilbarun
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:01:00 -
[107] - Quote
Did you ban any supercaps?
Did you ban those accounts who benefited from bots without having any connection like adress, name or billing information? |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
312
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:01:00 -
[108] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:Jarnis McPieksu wrote:KrakizBad wrote:Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know! As a trader, I can say from how the market has changed in Jita, yes. Plenty of incidental evidence, I agree. I just want to hear it officially. It's also possible the last round of patching screwed up their performance, which has happened before.
I haven't run the stats yet as I was on vacation but we do look for market bots. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
351
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:02:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Rojo Ocho wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either? Sreegs, was wondering if you could confirm this or not. Thanks. I need to check on this. Can't answer right now.
Disallowing biomass would be irrelevant, since the account is flagged so even re-creating the characters they will still be flagged anyay. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Beckie DeLey
Brigade of Guards SpaceMonkey's Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:04:00 -
[110] - Quote
Yes.
This is the most important thing you can do to improve this game.
Ban the botters. All of them. It fixes an insane amount of problems the game currently has, the biggest deal of it being the negative influence botting has on the economy. EVE stands out from other MMOs because it's (potentially) being driven by a player controlled economy. However, currently the economy is driven by bot, not players. The biggest culprits are ratting/mining bots that are largely responsible for mineral prices and trading bots that are dominating station trade in market hubs. Ban all of them to restore one of EVEs biggest selling points while simultanously givving a huge boost to the mining, prodding and trading professions. It's The Legendary Extraordinary Me |
|
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:05:00 -
[111] - Quote
Nice to see that ye olde proverb still works:
"Security isn't a product, it's a process"
Thanks to the entire team for running that process.
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
316
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:05:00 -
[112] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Rojo Ocho wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either? Sreegs, was wondering if you could confirm this or not. Thanks. I need to check on this. Can't answer right now. Disallowing biomass would be irrelevant, since the account is flagged so even re-creating the characters they will still be flagged anyay.
There's a number of things that would lessen the impact of allowing biomass not the least of which is the stacking penalties and the lost time which increases the cost of the enterprise, but I also can't answer from my memory whether we tagged that or not. :) |
|
Cpt Arareb
Ideal Machine Many Reckless Corps
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:14:00 -
[113] - Quote
yes yes yes yes yes YES! great job CCP keep it going. I believe in one Bot free future for EVE, now even more |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:14:00 -
[114] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:ps3ud0nym wrote:I have a three questions.
1) The first is in regards to the confiscating of large assets. When this is implemented will this include Supers and Titans bought with botting ISK? If so, how long do you think it will be before we can look forward to some titan pilot tears?
2) Will you be looking at botting activities retroactively? If not, why? It isn't exactly fair to go after current botters and give those who have gained the benefits of botting but aren't CURRENTLY botting a free pass.
3) Has CCP discussed at any point a "If you can't beat them, join them" sea change and looked at providing more automation for dull and repetitive tasks such as mining (perhaps making killing bots a new form of PVE)? 1) I would say that however this is implemented the size of assets won't matter, but I can't speculate on timeframes or even 100% guarantee it today. I'll just let you guys be pleasantly surprised if it happens. EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT 2) Best I can say here is that we CAN go retro but no decision has been made there yet. 3) We're always happy to discuss game design changes, but that's not my department and I can't really comment on it except to say yes we've discussed and continue to discuss design changes.
Thanks for the response, my black heart jump for joy at the news that you can do it retroactively and that Super/Titans are at risk here. Almost makes me wish I hadn't podded you! Almost..... XD
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:15:00 -
[115] - Quote
Jackie Fisher wrote:Anyone banned should have their character portraits hair shaved off and some sort of 'Botter' tattoo stamped on their forehead for eternity.
Or like the "WANTED" overlay in the character portrait. "BANNED", "BOTTER" and "RMTer" .
Also, with regards to items. At least for the final permanent ban, all isk should be removed (or kept in place, guess it doesn't matter for permabans), and the items confiscated and put into public auction (with the revenue from the auction again being removed from the game). |
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
174
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:28:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Guard wrote:...the future is here and apart from the spandex overalls and the prancing we were mostly right...
Speak for yourself tbh... |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
618
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:28:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:It would be awesome to see just how much monetary inflation there's been, it feels like it's been a tonne the last 3 or so years. Our previous QENs contain a lot of detailed information especially, but not only, about money, inflation, ISK sinks and faucets. Fresh numbers (but no QEN though) will get released next week. Hm. 445 trillion isk, 1782 supercarriers and 472 titans in q4 2010, up from 550 supercarriers and 332 titans. That's a lot of minerals that just went out of any possible circulation in that year alone, and I'm definitely :allears: about the number of supers/titans in the game right now.
How much of that mineral do you think was botmined in some fashion (either through gunmining or through actual mining lasers)? |
Jenny Brownpants
Pilsener and Cameltoe Research Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:29:00 -
[118] - Quote
Why lock the characters to botting accounts? I think they should be yanked and put into a pool.
Call it Sin Bin Corp.
Characters in Sin Bin Corp are free or for a plex available to accounts with free slots.
The Characters have the Scarlet letter B(ot). It can be like a trial account or massive neg wallet. The sponsor has to keep him in ships/ammo.
Redemption is earned in penal colonies in LoSec. Redemption Points like LP stores. Make it take about 3 to 6 months of casual game play.
I think it could really open up LoSec. You get suppliers/traders and pirates. Easy to roleplay. Fun for all.
Win/Win |
Gevlin
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:35:00 -
[119] - Quote
Playing with the numbers so you say that only 3% of the accounts which used bots were perma band because they would not change their ways. And those 3% equal to between 1k and 2k of players. Also any player caught using a bot once can never transfer or GÇ£SellGÇ¥ a character from their account.
This meant that be 33k to 67k players were caught using bots, and now have their character locked to their account.
Eve has a recovering 350k worth of subscribers, so 10% to 20% (Bold rounding) of eve's player base has been caught using a bot and has stopped using these bots via one way or another. To the looks of it 3 strikes would remove the possibility of False positives.
Unholy Rage banned 6200 Accounts in the summer 2009 requiring a lot of resources and had a few false positives that became public.
Not bad result from 1 team over a 3/4 of a year's worth of work. I am looking forward to the chart **** presented at Fan Fest. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
512
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:42:00 -
[120] - Quote
Gevlin wrote:Playing with the numbers so you say that only 3% of the accounts which used bots were perma band because they would not change their ways. And those 3% equal to between 1k and 2k of players. Also any player caught using a bot once can never transfer or GÇ£SellGÇ¥ a character from their account.
This meant that be 33k to 67k players were caught using bots, and now have their character locked to their account.
Eve has a recovering 350k worth of subscribers, so 10% to 20% (Bold rounding) of eve's player base has been caught using a bot and has stopped using these bots via one way or another. To the looks of it 3 strikes would remove the possibility of False positives.
Unholy Rage banned 6200 Accounts in the summer 2009 requiring a lot of resources and had a few false positives that became public.
Not bad result from 1 team over a 3/4 of a year's worth of work. I am looking forward to the chart **** presented at Fan Fest.
I think he means 1000 to 2000 accounts received a ban of some sort. Most a 2 week ban, and 3% a perma-ban. I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security Random Coalition of Corporations
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:46:00 -
[121] - Quote
Wow, I'm impressed. I (as were many) of the mind that CCP was pro-botter since botters pay monthly fees too (or consume PLEX somebody else purchased). Really happy to see CCP doing something about botters.
What I would really like is to see CCP take legal action against botters who sell ISK outside of CCP sanctioned methods and publish information about it. Once you start to hit botters in the real world, fear goes up and the number of bots pummets. Also, the price of non-PLEX ISK would go up making PLEX the obvious choice; which could mean the end of botting all together. I know that's a pipe dream, but one can ask.
Finally, I'd like to see CCP issue awards to pilots who have routinely made efforts to hamper botters by destroying their ships. CCP could datamine account information of who has destroyed a known botter's ships and award in game metals or what not. - A.Mobius |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
133
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:57:00 -
[122] - Quote
Good that CCP is doing something, but still way too lenient. If you're sure someone is botting there should be no second, or third chance. character and all assets should be deleted and account banned. Doesn't sound like these people with temp bans are even losing their ill gotten gains, at least set their wallet to 0 and delete all assets. |
FeralShadow
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:01:00 -
[123] - Quote
Woot Sreegs blogs are full of win. Never disappointed. |
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security Random Coalition of Corporations
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:02:00 -
[124] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Good that CCP is doing something, but still way too lenient. If you're sure someone is botting there should be no second, or third chance. character and all assets should be deleted and account banned. Doesn't sound like these people with temp bans are even losing their ill gotten gains, at least set their wallet to 0 and delete all assets.
I agree with this so long as their is a method of recourse for those innocents flagged as botters. Nothing worse than being called a botter because you mine 12 hours a day for your corp/alliance; put in all that work only to be banned without recourse would be fairly unjust. CCP has a fine line to walk here: but I do agree that their initial reaction should be the ban hammer with an option to petition for a second chance. - A.Mobius |
Carlos Aranda
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:21:00 -
[125] - Quote
blue cop day. 3strike my a_ss.
I see some bots banned - finally after countless petitions and report bot. You know, how frustrating it was, to see then online every day, though it is impossible to not see, what was going on, if you only ever checked once? I see a shitton still online.
I am not one of the usual credentulous players, who just believe it, if somebody once in a year writes: now he is really, really serious 1000+ banned blabla.
"haracter transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity"
That is good.
I will be satisfied, if I fly around and do no more see obvious bots. But I have already a bunch of new ones in my addressbook after just 1 new roam. They changed the system, they have some new very young tengus, the old ones are offline, so maybe banned. This is not, what I call successful work.
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:25:00 -
[126] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Gevlin wrote:Playing with the numbers so you say that only 3% of the accounts which used bots were perma band because they would not change their ways. And those 3% equal to between 1k and 2k of players. Also any player caught using a bot once can never transfer or GÇ£SellGÇ¥ a character from their account.
This meant that be 33k to 67k players were caught using bots, and now have their character locked to their account.
Eve has a recovering 350k worth of subscribers, so 10% to 20% (Bold rounding) of eve's player base has been caught using a bot and has stopped using these bots via one way or another. To the looks of it 3 strikes would remove the possibility of False positives.
Unholy Rage banned 6200 Accounts in the summer 2009 requiring a lot of resources and had a few false positives that became public.
Not bad result from 1 team over a 3/4 of a year's worth of work. I am looking forward to the chart **** presented at Fan Fest. I think he means 1000 to 2000 accounts received a ban of some sort. Most a 2 week ban, and 3% a perma-ban.
The 3% number was based on old data. I can't attest to the current attrition rate until we've had time to attrit. Tomorrow I'll take a peek at how many of those were final strikes. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:28:00 -
[127] - Quote
Carlos Aranda wrote: blue cop day. 3strike my a_ss.
I see some bots banned - finally after countless petitions and report bot. You know, how frustrating it was, to see then online every day, though it is impossible to not see, what was going on, if you only ever checked once? I see a shitton still online.
I am not one of the usual credentulous players, who just believe it, if somebody once in a year writes: now he is really, really serious 1000+ banned blabla.
"haracter transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity"
That is good.
I will be satisfied, if I fly around and do no more see obvious bots. But I have already a bunch of new ones in my addressbook after just 1 new roam. They changed the system, they have some new very young tengus, the old ones are offline, so maybe banned. This is not, what I call successful work.
The bannings were only off for a few months during the reorg. There's really not anything to not believe as the alternative would be to assume I'm just making up data and if you believe that there's nothing I will ever be able to do to please you.
You'll also note I use terms like "process" and "slow burn". If you think you're going to log in one day and everything that you've personally decided is a bot will be gone then there is also nothing I will ever be able to do to please you.
I'm not asking you to be happy or sad or really feel one way or another, but I'm trying to manage expectations and I'm going to be realistic about it. |
|
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:42:00 -
[128] - Quote
First, most important: CCP Sreegs looks like a seal being really happy about the fish.
Second: can you trace the money-asset stream between characters? Hard core botters use account registered with fake names and use various means to hide their main non-botting accounts, but their main accounts must get the money from the botting ones in some way. If you can trace movements, the botters are forced to launder the money in some way. There are many ways to do this in a sandbox, but this increases the effort needed to keep the "good accounts" clean; and you can anyway act on the laundry. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
353
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:57:00 -
[129] - Quote
Anika Mobius wrote:Xorv wrote:Good that CCP is doing something, but still way too lenient. If you're sure someone is botting there should be no second, or third chance. character and all assets should be deleted and account banned. Doesn't sound like these people with temp bans are even losing their ill gotten gains, at least set their wallet to 0 and delete all assets. I agree with this so long as their is a method of recourse for those innocents flagged as botters. Nothing worse than being called a botter because you mine 12 hours a day for your corp/alliance; put in all that work only to be banned without recourse would be fairly unjust. CCP has a fine line to walk here: but I do agree that their initial reaction should be the ban hammer with an option to petition for a second chance.
This is exactly what I was trying to say some pages ago.
While I am sure CCP are putting all their efforts into being as accurate and as fair as possible I know of some past undeserved bans. The more drastic measures CCP applies on the alledged botters, the more the potential damage done to people who just happened to fulfill a behavioral pattern by coincidence and the more a functioning and comprehensive tool to provide proof of innocence should be provided.
Some players have indeed huge amounts of time to play, what if someone does a bot-alike profession (i.e. mining) for 16h a day for 3 months while ALT tabbed doing WH / missions / exploration? How would he prove his innocence when banned for "suspicious botting behavior for 16h a day for months"?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Aquila Draco
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:19:00 -
[130] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Anika Mobius wrote:Xorv wrote:Good that CCP is doing something, but still way too lenient. If you're sure someone is botting there should be no second, or third chance. character and all assets should be deleted and account banned. Doesn't sound like these people with temp bans are even losing their ill gotten gains, at least set their wallet to 0 and delete all assets. I agree with this so long as their is a method of recourse for those innocents flagged as botters. Nothing worse than being called a botter because you mine 12 hours a day for your corp/alliance; put in all that work only to be banned without recourse would be fairly unjust. CCP has a fine line to walk here: but I do agree that their initial reaction should be the ban hammer with an option to petition for a second chance. This is exactly what I was trying to say some pages ago. While I am sure CCP are putting all their efforts into being as accurate and as fair as possible I know of some past undeserved bans. The more drastic measures CCP applies on the alledged botters, the more the potential damage done to people who just happened to fulfill a behavioral pattern by coincidence and the more a functioning and comprehensive tool to provide proof of innocence should be provided. Some players have indeed huge amounts of time to play, what if someone does a bot-alike profession (i.e. mining) for 16h a day for 3 months while ALT tabbed doing WH / missions / exploration? How would he prove his innocence when banned for "suspicious botting behavior for 16h a day for months"?
Please shut up with stealth "my bot runs for 16 hours a day every day for months now - will it be banned" No human will mine for 3 months every single day for 16 hours a day. LOL... you will oversleep some day in that 3 months or something i presume. And you will few msgs in local in that 3 months, or click wrong every now and then or something.
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:21:00 -
[131] - Quote
Camios wrote:First, most important: CCP Sreegs looks like a seal being really happy about the fish.
Second: can you trace the money-asset stream between characters? Hard core botters use account registered with fake names and use various means to hide their main non-botting accounts, but their main accounts must get the money from the botting ones in some way. If you can trace movements, the botters are forced to launder the money in some way. There are many ways to do this in a sandbox, but this increases the effort needed to keep the "good accounts" clean; and you can anyway act on the laundry.
There are lots of ways to trace lots of things. Giving specifics would be a bit silly this early in the game. There's also some newer tech coming into play I'll be talking about at fanfest that will make the ridiculous FAKE EVERYTHING EVER ON YOUR ACCOUNT anonymity vanish. I'm not saying what we're doing yet so don't ask, but merely pointing out that we know it's a problem and have for some time. |
|
Carlos Aranda
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:23:00 -
[132] - Quote
here is an extreme example:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=113284&view=losses&m=11&y=2011
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12237649
one of their transports to empire. Alloys worth 11 bil.
I know several guys, who passed them, tried to kill them and watched them. We were all very frustrated, that the GMs just closed our petitions and did nothing for so long, though it was so obvious. These were very good setup, almost impossible to catch. Now finally after several months, these bot tengus seem to be banned.
You need appr 7 months to check this and ban them? Plz tell me, you did not ban them just 14 days? What happened with all the ISK, they made in this months? Why on earth should they get only a 1st strike and not right away a permaban + all ISK deleted?
If you fly around in their territory, you see the same human must still have tengus. They are online and out there. Just no more in this systems. These systems are atm. dead. By the time you realize, this must be bigger, you might consider some control, what is going on in that alliance: Who profited of this, too? Or did they sent you a petition, that something is going on in their space? I doubt that. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
133
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:27:00 -
[133] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Some players have indeed huge amounts of time to play, what if someone does a bot-alike profession (i.e. mining) for 16h a day for 3 months while ALT tabbed doing WH / missions / exploration? How would he prove his innocence when banned for "suspicious botting behavior for 16h a day for months"?
If someone is mining 16 hours a day for months they should be banned for their own good. Seriously though, it's hard to comment on false positives without knowing how exactly CCP identifies the botters, which obviously they're not going to say. However, yes there should be some sort of appeal process, but ultimately if your caught deliberately cheating such as using bots you shouldn't be getting any more chances, it should be game over.
|
Frabba
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:31:00 -
[134] - Quote
I probably missed this earlier in the thread, but what happens to the other characters on the accounts which were banned for botting? Are they also going to be locked down? its me im the best poster. |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:36:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Camios wrote:First, most important: CCP Sreegs looks like a seal being really happy about the fish.
Second: can you trace the money-asset stream between characters? Hard core botters use account registered with fake names and use various means to hide their main non-botting accounts, but their main accounts must get the money from the botting ones in some way. If you can trace movements, the botters are forced to launder the money in some way. There are many ways to do this in a sandbox, but this increases the effort needed to keep the "good accounts" clean; and you can anyway act on the laundry. There are lots of ways to trace lots of things. Giving specifics would be a bit silly this early in the game. There's also some newer tech coming into play I'll be talking about at fanfest that will make the ridiculous FAKE EVERYTHING EVER ON YOUR ACCOUNT anonymity vanish. I'm not saying what we're doing yet so don't ask, but merely pointing out that we know it's a problem and have for some time.
I know you keep telling us that you can't tell us anything... is this really the best course of action? Throw it open, let everyone see and figure out ways to make it better. Certainly would mollify some of these people's ideas that the bans and detection will be rather primitive and rely on anecdotal evidence. I understand the intial desire for secrecy, but in the end I am wondering if it is counter productive. Someone could reverse engineer your code and you would never know. If it is open to everyone to see, sure you can exploit it, but that exploit would be known widely almost immediately and could then be addressed. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:36:00 -
[136] - Quote
Carlos Aranda wrote:here is an extreme example: http://eve-kill.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=113284&view=losses&m=11&y=2011http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12237649one of their transports to empire. Alloys worth 11 bil. I know several guys, who passed them, tried to kill them and watched them. We were all very frustrated, that the GMs just closed our petitions and did nothing for so long, though it was so obvious. These were very good setup, almost impossible to catch. Now finally after several months, these bot tengus seem to be banned. You need appr 7 months to check this and ban them? Plz tell me, you did not ban them just 14 days? What happened with all the ISK, they made in this months? Why on earth should they get only a 1st strike and not right away a permaban + all ISK deleted? If you fly around in their territory, you see the same human must still have tengus. They are online and out there. Just no more in this systems. These systems are atm. dead. By the time you realize, this must be bigger, you might consider some control, what is going on in that alliance: Who profited of this, too? Or did they sent you a petition, that something is going on in their space? I doubt that.
I'm not a GM and never have been. I cannot speak to what may or may not happen with petitions. If our system for dealing with bots was to have a bunch of dudes sitting there staring at people when they get petitioned it would pretty much be the dumbest system to do anything anyone has ever implemented.
I've explained the three strike system already at least twice in this thread.
My point being that we didn't just now get to your petition. Your petition wasn't involved at all. We detected the bot using special secret tools and now it's gone along with however many thousand others decide to log in. I'm sorry you have some frustration regarding a past petition but I can assure you that has nothing to do with myself, my team or this system. :) |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:38:00 -
[137] - Quote
Frabba wrote:I probably missed this earlier in the thread, but what happens to the other characters on the accounts which were banned for botting? Are they also going to be locked down?
Yes. The account itself will be unable to transfer characters. |
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1152
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:42:00 -
[138] - Quote
Very good. Since the 3 strike rule wasn't going to change the idea to lock characters to the accounts is a great one. I wasn't aware that the initiative was put on hold for banning bots. I am sure there was a good reason but am happy to hear you have started it back up again. Should see a healthy change in the economy from this. Thank you for your efforts! EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:44:00 -
[139] - Quote
ps3ud0nym wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Camios wrote:First, most important: CCP Sreegs looks like a seal being really happy about the fish.
Second: can you trace the money-asset stream between characters? Hard core botters use account registered with fake names and use various means to hide their main non-botting accounts, but their main accounts must get the money from the botting ones in some way. If you can trace movements, the botters are forced to launder the money in some way. There are many ways to do this in a sandbox, but this increases the effort needed to keep the "good accounts" clean; and you can anyway act on the laundry. There are lots of ways to trace lots of things. Giving specifics would be a bit silly this early in the game. There's also some newer tech coming into play I'll be talking about at fanfest that will make the ridiculous FAKE EVERYTHING EVER ON YOUR ACCOUNT anonymity vanish. I'm not saying what we're doing yet so don't ask, but merely pointing out that we know it's a problem and have for some time. I know you keep telling us that you can't tell us anything... is this really the best course of action? Throw it open, let everyone see and figure out ways to make it better. Certainly would mollify some of these people's ideas that the bans and detection will be rather primitive and rely on anecdotal evidence.
Based on my experience yes it is the best course of action. Plenty disagree but today bots are getting banned so I get to be right and anyone saying I should tell them every detail of everything we do is wrong.
I don't want to be dismissive because you're probably sincere. Were I to be trolling this thread I'd come in with something cool like SECURITY BY OBSCURITY because that's a catchphrase that people misinterpret as meaning that all systems need to be open or they're inherently insecure and I could probably argue with me for quite a while about it by taking that bait.
In this case it's a videogame universe with a very specific set of capabilities and a very small team of people working on a rather large problem. We're not going to waste even an ounce of our time satisfying curiosity if there's even a glimmer of a chance it will make us have to do more work getting back to zero. I'm happy to see some examples of anyone else in this industry who handles the situation differently though.
Hopefully that makes sense. |
|
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
524
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:50:00 -
[140] - Quote
Is it possible for you to tell us what the botters primary activity was? Missions, mining, market, etc.
|
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:55:00 -
[141] - Quote
Jackie Fisher wrote:Anyone banned should have their character portraits hair shaved off and some sort of 'Botter' tattoo stamped on their forehead for eternity.
I'd pick up botting for one of these.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:57:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:ps3ud0nym wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Camios wrote:First, most important: CCP Sreegs looks like a seal being really happy about the fish.
Second: can you trace the money-asset stream between characters? Hard core botters use account registered with fake names and use various means to hide their main non-botting accounts, but their main accounts must get the money from the botting ones in some way. If you can trace movements, the botters are forced to launder the money in some way. There are many ways to do this in a sandbox, but this increases the effort needed to keep the "good accounts" clean; and you can anyway act on the laundry. There are lots of ways to trace lots of things. Giving specifics would be a bit silly this early in the game. There's also some newer tech coming into play I'll be talking about at fanfest that will make the ridiculous FAKE EVERYTHING EVER ON YOUR ACCOUNT anonymity vanish. I'm not saying what we're doing yet so don't ask, but merely pointing out that we know it's a problem and have for some time. I know you keep telling us that you can't tell us anything... is this really the best course of action? Throw it open, let everyone see and figure out ways to make it better. Certainly would mollify some of these people's ideas that the bans and detection will be rather primitive and rely on anecdotal evidence. Based on my experience yes it is the best course of action. Plenty disagree but today bots are getting banned so I get to be right and anyone saying I should tell them every detail of everything we do is wrong. I don't want to be dismissive because you're probably sincere. Were I to be trolling this thread I'd come in with something cool like SECURITY BY OBSCURITY because that's a catchphrase that people misinterpret as meaning that all systems need to be open or they're inherently insecure and I could probably argue with me for quite a while about it by taking that bait. In this case it's a videogame universe with a very specific set of capabilities and a very small team of people working on a rather large problem. We're not going to waste even an ounce of our time satisfying curiosity if there's even a glimmer of a chance it will make us have to do more work getting back to zero. I'm happy to see some examples of anyone else in this industry who handles the situation differently though. Hopefully that makes sense.
Hey.. I am not THAT big of a troll XD.
that totally makes sense. To be honest, I am not sure exactly how you would be able to throw the system open in such a way that you would be able to gain the benefits of crowd sourcing without a great deal of work; however, I think it is an important question to ask in regards to resource management.
What I am concerned about is the number of man hours available to those who write and use bots (nearly infinite even with Sturgeon's Law), verses the number of man hours that you have available in a year in your team to combat it. How do you guys intend to address that gap in development capabilities (other than being "The smartest guys in the room")?
PS: In case it doesn't come across. I think you guys are fantastic and fully support what you are doing. |
Frabba
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 22:59:00 -
[143] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Frabba wrote:I probably missed this earlier in the thread, but what happens to the other characters on the accounts which were banned for botting? Are they also going to be locked down? Yes. The account itself will be unable to transfer characters.
This owns and you own. I'd be curious to know statistics on how many of these now locked accounts have supercapital pilots on them.
its me im the best poster. |
Drew Solaert
University of Caille Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:03:00 -
[144] - Quote
Awesome, Just plain Awesome. |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:05:00 -
[145] - Quote
What's that? It must be the world's tiniest violin, playing the world's saddest song as botters poop their pants.
Thanks! Good devblog, and thanks for posting it.
Also, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=75611
This is pretty sad, seeing people so happy that they can play the game the way it was intended, trading with real people instead of 0.01 ISK'ing bots that never sleep. Please keep up the good work, it's very much necessary. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
342
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:05:00 -
[146] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Is it possible for you to tell us what the botters primary activity was? In a percentage like "67% were miners, 12% were market...". As an example.
Yeah that kind of thing I'll report but I'd prefer if possible to wait a couple of weeks to do it. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:13:00 -
[147] - Quote
When sreegs snorts a line of hot sauce, it results in bots getting banned. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
DaDutchDude
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:14:00 -
[148] - Quote
AWESOME work. All questions I had were either already answered (also gj on that) or shouldn't be answered for good reasons, so I'll just post a graphical representation of what I was thinking when I read the blog: http://www.kryptonitekollectibles.com/images/prod/BurnsExcellentSticker.jpg They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I always have the best intentions for others ... |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
488
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:15:00 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective. I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :)
Eh. Client pays for services, violates rules of service. You're not damaging his ability to do anything other than play the game as long as you don't release private information (persons real name, etc).
They're going to have a hard argument in a "court" saying...
CCP DESTROYED MY REPUTATION BY NOT LETTING ME PLAY THEIR GAME BECAUSE I WAS CHEATING AND THEN LET ALL THE OTHER NERDS KNOW THAT MY FAKE NAME WAS THE ONE DOING IT!!!!
Erm. ya.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:28:00 -
[150] - Quote
ps3ud0nym wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:ps3ud0nym wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Camios wrote:First, most important: CCP Sreegs looks like a seal being really happy about the fish.
Second: can you trace the money-asset stream between characters? Hard core botters use account registered with fake names and use various means to hide their main non-botting accounts, but their main accounts must get the money from the botting ones in some way. If you can trace movements, the botters are forced to launder the money in some way. There are many ways to do this in a sandbox, but this increases the effort needed to keep the "good accounts" clean; and you can anyway act on the laundry. There are lots of ways to trace lots of things. Giving specifics would be a bit silly this early in the game. There's also some newer tech coming into play I'll be talking about at fanfest that will make the ridiculous FAKE EVERYTHING EVER ON YOUR ACCOUNT anonymity vanish. I'm not saying what we're doing yet so don't ask, but merely pointing out that we know it's a problem and have for some time. I know you keep telling us that you can't tell us anything... is this really the best course of action? Throw it open, let everyone see and figure out ways to make it better. Certainly would mollify some of these people's ideas that the bans and detection will be rather primitive and rely on anecdotal evidence. Based on my experience yes it is the best course of action. Plenty disagree but today bots are getting banned so I get to be right and anyone saying I should tell them every detail of everything we do is wrong. I don't want to be dismissive because you're probably sincere. Were I to be trolling this thread I'd come in with something cool like SECURITY BY OBSCURITY because that's a catchphrase that people misinterpret as meaning that all systems need to be open or they're inherently insecure and I could probably argue with me for quite a while about it by taking that bait. In this case it's a videogame universe with a very specific set of capabilities and a very small team of people working on a rather large problem. We're not going to waste even an ounce of our time satisfying curiosity if there's even a glimmer of a chance it will make us have to do more work getting back to zero. I'm happy to see some examples of anyone else in this industry who handles the situation differently though. Hopefully that makes sense. Hey.. I am not THAT big of a troll XD. that totally makes sense. To be honest, I am not sure exactly how you would be able to throw the system open in such a way that you would be able to gain the benefits of crowd sourcing without a great deal of work; however, I think it is an important question to ask in regards to resource management. What I am concerned about is the number of man hours available to those who write and use bots (nearly infinite even with Sturgeon's Law), verses the number of man hours that you have available in a year in your team to combat it. How do you guys intend to address that gap in development capabilities (other than being "The smartest guys in the room")? PS: In case it doesn't come across. I think you guys are fantastic and fully support what you are doing.
We'll work on it until we run out of time v0v. I think the motivation of botmakers in our game is grossly overstated as opposed to some others where your potential customer base is immense. Even the dudes who do it as freebies tend to be more swagger than anything else. |
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:31:00 -
[151] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:KrakizBad wrote:Jarnis McPieksu wrote:KrakizBad wrote:Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know! As a trader, I can say from how the market has changed in Jita, yes. Plenty of incidental evidence, I agree. I just want to hear it officially. It's also possible the last round of patching screwed up their performance, which has happened before. I haven't run the stats yet as I was on vacation but we do look for market bots.
Still don't have exact stats but I did confirm we nuked some market bots. |
|
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:40:00 -
[152] - Quote
Time to Add a Clock hunter ship, so we can hunt afk cloakers that ruins the game worse then bots does... btw... most of the rating bots could be hunted by a cloak hunter ship probably, since their main function is to warp to a safe-spot and cloack when someone gets in the system.... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
353
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:45:00 -
[153] - Quote
Aquila Draco wrote:Please shut up with stealth "my bot runs for 16 hours a day every day for months now - will it be banned" No human will mine for 3 months every single day for 16 hours a day. LOL... you will oversleep some day in that 3 months or something i presume. And you will few msgs in local in that 3 months, or click wrong every now and then or something.
1) What I do is in my signature, it's not hard to read it.
2) What people do with their time is not your business to judge. It's not a per hour paid service so if someone wanted to play 23/7 he's fully entitled to do so (he will die in the process but it is his choice).
There's plenty of people who work at home or are at work in a position to run low involvement activities while they do other menial stuff (I.e. I know a guy who is paid to stay in a place and check that an alarm system won't ring and at end of day he has to start an server backup, period.). Those guys will exactly play 8 hours a day, at very identical times and won't chat in local.
What will discern them vs a botting behavioral pattern? What tools are they given to objectively and undisputedly prove to CCP they were not botting? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
242
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:46:00 -
[154] - Quote
Suggestion:
After first offense/14-day ban:
Reduce the character to -10.0 security status and -5.00 faction-standing with all four factions, to be improved using the standard methods.
I think this will make absolutely clear that they should never, ever do that again whilst giving them a legitimate chance to "rehabilitate" themselves.
After second offense:
Wallet reduced to zero, all assets removed, plus the standings penalty above, again able to "rehabilitate" using normal methods.
Third offense:
Permanent, account-level, not just that character--ban, all characters and assets on that account biomassed.
Because...because **** them, that's why.
E:
The second offense's penalties should apply to all characters on that account, not just the one botting, and any re-rolls in empty slots will be "born" with those standings as well.
Botting is bad, m'kay? It just needs to be shown very explicitly to anyone who does it that it will carry harsh, long-term consequences. the current first 2 strikes are a slap on the wrist, although the character transfer-lock is a big step in the right direction. I are kyute kitten! I are in ur mishun! Redoosin' teh lag by ninja'ing ur wrekz! (CCP: Make wrecks probable, and after 30min., tractorable.) |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:49:00 -
[155] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Aquila Draco wrote:Please shut up with stealth "my bot runs for 16 hours a day every day for months now - will it be banned" No human will mine for 3 months every single day for 16 hours a day. LOL... you will oversleep some day in that 3 months or something i presume. And you will few msgs in local in that 3 months, or click wrong every now and then or something.
1) What I do is in my signature, it's not hard to read it. 2) What people do with their time is not your business to judge. It's not a per hour paid service so if someone wanted to play 23/7 he's fully entitled to do so (he will die in the process but it is his choice). There's plenty of people who work at home or are at work in a position to run low involvement activities while they do other menial stuff (I.e. I know a guy who is paid to stay in a place and check that an alarm system won't ring and at end of day he has to start an server backup, period.). Those guys will exactly play 8 hours a day, at very identical times and won't chat in local. What will discern them vs a botting behavioral pattern? What tools are they given to objectively and undisputedly prove to CCP they were not botting?
If you feel you're wrongfully banned you petition. I've yet to see any false positives in our work and were one to come up I'd be pretty interested in seeing what it was. On the flipside the first thing anyone does is claim innocence. I'd suggest that were this to occur you should petition and we'll see how it plays out as I'm not sure speculation is going to get us anything more than additional questions. |
|
zcar300
SERCO Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:49:00 -
[156] - Quote
Speaking of RMT. Are the big RMT web pages legal? I mean they must be right? Because they advertise everywhere and no one has taken them down. I haven't looked into it but they seems to sell in game items for real money. That's what RMT means right? |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:52:00 -
[157] - Quote
zcar300 wrote:Speaking of RMT. Are the big RMT web pages legal? I mean they must be right? Because they advertise everywhere and no one has taken them down. I haven't looked into it but they seems to sell in game items for real money. That's what RMT means right?
I won't really discuss that here for legal reasons but you can research the subject pretty easily on the internet. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:52:00 -
[158] - Quote
And I'm off to bed EVE Dudes. I'll pop back by in the morning. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
353
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 23:59:00 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:On the flipside the first thing anyone does is claim innocence.
You exactly hit the nail on the head.
There's something in the process that unnecessarily clogs down the process:
- Both innocents and guilty will always petition you to get their account back (huge wasted time and resources).
- Both innocents and guilty will always claim to be innocent (again, big expense in time and resources due to exchange of mails or whatever, escalations and so on).
- Both innocents and guilty in case of behavioral based ban they will exactly look like a bot.
At this point, the innocents would provide CCP with a CCP accepted proof of innocence, while the guilty ones could not.
What are the tools / procedures to produce such proof?
If the answer is "none" then you'll have a varying degree of collateral damage, which is very nice and dandy to downplay until YOU (player who sperges on the forums about pitchform and first strike torture) are that collateral damage. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
524
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:00:00 -
[160] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:And I'm off to bed EVE Dudes. I'll pop back by in the morning.
I wonder what a person who commits genocide on bots dreams about...
|
|
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:03:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Based on my experience yes it is the best course of action. Plenty disagree but today bots are getting banned so I get to be right and anyone saying I should tell them every detail of everything we do is wrong. I don't want to be dismissive because you're probably sincere. Were I to be trolling this thread I'd come in with something cool like SECURITY BY OBSCURITY because that's a catchphrase that people misinterpret as meaning that all systems need to be open or they're inherently insecure and I could probably argue with me for quite a while about it by taking that bait. In this case it's a videogame universe with a very specific set of capabilities and a very small team of people working on a rather large problem. We're not going to waste even an ounce of our time satisfying curiosity if there's even a glimmer of a chance it will make us have to do more work getting back to zero. I'm happy to see some examples of anyone else in this industry who handles the situation differently though. Hopefully that makes sense.
I'll be blunt. People do think that EVE is FULL of bots. They have some reason in doing so, because there are some big stories about it out there, and because everybody who has mined or ratted a bit (or even played with the market) knows how repetitive that gameplay is.
This is players making bad PR to EVE, with a reason. The rumors might be all rubbish, and all the folks could be wrong, but who cares? After all
While you and your team may have just to fight against bots, your company has to fight against bots and against an unfavorable judgement of the playerbase on your effort (you know what i'm talking about). In this picture, your claim "we banned less than 2000 people" has some technical value but it cannot help the player that wants to understand how far are you from "winning the bot war". Giving away informations on what systems you put in place would instead be a move in restoring the trust of the playerbase. People are asking just because they want to believe in you.
Another way to show how your good your methods are is giving us an estimate of how many bots are still out there, and the percentage you can detect. Use statistics, and find a number with an uncertainty bar, and tell us.
People are not going to applaud when they think there are 25000 bots in EVE and you banned just less than 2000; they might be appy if there are less than 5000 bots in EVE and you banned almost half of them.
But if you, for some reasons, cannot give us that number, well, in order to gain the playerbase trust you'll have to show us something else.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:04:00 -
[162] - Quote
Quote:BUT WAIT, THERE IS EVEN MORE! From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. This is to prevent people trying to circumvent the rules by recycling accounts. Yes we know people pointed out this could happen last time around and if you'll remember we said "We'll keep an eye on it and if it becomes a problem we'll deal with it". Here is us dealing with it. We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. If you care about your dudes don't to bad things.
Yes Yes... Yes... Yes.... YES YES YES YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINALLY!
This was pushing the prices for characters up and allowing botters to get away with their activity. This devblog thus should cause a significant drop in botting.
But the war isn't over yet folks! On our end the best thing we can do is hit the report bot function when we find the bots. And yes this includes blues that are botting. Remember that blue is cheating and making things worse for you in prices or in effort to PVP. Report him or her!
Looking forward to better PLEX prices and for the miners having better mineral value. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
353
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:11:00 -
[163] - Quote
Camios wrote:People are not going to applaud when they think there are 25000 bots in EVE and you banned just less than 2000; they might be appy if there are less than 5000 bots in EVE and you banned almost half of them.
I recall when Unholy Rage happened. I often pass thru a The Forge system with ice belt and I notice its population. Right before U.R. there were 122 in local. After U.R. they were 19. I was really amazed!
The same place stayed at below 30 for some months, before Bat Country "cleanup" they were back up to about 70-80. Next time I pass through there I'll go check how many we have now (might be 1-3 days). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
242
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:12:00 -
[164] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:OK I got a question: "1000 to 2000 bans": Say one player has 5 accounts, 2 of which were botted, and you ban them. I know you an all 5 accounts, but how do you count that in your 1000 to 2000 total? Is that counted as
One ban because you issued a ban against one player, Two bans because you banned 2 botting accounts, Five bans because you banned all five accounts? The number is based on accounts. When one account is banned and tagged for botting all of that player's accounts go with it. So if you only bot on 2 of your accounts but you have 5 all 5 are getting tagged and banned.
[Darth Sidious voice] Goooooood....GOOD! [/Darth Sidious voice]
I didn't know this, though I had hoped this was the case.
NOTE: The character transfer lockout must be permanent if it's to have any effect. Otherwise, the whole character transfer carousel will just take a bit longer, yet ultimately won't change, IMHO.
I are kyute kitten! I are in ur mishun! Redoosin' teh lag by ninja'ing ur wrekz! (CCP: Make wrecks probable, and after 30min., tractorable.) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
515
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:26:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Frabba wrote:I probably missed this earlier in the thread, but what happens to the other characters on the accounts which were banned for botting? Are they also going to be locked down? Yes. The account itself will be unable to transfer characters.
Not only that but Sreegs bans not just the character, not just the account, but every account owned by the player. Its the player that turned on the bot, and its the player that gets the ban.
That means if you have 6 accounts, bot on one, your characters in all 6 accounts get locked.
I predict much wailing and gnashing of teeth. I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:29:00 -
[166] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What will discern them vs a botting behavioral pattern? What tools are they given to objectively and undisputedly prove to CCP they were not botting?
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:On the flipside the first thing anyone does is claim innocence. You exactly hit the nail on the head. There's something in the process that unnecessarily clogs down the process: - Both innocents and guilty will always petition you to get their account back (huge wasted time and resources). - Both innocents and guilty will always claim to be innocent (again, big expense in time and resources due to exchange of mails or whatever, escalations and so on). - Both innocents and guilty in case of behavioral based ban they will exactly look like a bot. At this point, the innocents would provide CCP with a CCP accepted proof of innocence, while the guilty ones could not. What are the tools / procedures to produce such proof? If the answer is "none" then you'll have a varying degree of collateral damage, which is very nice and dandy to downplay until YOU (player who sperges on the forums about pitchform and first strike torture) are that collateral damage. What the hell is up with you?
Let me put it to you this way:
The only way (ONLY WAY) to make sure someone doesn't get an inappropriate ban is:
NEVER BAN ANYONE AGAIN! EVER!
FOR ANYTHING.
That is the only way to be sure. Otherwise, your going to have an imperfect system, created by imperfect people, worked on by imperfect people (no insult to the outstanding job you guys have done/are doing){after cruicible} botted by imperfect people.
SOMEONE somewhere sometime *will* make a mistake.
Get over it, life sucks. It would suck if it happened to me, it would suck if it happened to anyone (undeservedly). I would send my bloody rig to Iceland if that's what I had to do to prove I wasn't botting.
NOTHING IS PERFECT so they do the best they can.
Deal with it.
Camios wrote:I'll be blunt. People do think that EVE is FULL of bots. They have some reason in doing so, because there are some big stories about it out there, and because everybody who has mined or ratted a bit (or even played with the market) knows how repetitive that gameplay is.
This is players making bad PR to EVE, with a reason. The rumors might be all rubbish, and all the folks could be wrong, but who cares? After all
While you and your team may have just to fight against bots, your company has to fight against bots and against an unfavorable judgement of the playerbase on your effort (you know what i'm talking about). In this picture, your claim "we banned less than 2000 people" has some technical value but it cannot help the player that wants to understand how far are you from "winning the bot war". Giving away informations on what systems you put in place would instead be a move in restoring the trust of the playerbase. People are asking just because they want to believe in you.
Another way to show how your good your methods are is giving us an estimate of how many bots are still out there, and the percentage you can detect. Use statistics, and find a number with an uncertainty bar, and tell us.
People are not going to applaud when they think there are 25000 bots in EVE and you banned just less than 2000; they might be appy if there are less than 5000 bots in EVE and you banned almost half of them.
But if you, for some reasons, cannot give us that number, well, in order to gain the playerbase trust you'll have to show us something else. Ok, I'll be blunt with you:
Q: Why in the name of god, would the security guy give %'s of bots found, how many might still be out there, and the % they think they can detect?
A: They wouldn't, it would be the height of stupidity to give the botters (and the guys who write the botting code) information on how effective they are.
There's your answer.
My best guess: Anything that comes out will be slanted heavily conservative (i.e. - lower numbers than CCP can actually identify/ban/whatever) just so that the people who are doing this, do *not* know really what's going on.
Player base is just going to have to suck it up.
That's just common sense, which seems to be (!SURPRISE!) in short supply here today...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
242
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:31:00 -
[167] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names. Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so.
Could you explain why--"Security for Dummies" version, please--this is the case?
Thank you.
I are kyute kitten! I are in ur mishun! Redoosin' teh lag by ninja'ing ur wrekz! (CCP: Make wrecks probable, and after 30min., tractorable.) |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:32:00 -
[168] - Quote
no need for a 3 steps things, the only need to avoid permaban first is for cases where the guy is not guilty. so 2 steps are way enough. |
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:32:00 -
[169] - Quote
Why do you feel the need to lie? Of course it was timed to be before fanfest. Nothing quite gets everybody pumped up and the circlejerking in full swing like a bot banning wave.
You only do a mass banning maybe once a year. Each time you do a mass banning, you claim its an ongoing process, but nothing changes until another annual ban party comes by. This happened last year, this happened with Unholy Rage.
Do you think anybody who would construct these bots wouldn't recognize the pattern? |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:33:00 -
[170] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names. Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so. Could you explain why--"Security for Dummies" version, please--this is the case? Thank you. Something to do with (I think) "Data Protection Act"? PDA? I don't know what it's about, and am a little confused about it myself - not sure what the PDA is, or why it would stop them from naming "in-game" names.
Don't have to give the player name, just the in - game names (but that would also get you corp/alliance info too..) Not sure why they can't.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:34:00 -
[171] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:Why do you feel the need to lie? Of course it was timed to be before fanfest. Nothing quite gets everybody pumped up and the circlejerking in full swing like a bot banning wave.
You only do a mass banning maybe once a year. Each time you do a mass banning, you claim its an ongoing process, but nothing changes until another annual ban party comes by. This happened last year, this happened with Unholy Rage.
Do you think anybody who would construct these bots wouldn't recognize the pattern? Read the rest of the thread, that's been answered. And no, I won't link it.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
361
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:06:00 -
[172] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:Why do you feel the need to lie? Of course it was timed to be before fanfest. Nothing quite gets everybody pumped up and the circlejerking in full swing like a bot banning wave.
You only do a mass banning maybe once a year. Each time you do a mass banning, you claim its an ongoing process, but nothing changes until another annual ban party comes by. This happened last year, this happened with Unholy Rage.
Do you think anybody who would construct these bots wouldn't recognize the pattern?
Nothing you've said in this post is accurate. We did and have shown that we did a large amount of activity on a regular basis for months. I've given you some examples of where to find that information in this thread. We openly stated in this very blog that during a period of reorganization it was shut off. Were I a dishonest lad you'd have never known things were shut off. Were we clamoring for pre-fanfest attention you'd have gotten fanfare about the event rather than having to hear about it from other players, unless you're insinuating that I'm such a brilliant puppetmaster that this is all part of my master plan to gain whatever, in which case thanks!
You deciding it never happened doesn't make it so and I'm sorry if that was somehow not clear enough to you but there is enough of a portion of the playerbase who will choose to invent facts rather than digest them that it really becomes an exercise in futility to respond and difficult to have an open dialogue where I can present honest information. I'll go ahead and give it a shot anyway and suggest that you read the thread and if you don't like something we've done then state your case as it relates to the facts given rather than being rude and spreading misinformation. There's plenty of other threads on the internet to do that in. This isn't one of them. |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
134
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:07:00 -
[173] - Quote
Oh and another thing regard to bots. It's a good thing CCP is taking some action against those players that engage in such activity, but the best thing CCP could do is make game changes that creates an environment unfavorable to bots in the first place.
Remove Local Chat Intel from Null Sec and add random false positives to DScan.
Fix Wardecs and make NPC corps somewhere only for raw newbies or automatically part of a Faction War system.
Take the leash of the Sandbox and players themselves will sort most of this out on their own. |
Xantor Bludberry
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:09:00 -
[174] - Quote
+1 for permanent lock! Forever and ever! And lock all chars on all accounts belonging that person. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
361
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:11:00 -
[175] - Quote
Camios wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Based on my experience yes it is the best course of action. Plenty disagree but today bots are getting banned so I get to be right and anyone saying I should tell them every detail of everything we do is wrong. I don't want to be dismissive because you're probably sincere. Were I to be trolling this thread I'd come in with something cool like SECURITY BY OBSCURITY because that's a catchphrase that people misinterpret as meaning that all systems need to be open or they're inherently insecure and I could probably argue with me for quite a while about it by taking that bait. In this case it's a videogame universe with a very specific set of capabilities and a very small team of people working on a rather large problem. We're not going to waste even an ounce of our time satisfying curiosity if there's even a glimmer of a chance it will make us have to do more work getting back to zero. I'm happy to see some examples of anyone else in this industry who handles the situation differently though. Hopefully that makes sense. I'll be blunt. People do think that EVE is FULL of bots. They have some reason in doing so, because there are some big stories about it out there, and because everybody who has mined or ratted a bit (or even played with the market) knows how repetitive that gameplay is. This is players making bad PR to EVE, with a reason. The rumors might be all rubbish, and all the folks could be wrong, but who cares? After all While you and your team may have just to fight against bots, your company has to fight against bots and against an unfavorable judgement of the playerbase on your effort (you know what i'm talking about). In this picture, your claim "we banned less than 2000 people" has some technical value but it cannot help the player that wants to understand how far are you from "winning the bot war". Giving away informations on what systems you put in place would instead be a move in restoring the trust of the playerbase. People are asking just because they want to believe in you. Another way to show how your good your methods are is giving us an estimate of how many bots are still out there, and the percentage you can detect. Use statistics, and find a number with an uncertainty bar, and tell us. People are not going to applaud when they think there are 25000 bots in EVE and you banned just less than 2000; they might be appy if there are less than 5000 bots in EVE and you banned almost half of them. But if you, for some reasons, cannot give us that number, well, in order to gain the playerbase trust you'll have to show us something else.
Thanks for being blunt but I've already explained that if "in order to gain the playerbase trust" I have to divulge our methods then you're simply not going to trust me. That's assuming that you personally speak for "the playerbase".
I will say that, as I've said in the past, I could only make a completely idiotic guess at how many bots there are. If I knew that they'd all be gone. I have been reminded about why I hate giving people numbers, as you are quite accurate in stating that you don't have the perspective to use them properly. The last time we did this I gave out none and everyone was all "JUST GIVE US SOME NUMBERS WE DONT NEED PERSPECTIVE WE WANT NUMBERS WE LOVE SPREADSHEETS".
We're just going to have to agree that this is as happy a medium as you're going to get for the time being and I'll apologize if that's not satisfactory to you. :) |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
361
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:13:00 -
[176] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names. Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so. Could you explain why--"Security for Dummies" version, please--this is the case? Thank you.
There's legal issues involved and the metagame component which will then bring into play accusations of favoritism to name two quick ones off the top of my head. I'll try to get a bit deeper of a response tomorrow when my brain turns back on. |
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:14:00 -
[177] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:And I'm off to bed EVE Dudes. I'll pop back by in the morning. I wonder what a person who commits genocide on bots dreams about... Sheep. Because (Ro)bots dream of electric sheep.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:17:00 -
[178] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names. Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so. Could you explain why--"Security for Dummies" version, please--this is the case? Thank you. Something to do with (I think) PDA? I don't know what it's about, and am a little confused about it myself - not sure what the PDA is, or why it would stop them from naming "in-game" names. Don't have to give the player name, just the in - game names (but that would also get you corp/alliance info too..) Not sure why they can't.
DPA is the Data Protection Act and it is basically a European thing that sets some rules around the privacy of your personal data. The problem is that MY NON LAWYER UNDERSTANDING IN PASSING there's some ambiguity involved in situations like in-game names and the information divulged in relation to that. That's probably complete garbage but I never studied law and never intend to.
In essence the simplest decision in naming and shaming is just not to have to worry about whether it's legal or not because there's other negatives as well.
The conversation's not over, but that's the conclusion that we've come to as of today. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:23:00 -
[179] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Oh and another thing regard to bots. It's a good thing CCP is taking some action against those players that engage in such activity, but the best thing CCP could do is make game changes that creates an environment unfavorable to bots in the first place.
Remove Local Chat Intel from Null Sec and add random false positives to DScan.
Fix Wardecs and make NPC corps somewhere only for raw newbies or automatically part of a Faction War system.
Take the leash of the Sandbox and players themselves will sort most of this out on their own.
Game design isn't my department. I'll caveat what I'm about to say having said that and also stating that I'm not responding directly to your above suggestions.
We're simply not going to design our game, played by piles of people legitimately, around a few bad apples. We may make changes because they make sense from a gameplay perspective or to spice things up or for a plethora of other reasons, but we're not going to sic the design team on making it impossible to bot via complete randomization of everything or captchas or *insert flavor of the day barrier to getting things done in a videogame here*.
Not addressed at you directly but it is a statement I wanted to get out there and your post gave me the shot. I'll also say that, yes design is a component of our strategy and while it may seem contradictory to what I said above it's not I just can't give specifics today. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
354
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:30:00 -
[180] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: In essence the simplest decision in naming and shaming is just not to have to worry about whether it's legal or not because there's other negatives as well.
The conversation's not over, but that's the conclusion that we've come to as of today.
I will name a couple.
A reporting system would be a "mass" reporting system. You publish 1000 names and voil+á you can be sure 1 of them was stupid enough to call his in game character with the same name of his RL self, his sister / relative etc.
Another: you publish 1000 names, one of them is known in RL by a corp mate that decides that the SMARTEST thing ever is to spam Facebook and his blog about how guy XYZ is a dirty cheater, lives at this address, and someone should go and really give him a lesson. Next day, you read the newspaper some demented idiot went there and shot the botter with a real gun.
There are countries where people like this actually lives, I don't need to make names.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:30:00 -
[181] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Thanks for being blunt but I've already explained that if "in order to gain the playerbase trust" I have to divulge our methods then you're simply not going to trust me. That's assuming that you personally speak for "the playerbase".
I will say that, as I've said in the past, I could only make a completely idiotic guess at how many bots there are. If I knew that they'd all be gone. I have been reminded about why I hate giving people numbers, as you are quite accurate in stating that you don't have the perspective to use them properly. The last time we did this I gave out none and everyone was all "JUST GIVE US SOME NUMBERS WE DONT NEED PERSPECTIVE WE WANT NUMBERS WE LOVE SPREADSHEETS".
We're just going to have to agree that this is as happy a medium as you're going to get for the time being and I'll apologize if that's not satisfactory to you. :) You know Sreegs, you might want to take a page out of the 2003 Devs forum replies... Just tell'em "this is the way it is, it's not changing and there's the door if you don't like it..."
There is a HUGE difference between "18 months", "watch what they do, not what they say..." and "I'm not telling you how we catch botters..."
And just to be clear here,
THANK YOU!
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
736
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:30:00 -
[182] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so.
Anyone who gets caught with 3 strikes should be named and shamed. They've proven with getting caught 3x that they're not going to change their habits. And eventually, that name-and-shame should be extended to those who have been caught twice, but not until the ban duration has passed (allow time for appeals).
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
354
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:31:00 -
[183] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: What the hell is up with you?
I am thinking outside of the crowd, like I always did, do and will do. Sorry if I don't groupthink, I don't take my pitchfork and don't hold a torch and don't wear the Inquisition hat nor show a frothing mouth.
Asuri Kinnes wrote: Let me put it to you this way:
The only way (ONLY WAY) to make sure someone doesn't get an inappropriate ban is:
NEVER BAN ANYONE AGAIN! EVER!
FOR ANYTHING.
< snip more caps and fervor maddened eyes >
NOTHING IS PERFECT so they do the best they can.
Deal with it.
No, they are not doing the best they can. CCP used to show a bland-at-best politic against botting, hand mild penalties and a pat on the shoulder to the repenting wrongdoers.
Now they hired a real Security Expert, got an official team to deal with the phenomenon, set up an organized bot smashing machine. At the same time they will make penalties harsher, permanent and so on. Which is AWESOME!
This requires a similar step up in the prevention and defense tools to be made available to the players. In the same way they added a big warning on all the forum links outside CCP's domain, in the same way they posted and updated multiple threads about how to defend from phishing and hacking etc, there should also be an effort into providing information and / or tools for the honest players to be SURE they are 100% running allowed stuff.
Otherwise you are providing a Ferrari engine to a Ford Fiesta. Sooner or later you'll notice how having crappy tires and city car brakes does not work so good with 500 HP.
As for the "sht happens, deal with it", I supposed in some countries it's a custom to have people sentenced to death and executed and then eventually find out if they were innocent. In the others, the defendant is given tools for self defense, there is a proofing system. If CCP goes the hard fist way then they should also implement a resilient proofing and possible defense system for those they suspect of cheating.
Said that, I hand the pitchfork back, use it at leisure, I envy your blind trust in technology, behavioral patterns and so on.
Titanic crew trusted in technology and self imagined total safeness after all. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:32:00 -
[184] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so.
Anyone who gets caught with 3 strikes should be named and shamed. They've proven with getting caught 3x that they're not going to change their habits. And eventually, that name-and-shame should be extended to those who have been caught twice, but not until the ban duration has passed (allow time for appeals). They said there was some legal concern they were thinking about - but i figured just in-game names... :)
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
355
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:40:00 -
[185] - Quote
Adding to my post above with a practical example.
There's a 3rd party tool that has been announced weeks ago (has 20 or so forum pages!) that completely automates in game market prices gathering. It really opens the right window for you, fills in the right item for you, then switches to the next and so on.
With such cumbersome default UI, a player seeing such software would rejoyce!
But wait, is this software - residing on the official EvE forums but never "checked" legit? Or is it a bot? What to the dozens who use it? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
383
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:46:00 -
[186] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Adding to my post above with a practical example.
There's a 3rd party tool that has been announced weeks ago (has 20 or so forum pages!) that completely automates in game market prices gathering. It really opens the right window for you, fills in the right item for you, then switches to the next and so on.
With such cumbersome default UI, a player seeing such software would rejoyce!
But wait, is this software - residing on the official EvE forums but never "checked" legit? Or is it a bot? What to the dozens who use it?
You are correct that there may be applications out there that we haven't specifically stated are good or bad, allowed or not and we should work to rectify that. I was actually just talking with someone about a different app the other day.
My perspective has always been that we make a client to interface with our server and that's what you're allowed to use, BUT I'm not the only person involved here and it's not purely my decision so I'll take the feedback you've given in that regard and see if we can do something useful with it. :) |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:46:00 -
[187] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
No, they are not doing the best they can. CCP used to show a bland-at-best politic against botting, hand mild penalties and a pat on the shoulder to the repenting wrongdoers.
Seriously? What has that to do with anything? If I were their security guy - that's all you'd be getting now - Sreegs is doing good...
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Now they hired a real Security Expert, got an official team to deal with the phenomenon, set up an organized bot smashing machine. At the same time they will make penalties harsher, permanent and so on. Which is AWESOME!
Glad we can agree on one thing anyway....
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This requires a similar step up in the prevention and defense tools to be made available to the players. In the same way they added a big warning on all the forum links outside CCP's domain, in the same way they posted and updated multiple threads about how to defend from phishing and hacking etc, there should also be an effort into providing information and / or tools for the honest players to be SURE they are 100% running allowed stuff.
Otherwise you are providing a Ferrari engine to a Ford Fiesta. Sooner or later you'll notice how having crappy tires and city car brakes does not work so good with 500 HP.
As for the "sht happens, deal with it", I supposed in some countries it's a custom to have people sentenced to death and executed and then eventually find out if they were innocent. In the others, the defendant is given tools for self defense, there is a proofing system. If CCP goes the hard fist way then they should also implement a resilient proofing and possible defense system for those they suspect of cheating.
Said that, I hand the pitchfork back, use it at leisure, I envy your blind trust in technology, behavioral patterns and so on.
Titanic crew trusted in technology and self imagined total safeness after all. Lets see - where to start.
WHY does it require a "similar step up"? So some people get inconvenienced? So what? Seriously, so what? And even if it did "require" something, what would it be (and please, do not suggest something client side - that could be hacked/modded too easily, we all know that).
Ferrari engine in a ford fiesta? What the hell are you on about? And death sentences? Last I checked, it was a game service, but nice little dig there - don't know dig at what, but points for it nonetheless...
If you go back and *read* what I wrote - there is no "blind trust in technology", nor is there a Titanic in sight... I said "imperfect system, imperfect people". And the one and only sure way not to get someone "innocent" - is to never ban anyone. That is the only absolute sure way.
But you threw out a couple good straw-men there.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
BlitZ Kotare
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:55:00 -
[188] - Quote
Personally I think 3 strikes is too mild. I'd rather see 2 strikes:
1st Strike - 14 day "don't do that again, ever" ban where all linked accounts are banned, all funds zeroed, all PLEX removed or injected and all characters permanently locked to those accounts. 2nd Strike - Permanent Ban.
However, I'm happy with the progress that has been made. I'm already noticing a difference in the markets I play in that there are fewer bots (some are certainly still there, no human can update 80 market orders in 2 minutes). Keep up the good work Sreggs. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
355
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:55:00 -
[189] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:If you go back and *read* what I wrote - there is no "blind trust in technology", nor is there a Titanic in sight... I said "imperfect system, imperfect people". And the one and only sure way not to get someone "innocent" - is to never ban anyone. That is the only absolute sure way.
But you threw out a couple good straw-men there.
You make it so easy, eh? Lack of empathy much?
"Oh, sht happened, that guy got banned, guess bad Karma hit him where the sun does not shine".
Example of secondary effects:
1) Guy was a CEO that did not gave every rights away, so now stuff is locked.
2) The corp was a group of RL friends / a community (there are many) where everyone know each other. The guy gets defaced in RL before his friends. "Did not even imagine you were a cheater and a liar!"
I believe that "innocent unless proven guilty" may indeed be too much guarantism. But then, even going with the harsh: "guilty unless proven innocent", the guy has to have a way to prove he is innocent.
Edit:
I am actually baffled about how little of a fck nobody gives and how all are SO SURE someone else will get the stick. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:56:00 -
[190] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Adding to my post above with a practical example.
There's a 3rd party tool that has been announced weeks ago (has 20 or so forum pages!) that completely automates in game market prices gathering. It really opens the right window for you, fills in the right item for you, then switches to the next and so on.
With such cumbersome default UI, a player seeing such software would rejoyce!
But wait, is this software - residing on the official EvE forums but never "checked" legit? Or is it a bot? What to the dozens who use it? Until what point an end user is meant to be so much geek to know if a certain python thing is good, another is bad, a DLL is ok and another is not? This is the lack of "tools" I am talking about. Hmmmmmm, last time I knew, the UI provided was the one we were all supposed to be using. And automating activities in game w/o player input is high up on the list of things we're *not* supposed to be doing. I know there are mods to use, using only the API pull. But I have a feeling that your not talking about that. So... Does it automate player actions?
If yes, I would consider it a bot. However, just pulling information (as long as no actions were taken - i.e. - filling orders, making orders or contracts, or accepting orders/contracts) - when it automates player decisions / actions - then it's bannable.
What are you going to have CCP do? Vet every addon that anyone ever comes out with?
Waste of time much?
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 02:01:00 -
[191] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You make it so easy, eh? Lack of empathy much?
"Oh, sht happened, that guy got banned, guess bad Karma hit him where the sun does not shine".
Example of secondary effects:
1) Guy was a CEO that did not gave every rights away, so now stuff is locked.
2) The corp was a group of RL friends / a community (there are many) where everyone know each other. The guy gets defaced in RL before his friends. "Did not even imagine you were a cheater and a liar!"
I believe that "innocent unless proven guilty" may indeed be too much guarantism. But then, even going with the harsh: "guilty unless proven innocent", the guy has to have a way to prove he is innocent. 1) - Corp petitions it - I cannot imagine CCP locking down all of a corps stuff forever. Unless there was isk/items moved around by his corp mates. Again, CCP has a system in place to deal with it.
2) That would suck for sure - he would have to petition it.
Again and again and again - there is *no* way to be 100% sure that everyone banned / warned / looked crosseyed at is guilty/innocent. It is impossible.
So, what are you suggestions as to "tools" that ccp could provide the players that *can't be hacked / gamed* to prove innocence?
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
355
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 02:06:00 -
[192] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: If yes, I would consider it a bot. However, just pulling information (as long as no actions were taken - i.e. - filling orders, making orders or contracts, or accepting orders/contracts) - when it automates player decisions / actions - then it's bannable.
What are you going to have CCP do? Vet every addon that anyone ever comes out with?
Waste of time much?
See, you don't even know yourself for sure and you are certainly more interested / expert in these things than most.
Grey areas are enemies of fair and sure "first / 2nd strike perma ban" politics.
Anyway I am going to bed, hoping to have provided Sreegs with a little of "outsider view" point of views while he is building this new, solid, WHOLE process from detection => ban => appeal => require innocence-proof => final judgement.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
DaDutchDude
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 02:15:00 -
[193] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This requires a similar step up in the prevention and defense tools to be made available to the players. In the same way they added a big warning on all the forum links outside CCP's domain, in the same way they posted and updated multiple threads about how to defend from phishing and hacking etc, there should also be an effort into providing information and / or tools for the honest players to be SURE they are 100% running allowed stuff.
Otherwise you are providing a Ferrari engine to a Ford Fiesta. Sooner or later you'll notice how having crappy tires and city car brakes does not work so good with 500 HP.
As for the "sht happens, deal with it", I supposed in some countries it's a custom to have people sentenced to death and executed and then eventually find out if they were innocent. In the others, the defendant is given tools for self defense, there is a proofing system. If CCP goes the hard fist way then they should also implement a resilient proofing and possible defense system for those they suspect of cheating. I think you are turning things upside down.
In Real Life, there are local laws, national laws, a constitution, international treaties, courts with judges, advocates and so on to protect your individual rights. They are very complex, very costly, sometimes burdening society quite significantly, but very important.
What we are talking about here however, is a game. Of course, individuals have rights, and especially in an MMO that attempts to simulate a society, there should be a good framework of rules between provider and customer to govern that relationship. As a matter of facts, there are those rules: http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp
Is that flawless? Does it cover every eventuality? **** no! However, do you want CCP to create virtual world constitutions, and courts, and appeal procedures and more of that just so they have completely cover all their bases in case rule lawyers get all uppity about not having very explicitly in full detail explained to them what they can and cannot do? Really, no amount of work in would ever satisfy some people. Even in real life in some of the most sophisticated justice systems, many people are rightly and wrongly disappointed by rulings and unclear about their rights. What makes you thing CCP can improve on that? Personally I would rather have CCP take a "common sense" approach and deal with legitimate complains on a case by case basis instead of spending vast amount of resources in fruitless efforts to appease rule lawyers in a game about internet space pixels.
And really, if you don't trust CCP in trying to actually keep paying customers instead of unfairly taking their stuff, then you should probably unsubscribe now and go do something else with your time. They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I always have the best intentions for others ... |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 02:16:00 -
[194] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:See, you don't even know yourself for sure and you are certainly more interested / expert in these things than most.
Grey areas are enemies of fair and sure "first / 2nd strike perma ban" politics.
Anyway I am going to bed, hoping to have provided Sreegs with a little of "outsider view" point of views while he is building this new, solid, WHOLE process from detection => ban => appeal => require innocence-proof => final judgement.
If it automates player actions it's a bot. Nothing unusual there... Nothing grey about it either.
Again - what tools that can't be gamed/hacked/circumvented?
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Dyner
Midgard Protectorate
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 02:27:00 -
[195] - Quote
Hope this doesn't count for people who sit with:
2) 20"+ monitors 1) Keyboard 1) Mouse 1) ALT TAB
...but mining with 5 accounts is sorta fun...
...feels like mast[etc] (relevant word!)....
...till I realize I'm still just playing with myself
LFG: Bot Slaying |
Malus Rens
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 02:33:00 -
[196] - Quote
You don't need to ban botters on the 1st offense, but you should make it publicly available information on their criminal record. |
Kanako Wakabayashi
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 02:36:00 -
[197] - Quote
wtb glitterbomb |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1005
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 03:06:00 -
[198] - Quote
Could I get a ban for being such nice guy?-)
blog wrote: BUT WAIT, THERE IS EVEN MORE! From now on, and this current wave is included, characters who receive a warning such as this will have the characters locked to the account. This means that once you've received a warning for botting your character transfer privileges have been revoked in perpetuity. This is to prevent people trying to circumvent the rules by recycling accounts. Yes we know people pointed out this could happen last time around and if you'll remember we said "We'll keep an eye on it and if it becomes a problem we'll deal with it". Here is us dealing with it. We'll probably have to come up with some form of timing solution for the future, but as it stands today it's forever. If you care about your dudes don't do bad things.
And way to go!
Get |
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 03:49:00 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Patient 2428190 wrote:Why do you feel the need to lie? Of course it was timed to be before fanfest. Nothing quite gets everybody pumped up and the circlejerking in full swing like a bot banning wave.
You only do a mass banning maybe once a year. Each time you do a mass banning, you claim its an ongoing process, but nothing changes until another annual ban party comes by. This happened last year, this happened with Unholy Rage.
Do you think anybody who would construct these bots wouldn't recognize the pattern? Nothing you've said in this post is accurate. We did and have shown that we did a large amount of activity on a regular basis for months. I've given you some examples of where to find that information in this thread. We openly stated in this very blog that during a period of reorganization it was shut off. Were I a dishonest lad you'd have never known things were shut off. Were we clamoring for pre-fanfest attention you'd have gotten fanfare about the event rather than having to hear about it from other players, unless you're insinuating that I'm such a brilliant puppetmaster that this is all part of my master plan to gain whatever, in which case thanks! You deciding it never happened doesn't make it so and I'm sorry if that was somehow not clear enough to you but there is enough of a portion of the playerbase who will choose to invent facts rather than digest them that it really becomes an exercise in futility to respond and difficult to have an open dialogue where I can present honest information. I'll go ahead and give it a shot anyway and suggest that you read the thread and if you don't like something we've done then state your case as it relates to the facts given rather than being rude and spreading misinformation. There's plenty of other threads on the internet to do that in. This isn't one of them.
I'll admit I don't know your schedule or what your team is doing behind the scenes, I'm not working at CCP, I'm just one of those lolcustomers you collectively tune out on the road to :AWSOME:. I just have what you get to say/write as for what is going on.
As I recall of last year's events, bots were banned, dev blogs were written and you were sent out to the forums. You then hosted your talks at fanfest about security, talked more about the process, what's going on and what's in the future. Then, all communication pretty much stopped. Now in the weeks leading up to this fanfest, the process/machine gets turned on and you get thrust back into public view. Bot banning, dev blogs, your forum posts start happening. All of this will probably dovetail into your talks and presentations at fanfest (I'd imagine)
Unless I'm seriously missing something, the timing has everything do with fanfest. If history repeats itself, we'll get more information now, at and shortly after fanfest then a whole lot of nothing in the way of communication. |
Purple Madness
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 04:10:00 -
[200] - Quote
If CCP really wanted to end 0.0 botting all they'd have to do is release a ship/module/subsystem/implant/booster/whatever that hid its pilot from local chat. The players would take care of the rest. |
|
Sister Megarea
Irregular Warfare Mean Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 04:36:00 -
[201] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Chiggy W wrote:
Have you guys considered the fact that most accounts only get dinged once because they just start up a new account once they get caught? I mean you've got to be a real mouthbreather to continue botting on an account that has been dinged once, so I think the metric that 1 temp ban is enough may be slightly flawed. Ultimately I guess it doesn't matter because even if perma-banned, the hardcore botters/RMT'ers are just going to start another account anyway, but I am certainly interested to know if you guys have considered this point, and how many accounts have their chars sold then go inactive after the first warning.
We didn't overlook that, but the solution to that is larger than the current discussion as working around that would lead to changes in design or how accounts are handled. We're moving into a world where that becomes less and less of a possibility but that can't happen overnight and the new team's existed for about a month or something. We need to progress in steps and if all I could deliver out of the door was The Ultimate Solution we'd never get anywhere. Point being I think that yes, we do consider that fact and yes we'd like to make it less and less of an option.
I would imagine that the botting accounts IPs and IP ranges would be monitored after that, which would help catch the numbnutz getting caught, then immediately creating new accounts... |
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 06:52:00 -
[202] - Quote
pâòpéípâîpâòpéºpé¦pââpâêpü½ Fíîpüæpü+pü¢péô püèTçæpüîpü¬püä pÇépüºpéé µ¥Ñs¦¦pü«pâòpéípâîpâòpéºpé¦pââpâêpü½ Fíîpüìpüƒpüä pÇé
Be ready CCP soundwave...Be ready.... |
deathpain
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 07:24:00 -
[203] - Quote
I would personally like to see Local dissapear from null sec, and not just for a botting point of view but a general combat view. I loved living in a wormhole and the fact that you was constantly under threat just made eve feel alot more intense for me. I left my wormhole a long time ago now and have lived in null sec since, but actually I feel really safe which just feels a shame. I can sit in a system for ages using my sexy Ishtar to kill rats with its sentries, and just hit scoop as soon as I see someone come into system which is rare enough on its own. So far that reason alone, lets loose local in null.
But on a botting view, it is seriously annoying that when you get a group of people together to go out roaming and you find some nice looking kill mails that they all instantly fly away and safe up as soon as your scout enter's system. If loosing local prevents this, it not only adds a extra feeling of danger to null sec, but also increases the ability to kill things and if you dont wish to die then you have to actually watch what your doing and stay safe.
I know alot of people will say they hate that DS now, but hell thats a great tool to use.
But as Sreegs wrote before, thats not down to him, but surely the fact that it damages botting, without the need to keep an eye on nullsec aswell as low and high will allow you guys to focus your man power more effieciently, and with allowing CCP to make blowing stuff up in null sec easier. We all know CCP love that...
As a second point, Sreegs I can imagine how difficult this job is for you. It must be difficult to catch these guys even with your funky software and I hope that funky " super secret " software is doing a good job. All faith in ya to beat the scurge of the galaxy. I have quit trading anywhere near trade hubs due to botters and we all know they are there.
What im wondering tho is you said somewhere about if you catch someone for botting that you basically tag all of there accounts as a botters so you can keep an eye on them. Can you really do that tho ? What I mean is surely they mask there IP address so that you cant see what there other accounts are.
If the answer to that is, I cant tell you, I understand but would be nice for an answer.
Also what about a policy " wont work for NPC but could help elsewhere " of giving corps/alliances punishments based on a botter being caught within there corp/alliance. From what I have seen some alliances that I wont name, actually havn't an issue with doing this stuff and promote it. If you punish them for this happening, then maybe eve citizens will be more inclined to force justice themselves to save there corp/alliance from getting hurt.
I remember a long time back we spotted someone within RAWR that we believed to be botting. We contacted our CEO to pass this information on, and the guy got killed multiple times and forced to stop botting or forced to leave. From what I remember he stopped pretty much immedietly. This kind of community change could be used to your advantage...
Yeah I know, a wall of text, thats nothing tho. Ask my corpies : ) |
Seb Seba
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 08:24:00 -
[204] - Quote
I really like this. Hopefully it stays that way so mining profession can actually start being worth something. I know a few people that like to mine but current ISK profit of it is very low. Killing bots will level prices and give miners what they should have from the start. As a hub trader I actually have mixed feelings. Thx to trade bots I managed to buy A LOT of things waaaay under market price simply by dragging the bot dow to fill my order. You just needed a bit of time to figure it out. My best accomplishment in this field is managing to fill 8 buy orders on Machariels for over 100M less than sale price. I dried that bot out ands made nice profit doing so. BUT i do agree that it requires you to actually babysit your orders all the time. |
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 08:41:00 -
[205] - Quote
Looks a like a job well done, Sreegs.
I would also like some information about whether botting is done by certain alliances or whether its evenly spread as a phenomenon. This would maybe reduce some of the namecalling and fingerpointing thats going on without any proof. |
malaire
235
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:34:00 -
[206] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:If it automates player actions it's a bot. Nothing unusual there... Nothing grey about it either. How do you define "player action" ?
Opening market window for certain item is usually "player action", but that can also be done with javascript API call.
So would you consider using that javascript API call "automating player action" ?
New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:38:00 -
[207] - Quote
malaire wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:If it automates player actions it's a bot. Nothing unusual there... Nothing grey about it either. How do you define "player action" ? Opening market window for certain item is usually "player action", but that can also be done with javascript API call. So would you consider using that javascript API call "automating player action" ? exactly
Ausri, visit http://eve-central.com/home/upload_suggest.html with your IGB for an example
Here's a forum thread (by malaire) on a practical application of the javascript API in connection with a cache reader (both ccp sanctioned tools). |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
259
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:38:00 -
[208] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Adding to my post above with a practical example.
There's a 3rd party tool that has been announced weeks ago (has 20 or so forum pages!) that completely automates in game market prices gathering. It really opens the right window for you, fills in the right item for you, then switches to the next and so on.
With such cumbersome default UI, a player seeing such software would rejoyce!
But wait, is this software - residing on the official EvE forums but never "checked" legit? Or is it a bot? What to the dozens who use it? Until what point an end user is meant to be so much geek to know if a certain python thing is good, another is bad, a DLL is ok and another is not? This is the lack of "tools" I am talking about. Hmmmmmm, last time I knew, the UI provided was the one we were all supposed to be using. And automating activities in game w/o player input is high up on the list of things we're *not* supposed to be doing. I know there are mods to use, using only the API pull. But I have a feeling that your not talking about that. So... Does it automate player actions? If yes, I would consider it a bot. However, just pulling information (as long as no actions were taken - i.e. - filling orders, making orders or contracts, or accepting orders/contracts) - when it automates player decisions / actions - then it's bannable. What are you going to have CCP do? Vet every addon that anyone ever comes out with? Waste of time much?
To give you a little background, it's a combination of 2 tools.
1: Cache scraping for the prices data, to upload to sites. 2: Using the IGB javascript api to load price information (so it then show up in the cache)
The tool is nothing new. It's what's been done on eve-central for months (possibly/probably longer. I just don't have a date other than 'before I started'.
The only game manipulation is using the javascript calls that CCP have provided in their IGB. No changes are made. As far as I'm aware, it's been ok-ed as 'not botting' FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
226
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 09:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
Death to all bots FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
391
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 10:30:00 -
[210] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Patient 2428190 wrote:Why do you feel the need to lie? Of course it was timed to be before fanfest. Nothing quite gets everybody pumped up and the circlejerking in full swing like a bot banning wave.
You only do a mass banning maybe once a year. Each time you do a mass banning, you claim its an ongoing process, but nothing changes until another annual ban party comes by. This happened last year, this happened with Unholy Rage.
Do you think anybody who would construct these bots wouldn't recognize the pattern? Nothing you've said in this post is accurate. We did and have shown that we did a large amount of activity on a regular basis for months. I've given you some examples of where to find that information in this thread. We openly stated in this very blog that during a period of reorganization it was shut off. Were I a dishonest lad you'd have never known things were shut off. Were we clamoring for pre-fanfest attention you'd have gotten fanfare about the event rather than having to hear about it from other players, unless you're insinuating that I'm such a brilliant puppetmaster that this is all part of my master plan to gain whatever, in which case thanks! You deciding it never happened doesn't make it so and I'm sorry if that was somehow not clear enough to you but there is enough of a portion of the playerbase who will choose to invent facts rather than digest them that it really becomes an exercise in futility to respond and difficult to have an open dialogue where I can present honest information. I'll go ahead and give it a shot anyway and suggest that you read the thread and if you don't like something we've done then state your case as it relates to the facts given rather than being rude and spreading misinformation. There's plenty of other threads on the internet to do that in. This isn't one of them. I'll admit I don't know your schedule or what your team is doing behind the scenes, I'm not working at CCP, I'm just one of those lolcustomers you collectively tune out on the road to :AWSOME:. I just have what you get to say/write as for what is going on. As I recall of last year's events, bots were banned, dev blogs were written and you were sent out to the forums. You then hosted your talks at fanfest about security, talked more about the process, what's going on and what's in the future. Then, all communication pretty much stopped. Now in the weeks leading up to this fanfest, the process/machine gets turned on and you get thrust back into public view. Bot banning, dev blogs, your forum posts start happening. All of this will probably dovetail into your talks and presentations at fanfest (I'd imagine) Unless I'm seriously missing something, the timing has everything do with fanfest. If history repeats itself, we'll get more information now, at and shortly after fanfest then a whole lot of nothing in the way of communication.
I find it unfortunate that we haven't found the proper communication venue to reach you personally and specifically but your statement that communication simply ceased after fanfest is not even accurate as relates to dev blogs or these forums, nevermind the multitude of other venues we use to communicate such as external speaking engagements. I don't want to get in the way of a bitter meme-chain and as I said there were a couple of months where there was some restructuring going on, but to insinuate even that no communication has occurred for 6 months would be wrong much less over a year. |
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
391
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 10:32:00 -
[211] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:malaire wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:If it automates player actions it's a bot. Nothing unusual there... Nothing grey about it either. How do you define "player action" ? Opening market window for certain item is usually "player action", but that can also be done with javascript API call. So would you consider using that javascript API call "automating player action" ? exactly Ausri, visit http://eve-central.com/home/upload_suggest.html with your IGB for an example Here's a forum thread (by malaire) on a practical application of the javascript API in connection with a cache reader (both ccp sanctioned tools).
Could you please provide me with some link validating that CCP sanctions cache scraping? |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 10:39:00 -
[212] - Quote
Can we keep this topic about real solutions about botting instead of it becoming another "Nerf teh local" silly topic. Botting is a different matter than you not being able to get that juicy kill because a real player is paying attention.
Removing local wont kill botting. Hitting report bot is the best thing we can do. If you are running into juicy bot targets report them and let CCP get teh bot remove mail.
Now about this whole "Bot banz before teh Fanfest" thing. I do believe CCP has had some communication on the subject between these waves but I will say this.
While I applaud your efforts on this CCP you have to keep up the pressure on these botting idiots. And continue to talk about it and continue to urge people to use the report bot function. There has been far too many able to say "CCP likes botting because of PLEX" on this forum and it needs to stop. Constant communication will help.
I agree that 10 bot bans is better than a single message on the forums. However you simply cant let such rumors grow because they actively sap the morale of the active players. Even if it is as simple as "Ok report the botting idiot and let us get to work " |
malaire
235
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 10:43:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Could you please provide me with some link validating that CCP sanctions cache scraping? Petition created by "malaire" in Exploits category with subject "Is this javascript using market "bot" allowed?" on 2011-08-18 07:39, answered by GM Karidor on 2011-09-17 18:04
I would love to quote exact answer here, but unfortunately that is against forum rules.
New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
391
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 10:58:00 -
[214] - Quote
malaire wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Could you please provide me with some link validating that CCP sanctions cache scraping? Petition created by "malaire" in Exploits category with subject "Is this javascript using market "bot" allowed?" on 2011-08-18 07:39, answered by GM Karidor on 2011-09-17 18:04 I would love to quote exact answer here, but unfortunately that is against forum rules.
That's fine. The main reason I asked was more based on an earlier discussion about how these things are communicated than anything else. Thanks! |
|
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:04:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:malaire wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:If it automates player actions it's a bot. Nothing unusual there... Nothing grey about it either. How do you define "player action" ? Opening market window for certain item is usually "player action", but that can also be done with javascript API call. So would you consider using that javascript API call "automating player action" ? exactly Ausri, visit http://eve-central.com/home/upload_suggest.html with your IGB for an example Here's a forum thread (by malaire) on a practical application of the javascript API in connection with a cache reader (both ccp sanctioned tools). Could you please provide me with some link validating that CCP sanctions cache scraping? of course I can
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249
GM Karidor wrote: 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect, collate and upload market data. As long as the IGB-specific procedure to open the market window for a specific item (and thus having the client creating cache data for that item) exists, you can use it. Keep in mind, though, that changes to this may happen and this procedure may stop working at any time. Also, reading and evaluating the clients cache data with third party tools is permitted, however modifying cache files used by the client is not and falls under modification of client files.
Those policies are, at this point, unlikely to change anytime soon, but yes, we may revise them should we deem it necessary.
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:06:00 -
[216] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Can we keep this topic about real solutions about botting instead of it becoming another "Nerf teh local" silly topic. Botting is a different matter than you not being able to get that juicy kill because a real player is paying attention. Removing local wont kill botting. Hitting report bot is the best thing we can do. If you are running into juicy bot targets report them and let CCP get teh bot remove mail. Now about this whole "Bot banz before teh Fanfest" thing. I do believe CCP has had some communication on the subject between these waves but I will say this. While I applaud your efforts on this CCP you have to keep up the pressure on these botting idiots. And continue to talk about it and continue to urge people to use the report bot function. There has been far too many able to say "CCP likes botting because of PLEX" on this forum and it needs to stop. Constant communication will help. I agree that 10 bot bans is better than a single message on the forums. However you simply cant let such rumors grow because they actively sap the morale of the active players. Even if it is as simple as "Ok report the botting idiot and let us get to work "
I don't disagree that we need to be better at communicating. It's something we've highlighted internally quite often and why I spend days following these threads. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
357
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:11:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Could you please provide me with some link validating that CCP sanctions cache scraping?
Eactly. Plus almost all those applications use Python, DLLs and whatever.
If CCP in 3 months decides that those apps are bannable offense, how will players prove they were in good faith?
Also, CCP Sreegs sorry for being a pain in the **** but I am REALLY concerned into fitting in some of those patterns.
I am an heavy investor. Right today I gave 10 billions to a guy in exchange for collateral.
How can I protect myself against someone giving me botted / RMTed collateral? I know that person and he is very unlikely to be a cheater.
But in the past I DID receive BPOs as collateral from a guy. Only months later I got a mail stating he found out who loaned him the money for those BPOs was banned for RMT.
Another case: a third guy wants to hand me 100 billions soon. Will it trigger all sorts of "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA RMT ALERRRRRTTTTT" bells in your office?
How do I PROVE that I get legit ISK? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Lady Godwynn
Cobalt Valkyrie Industries The Ambivalent
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:12:00 -
[218] - Quote
Hey Sreegs
As the focus of this thread has mainly been on PVE bots, I would just like to mention that us traders have noticed a significant drop in botting activity in market hubs these past days. If this is what EVE is like with less bots, then I shudder to think about having to play with all of them again after having seen what it's like not to.
The effect of PVE/Mining bots is perhaps not as instant as they aren't up close and personal and affect the macro level of the game more with increasing mineral prices / inflation. PVE bots have an effect on the economy of EVE but they are not in your belts/missions/anoms interacting directly with other players. In the marketplace you have to deal more directly with them as you see the same account update more orders than is humanly possible.
Finally, I got a comment on this observation from another player in an MD thread that said that the void created by the bots would just be filled by human players .01 isking me all day long. if so, then that's pure win for CCP as more people, perhaps turned away from Jita trading by bots, would try their hands at one more aspect of the game that they didn't use. Nothing would please me more than to play market games with fallable humans rather than scripts.
Yours Lady Godwynn
|
Malcom Dax
Blacklight Incorporated Broken Chains Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:24:00 -
[219] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Can we keep this topic about real solutions about botting instead of it becoming another "Nerf teh local" silly topic. Botting is a different matter than you not being able to get that juicy kill because a real player is paying attention. Removing local wont kill botting. Hitting report bot is the best thing we can do. If you are running into juicy bot targets report them and let CCP get teh bot remove mail. Now about this whole "Bot banz before teh Fanfest" thing. I do believe CCP has had some communication on the subject between these waves but I will say this. While I applaud your efforts on this CCP you have to keep up the pressure on these botting idiots. And continue to talk about it and continue to urge people to use the report bot function. There has been far too many able to say "CCP likes botting because of PLEX" on this forum and it needs to stop. Constant communication will help. I agree that 10 bot bans is better than a single message on the forums. However you simply cant let such rumors grow because they actively sap the morale of the active players. Even if it is as simple as "Ok report the botting idiot and let us get to work " I don't disagree that we need to be better at communicating. It's something we've highlighted internally quite often and why I spend days following these threads.
Releasing some sort of monthly statistics on the number of bans might be a good way to keep the playerbase informed as to the fact that this is ongoing. Blacklight Incorporated: Recruiting all pilots for PvE and Industry - UK/EU/US timezone. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
394
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:27:00 -
[220] - Quote
Malcom Dax wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Can we keep this topic about real solutions about botting instead of it becoming another "Nerf teh local" silly topic. Botting is a different matter than you not being able to get that juicy kill because a real player is paying attention. Removing local wont kill botting. Hitting report bot is the best thing we can do. If you are running into juicy bot targets report them and let CCP get teh bot remove mail. Now about this whole "Bot banz before teh Fanfest" thing. I do believe CCP has had some communication on the subject between these waves but I will say this. While I applaud your efforts on this CCP you have to keep up the pressure on these botting idiots. And continue to talk about it and continue to urge people to use the report bot function. There has been far too many able to say "CCP likes botting because of PLEX" on this forum and it needs to stop. Constant communication will help. I agree that 10 bot bans is better than a single message on the forums. However you simply cant let such rumors grow because they actively sap the morale of the active players. Even if it is as simple as "Ok report the botting idiot and let us get to work " I don't disagree that we need to be better at communicating. It's something we've highlighted internally quite often and why I spend days following these threads. Releasing some sort of monthly statistics on the number of bans might be a good way to keep the playerbase informed as to the fact that this is ongoing.
That's something we've discussed but we always end up back at the point where there's no context for the numbers. If we don't know the scale completely then the numbers really don't have much meaning. That said something is better than nothing so once we've had a few days to let this percolate we'll sit down and see what we want to do long term. |
|
|
Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:31:00 -
[221] - Quote
What is the time frame these bans were done? Is this a running tally since you took this job? What are those dates? I believe it would be better representation of the impact of what your doing by seeing these stats monthly instead of over a longer period of time. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
394
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:37:00 -
[222] - Quote
Lady Godwynn wrote:Hey Sreegs
As the focus of this thread has mainly been on PVE bots, I would just like to mention that us traders have noticed a significant drop in botting activity in market hubs these past days. If this is what EVE is like with less bots, then I shudder to think about having to play with all of them again after having seen what it's like not to.
The effect of PVE/Mining bots is perhaps not as instant as they aren't up close and personal and affect the macro level of the game more with increasing mineral prices / inflation. PVE bots have an effect on the economy of EVE but they are not in your belts/missions/anoms interacting directly with other players. In the marketplace you have to deal more directly with them as you see the same account update more orders than is humanly possible.
Finally, I got a comment on this observation from another player in an MD thread that said that the void created by the bots would just be filled by human players .01 isking me all day long. if so, then that's pure win for CCP as more people, perhaps turned away from Jita trading by bots, would try their hands at one more aspect of the game that they didn't use. Nothing would please me more than to play market games with fallable humans rather than scripts.
Yours Lady Godwynn
Thanks for these posts. We've seen a lot of feedback directly related to market botting and how the trading quality of life has been increased tremendously since we did this. Because of how tremendous the feedback was regarding market bots specifically I asked Stillman to take a peek at what the scale was specifically with that bot type and the result may very well be telling when it comes to discussing perspective and impact and why we have a hard time reporting numbers related to these things.
Of all the accounts tagged exactly 10 were market bots. That's preliminary and there may have been some other detections we're missing, not really scientific, but a quick once over of the data shows that the impact that you've been seeing on the market has been caused by 10 accounts, which is pretty astounding.
I don't have any conclusions drawn from that yet as I only just got the information but I found it interesting enough to share with you guys since it seems to be something you've netted as having had an immediate positive impact and the scale of the activity from a number of people involved perspective was so low. |
|
BashNako
Invisible Presence
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:40:00 -
[223] - Quote
Botter tears, best tears! |
Jackson Firn
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:44:00 -
[224] - Quote
Good information, i agree with the points about not just banning the ability to transfer characters but also to freeze all assets such that they cannot be traded or exchanged in game by any method. I also feel that you should have that DPA discussion and conclude that naming and shaming is yet another way to curtail the botters. I believe the WOT do something similar with Inappropriate names and corp names.
Nice to see you guys on the case of the botters, if it helps i have this romantic view of CCP Sreegs doing a whole CSI, House, Sherlock Holmes thing, I a m sure you will get your Dr No CCP Sreegs, and always remember..
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth...
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
357
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:55:00 -
[225] - Quote
Since the other peeps got a reply, could I pretty please get an answer to my previous post about loans and 3rd party collateral? It's not like I am the only one in game handling large amounts of third party items and ISK and we don't have any way to know about their legitimacy.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:53:00 -
[226] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Since the other peeps got a reply, could I pretty please get an answer to my previous post about loans and 3rd party collateral? It's not like I am the only one in game handling large amounts of third party items and ISK and we don't have any way to know about their legitimacy.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. It seems to me that you're involved in business ventures which carry with them some risk. In those ventures you're clearly dealing with people you can't trust and if I'm tracking this correctly you're asking me to ensure you that if bad people do things we won't reverse the transactions and I simply won't ever make a blanket statement like that based on potential future scenarios. Everything is dealt with on a case by case basis and every business venture carries risk. CCP does not subsidize that risk for you and it's to you to determine that the isk you're gaining is being gained legally. If you're engaging in markets such as loans which are beyond the intent of our systems by design then that risk is yours.
You could make an argument that CCP should design some form of guaranteed loan system but that wouldn't be my department. Every time you make a transaction outside of the scope of our controlled systems such as the market or contract system you are choosing to accept that risk. |
|
Lady Godwynn
Cobalt Valkyrie Industries The Ambivalent
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:54:00 -
[227] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Hey Sreegs
Thanks for these posts. We've seen a lot of feedback directly related to market botting and how the trading quality of life has been increased tremendously since we did this. Because of how tremendous the feedback was regarding market bots specifically I asked Stillman to take a peek at what the scale was specifically with that bot type and the result may very well be telling when it comes to discussing perspective and impact and why we have a hard time reporting numbers related to these things.
Of all the accounts tagged exactly 10 were market bots. That's preliminary and there may have been some other detections we're missing, not really scientific, but a quick once over of the data shows that the impact that you've been seeing on the market has been caused by 10 accounts, which is pretty astounding.
I don't have any conclusions drawn from that yet as I only just got the information but I found it interesting enough to share with you guys since it seems to be something you've netted as having had an immediate positive impact and the scale of the activity from a number of people involved perspective was so low.
Wow, that is some good information right there. Shows you how little everyone knew about both the scale and the effect of these bots. We love information! :-)
Just want to stress again my hopes that they won't be returning in 14 days and that your numbers stay true.
Yours Lady Godwynn
|
Miliolida
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:10:00 -
[228] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
you're insinuating that I'm such a brilliant puppetmaster that this is all part of my master plan to gain whatever,
Not whatever... THE WORLD! I always knew it!!!!!!!
The truth is out there!!!!!
I bring proof!
http://i.imgur.com/nF7qH.jpg |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
358
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:23:00 -
[229] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. It seems to me that you're involved in business ventures which carry with them some risk. In those ventures you're clearly dealing with people you can't trust and if I'm tracking this correctly you're asking me to ensure you that if bad people do things we won't reverse the transactions and I simply won't ever make a blanket statement like that based on potential future scenarios. Everything is dealt with on a case by case basis and every business venture carries risk. CCP does not subsidize that risk for you and it's to you to determine that the isk you're gaining is being gained legally. If you're engaging in markets such as loans which are beyond the intent of our systems by design then that risk is yours.
You could make an argument that CCP should design some form of guaranteed loan system but that wouldn't be my department. Every time you make a transaction outside of the scope of our controlled systems such as the market or contract system you are choosing to accept that risk.
Thank you for your reply. I did not mean about the risk of losing ISK. I meant about the risk of being banned myself just because someone cheated / RMT in the "chain" that ends with me holding collateral.
Also, I read that in other MMOs they flag players handling large amounts of ISK and I think the 100B I would get, could make me blacklisted somewhere. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Angus Minkiahead
Minmatar Bread Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:24:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Thanks for being blunt but I've already explained that if "in order to gain the playerbase trust" I have to divulge our methods then you're simply not going to trust me. That's assuming that you personally speak for "the playerbase".
I will say that, as I've said in the past, I could only make a completely idiotic guess at how many bots there are. If I knew that they'd all be gone. I have been reminded about why I hate giving people numbers, as you are quite accurate in stating that you don't have the perspective to use them properly. The last time we did this I gave out none and everyone was all "JUST GIVE US SOME NUMBERS WE DONT NEED PERSPECTIVE WE WANT NUMBERS WE LOVE SPREADSHEETS".
We're just going to have to agree that this is as happy a medium as you're going to get for the time being and I'll apologize if that's not satisfactory to you. :)
The point I expressed was not a picture of my feelings, but of what I felt was the mood of part of the community. I bet you already knew it, but I think you don't distinguish between the "haters/naysayers" and those that are sincerely worried and would like to have some real information.
About numbers, every real world organization that fights any kind of crime usually has an estimate of how big the phenomenon is, even if they can't find the exact number for obvious reasons. I understand that there are many reasons for you not to tell anybody about the estimations you have, but at least there should be a criterion to evaluate your work on a corporate level, at least as a way to decide how many resources must be devoted to security issues.
The contradiction I see is that you don't need to write devblogs and make fanfest presentations to do your security job (since you don't need to collect feedback on stuff you can't tell us about). So for what reasons do you write these apart from telling the playerbase "we are working hard and we are succeeding" for PR reasons? But the hilarious part is that you can't state how you are effective and as I already said we can't understand from ourselves (since you are not helping us in this).
Good luck anyway, we'll never know how effective you are. So, I say "good luck and go on" but frankly I can't say how much you are effective and, to me, that's all (since you won't give us any element to ). |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
358
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:37:00 -
[231] - Quote
Angus Minkiahead wrote: About numbers, every real world organization that fights any kind of crime usually has an estimate of how big the phenomenon is, even if they can't find the exact number for obvious reasons. I understand that there are many reasons for you not to tell anybody about the estimations you have, but at least there should be a criterion to evaluate your work on a corporate level, at least as a way to decide how many resources must be devoted to security issues.
Real world organizations put people in jail.
Here, they might find the super-nuker algorythm to find and kill all the bots of a certain maker. Of course if they publish they found 2773 bots and that "brand" bot makers know they sold 2800 bots, they will be warned it's THEIR bot in particular to have been hosed for good. And thus they will go change it and make CCP's work harder.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
403
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:38:00 -
[232] - Quote
Angus Minkiahead wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Thanks for being blunt but I've already explained that if "in order to gain the playerbase trust" I have to divulge our methods then you're simply not going to trust me. That's assuming that you personally speak for "the playerbase".
I will say that, as I've said in the past, I could only make a completely idiotic guess at how many bots there are. If I knew that they'd all be gone. I have been reminded about why I hate giving people numbers, as you are quite accurate in stating that you don't have the perspective to use them properly. The last time we did this I gave out none and everyone was all "JUST GIVE US SOME NUMBERS WE DONT NEED PERSPECTIVE WE WANT NUMBERS WE LOVE SPREADSHEETS".
We're just going to have to agree that this is as happy a medium as you're going to get for the time being and I'll apologize if that's not satisfactory to you. :)
The point I expressed was not a picture of my feelings, but of what I felt was the mood of part of the community. I bet you already knew it, but I think you don't distinguish between the "haters/naysayers" and those that are sincerely worried and would like to have some real information. About numbers, every real world organization that fights any kind of crime usually has an estimate of how big the phenomenon is, even if they can't find the exact number for obvious reasons. I understand that there are many reasons for you not to tell anybody about the estimations you have, but at least there should be a criterion to evaluate your work on a corporate level, at least as a way to decide how many resources must be devoted to security issues. The contradiction I see is that you don't need to write devblogs and make fanfest presentations to do your security job (since you don't need to collect feedback on stuff you can't tell us about). So for what reasons do you write these apart from telling the playerbase "we are working hard and we are succeeding" for PR reasons? But the hilarious part is that you can't state how you are effective and as I already said we can't understand from ourselves (since you are not helping us in this). Good luck anyway, we'll never know how effective you are.
There's a member of the community a few posts above you who seems to feel otherwise as an example. Thanks for the well wishes however and enjoy yourself! |
|
The Snowman
Aliastra Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:48:00 -
[233] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here.
It seemed pretty clear to me.
We already know that accounts with large amounts of ISK are carefully monitored for RMT activity. No need to deny or confirm, its logical and obvious.
But some players legitimately posses large quantity of ISK and large quantity of ISK legitimately 'pass through' their account. Often this is how such players gain incredibly large amounts of ISK, because they have whats known as a very high "Money velocity"
Since CCP provides no function of facility for players to check, for certain, that the money they are handling is legal in the first place then in almost all cases illegal money can be passed through several innocent players.
Its not like we can put the currency under a scanner and check it for fraud, its not like you provide a telephone number for us to call you and ask "hey is this ISK Legit?"
Logically, it would be unfair to simply ban an account that happens to have either handled or is handling illegitimately obtained currency.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
358
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:00:00 -
[234] - Quote
That's also my concern. To end up in a Dante's hell RMT circle because of missing game mechanisms to defend good faith big turnover players. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
403
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:01:00 -
[235] - Quote
The Snowman wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. It seemed pretty clear to me. We already know that accounts with large amounts of ISK are carefully monitored for RMT activity. No need to deny or confirm, its logical and obvious. But some players legitimately posses large quantity of ISK and large quantity of ISK legitimately 'pass through' their account. Often this is how such players gain incredibly large amounts of ISK, because they have whats known as a very high "Money velocity" Since CCP provides no function of facility for players to check, for certain, that the money they are handling is legal in the first place then in almost all cases illegal money can be passed through several innocent players. Its not like we can put the currency under a scanner and check it for fraud, its not like you provide a telephone number for us to call you and ask "hey is this ISK Legit?" Logically, it would be unfair to simply ban an account that happens to have either handled or is handling illegitimately obtained currency.
You are correct that it is logical to assume that in a scenario where there are high volumes of illicit isk changing hands some of this isk could be funneled through legitimate means. If there exists a scenario where you're involved in one of these transactions and you're somehow impacted then you'd have to discuss it with us at that time. As I said I'm not going to make blanket statements based on potential future scenarios and everything will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
I can't really think of an example that fits what's being described as a potential problem today. When we take action we will do our best to ensure that innocents aren't impacted but I won't make promises and I don't see some magical tool that's going to give you the knowledge of whether the isk you're using is dirty or not ever existing.
EVE is a social game. Much like in the real world you make decisions about who you will do business with and there's an entire community of people out there who will give you their opinions about those people. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong and you get had, but what seems to be being asked for here is really not something I can ever see occurring as things stand today.
|
|
Jarnis McPieksu
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:14:00 -
[236] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Of all the accounts tagged exactly 10 were market bots. That's preliminary and there may have been some other detections we're missing, not really scientific, but a quick once over of the data shows that the impact that you've been seeing on the market has been caused by 10 accounts, which is pretty astounding.
I don't have any conclusions drawn from that yet as I only just got the information but I found it interesting enough to share with you guys since it seems to be something you've netted as having had an immediate positive impact and the scale of the activity from a number of people involved perspective was so low.
10 market bot bans but how many other botters quickly taking theirs offline in the hope of not getting whacked...
Also 10 accounts can do a lot if they keep playing the market game 23/7 on maxed out market order capabilities and obviously concentrating on high volume items - stuff where larger number of active traders see the effect of automated trading constantly undercutting you.
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:36:00 -
[237] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Of all the accounts tagged exactly 10 were market bots. That's preliminary and there may have been some other detections we're missing, not really scientific, but a quick once over of the data shows that the impact that you've been seeing on the market has been caused by 10 accounts, which is pretty astounding.
I don't have any conclusions drawn from that yet as I only just got the information but I found it interesting enough to share with you guys since it seems to be something you've netted as having had an immediate positive impact and the scale of the activity from a number of people involved perspective was so low.
10 market bot bans but how many other botters quickly taking theirs offline in the hope of not getting whacked... Also 10 accounts can do a lot if they keep playing the market game 23/7 on maxed out market order capabilities and obviously concentrating on high volume items - stuff where larger number of active traders see the effect of automated trading constantly undercutting you.
This is also a prime example of me not being able to say "There are x number of market botters in EVE and we caught x" but what I can do is say "We banned 10 and players are reporting a noticeable impact on the market". The same can be said for other figures. For instance, as I've said, when we action on botters overall CPU per user usage on the cluster drops.
There's indicators of things being effective even when you don't know the entire scope of the problem. You make educated guesses and hammer things you know to be bad and measure the results. I don't think the same measurement would work for instance with ratting bots because everyone who cloaks when you jump into a system ever is a bot, so player feelings aren't necessarily the greatest indicator there. What we can do though is show a sharp decline in things like mission payouts and bounties as a total picture of the payout pie in relation to average amounts of time spent playing, etc. and that's kind of the direction we need to head.
I concur with some of the sentiments expressed that overall players have a particular attitude and we do have to come up with ways to show that there's some effective work being done. That's actually part of the challenge and it's not always the easiest because it's often based on feelings or guessing the intuitions of others. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
519
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:55:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Malcom Dax wrote:-----------
Releasing some sort of monthly statistics on the number of bans might be a good way to keep the playerbase informed as to the fact that this is ongoing. That's something we've discussed but we always end up back at the point where there's no context for the numbers. If we don't know the scale completely then the numbers really don't have much meaning. That said something is better than nothing so once we've had a few days to let this percolate we'll sit down and see what we want to do long term.
There is a bit of context for the numbers. Many players look at the concurrent users value, and that gives a scale to ban numbers. For example, currently we have an average of 31000 concurrent users, so if 1500 bot got banned and we assume they were running 50% of the day, then 2.4% of the "players" logged in at any given time were bots that just got caught.
Further context is obtained with time, as the ban data builds up. We compare the ban numbers to their history, look for trends. For example a declining rate of banning coupled with anecdotal reports of bots everywhere indicates someone at CCP needs to wake up. But a declining rate coupled with few seeing bots indicates the botters have decided to take their business elsewhere.
Finally, blogs and threads like this get buried with time. A player who joins in a month may never see it. What deters such a player from trying botting? At the moment just the EULA. Better would be some continuous, persistent reports of bot bannings. If we can deter players from botting, even once, the problem (and your problem!) is reduced. In addition if we deter players from trying botting then they do not buy botting software. As their income drops, that will deter bot software sellers from continuing to offer their product. I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
David Forge
Forge Enterprises
84
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:17:00 -
[239] - Quote
Might there be a way to crossreference the ten banned market bot accounts with their past market activity to determine for certain that they were indeed responsible of such a noticeable effect on the markets or if we are coincidentally experiencing a time of less vicious competition? It seems hard to swallow that ten bots were doing so much and this way we could know for sure one way or the other. If they were responsible their owners must be sitting on a massive pile of ISK and assets. |
Angus Minkiahead
Minmatar Bread Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:20:00 -
[240] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
I concur with some of the sentiments expressed that overall players have a particular attitude and we do have to come up with ways to show that there's some effective work being done. That's actually part of the challenge and it's not always the easiest because it's often based on feelings or guessing the intuitions of others.
Re-posting just to say that I had some confirmation I was looking for, that is, some really hard core botters I know were banned. This tends to make my own perception of the game better and keeps morale high, but it's a rather irrational thing.
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:29:00 -
[241] - Quote
David Forge wrote:Might there be a way to crossreference the ten banned market bot accounts with their past market activity to determine for certain that they were indeed responsible of such a noticeable effect on the markets or if we are coincidentally experiencing a time of less vicious competition? It seems hard to swallow that ten bots were doing so much and this way we could know for sure one way or the other. If they were responsible their owners must be sitting on a massive pile of ISK and assets.
We'll certainly do some digging in this direction. Probably not until Monday though. |
|
David Forge
Forge Enterprises
84
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:33:00 -
[242] - Quote
I understand as well as anybody that it's the weekend and a certain amount of alcohol must be consumed in the next two days. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:36:00 -
[243] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:malaire wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:If it automates player actions it's a bot. Nothing unusual there... Nothing grey about it either. How do you define "player action" ? Opening market window for certain item is usually "player action", but that can also be done with javascript API call. So would you consider using that javascript API call "automating player action" ? exactly Ausri, visit http://eve-central.com/home/upload_suggest.html with your IGB for an example Here's a forum thread (by malaire) on a practical application of the javascript API in connection with a cache reader (both ccp sanctioned tools). Could you please provide me with some link validating that CCP sanctions cache scraping?
Well, actually, yeah. There's a good example out there. Reverence is a tool specifically designed to read the Eve client cache. It was created by Entity, who I understand has some pretty good connections at CCP. It has existed for years, had many many forums threads, and its OP specifically states: "Special thanks go to CCP for granting permission to release this product, even though it is heavily inspired by EVE Online's design." https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6501
So either this quite well-respected (even famous!) player is lying and this illegal tool has been allowed to flourish in the technology lab forum for years and years while being used by dozens of third party developers -- or CCP sanctions cache scraping.
Market uploaders using the IGB similar to eve-central's uploader are quite common, really. Eve-central's has been around for years too. If you feel they haven't been properly sanctioned, I hope you take the opportunity to do so! They are not the droids you're looking for.
edit: I presume the petition referred to in this post sanctioned cache scrapers and using the IGB for market uploads? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=881205#post881205 |
IsTheOpOver
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:52:00 -
[244] - Quote
First of all, I'd like to applaud CCP Sreegs and CCP for banning bots. The last few months have been somewhat depressing as the bots running rampant (despite petitions, gankings, whatever) seemed unhindered. The "War against bots" thread that was very active right after fanfest had been dead and buried for the better part of a year. It truely seemed that CCP did not care. This is very good news and a step in the right direction.
CCP Sreegs wrote: We're simply not going to design our game, played by piles of people legitimately, around a few bad apples. We may make changes because they make sense from a gameplay perspective or to spice things up or for a plethora of other reasons, but we're not going to sic the design team on making it impossible to bot via complete randomization of everything or captchas or *insert flavor of the day barrier to getting things done in a videogame here*.
Except for calling Eve a videogame (it's a computer game) I agree with your paragraph there completely. Please do not add captcha to the mining process (or anything else that a bot would be created to circumvent and make it even more of a pain in the ass to legit players)
Now about the 3% number. C'mon man. Instead of saying "3% of the botters did not change their behavior and had to be permabanned", it would have been much more accurate to say "3% of the botters were too stupid to not sell character, start new account, buy new character and continue on botting." The whole idea of botters being "reformed" by a ban and not changing their ways is rediculous. It might fly with the board of directors when describing how you didn't have to turn off 10,000 paying accounts, but to the average player in eve it's quite insulting. Cheaters are gonna cheat. Penalizing players for a maximum of 1/2 month subscription time for earning 100's of billions of ISK via illegal botting is obviously not a deterrent.
Now that you have implemented the "character freeze" for offending accounts, this should help things. But really it's just upping the penalty to 3 billion (or perhaps more for a ratting character) that the botter would not get back by cashing in his old character on the Bazaar. If this is going to continue to be a once-a-year thing (see you next Fanfest!) then the problem will continue as the botters will make that 3b back soon enough and be back out there doing evil.
I'll be optimistic that the whole Incarna/reorg/whatever was the reason for the lack of progress in this matter of the last year and that from now on things will be better. As a legit player who puts a lot into this game, I appreciate my efforts not being mitigated by cheating botters. Keep up the good fight!
|
malaire
235
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:04:00 -
[245] - Quote
Yes, basically same what GM Karidor said a bit later publicly (see post after that one on this thread.)
New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:04:00 -
[246] - Quote
pmchem wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:malaire wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:If it automates player actions it's a bot. Nothing unusual there... Nothing grey about it either. How do you define "player action" ? Opening market window for certain item is usually "player action", but that can also be done with javascript API call. So would you consider using that javascript API call "automating player action" ? exactly Ausri, visit http://eve-central.com/home/upload_suggest.html with your IGB for an example Here's a forum thread (by malaire) on a practical application of the javascript API in connection with a cache reader (both ccp sanctioned tools). Could you please provide me with some link validating that CCP sanctions cache scraping? Well, actually, yeah. There's a good example out there. Reverence is a tool specifically designed to read the Eve client cache. It was created by Entity, who I understand has some pretty good connections at CCP. It has existed for years, had many many forums threads, and its OP specifically states: "Special thanks go to CCP for granting permission to release this product, even though it is heavily inspired by EVE Online's design." https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6501So either this quite well-respected (even famous!) player is lying and this illegal tool has been allowed to flourish in the technology lab forum for years and years while being used by dozens of third party developers -- or CCP sanctions cache scraping. Market uploaders using the IGB similar to eve-central's uploader are quite common, really. Eve-central's has been around for years too. If you feel they haven't been properly sanctioned, I hope you take the opportunity to do so! They are not the droids you're looking for. edit: I presume the petition referred to in this post sanctioned cache scrapers and using the IGB for market uploads? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=881205#post881205
Yeah I got what I needed out of those replies. I was just curious how we were communicating this because you guys seemed to know and I didn't and it saved me a trip downstairs. :) |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:20:00 -
[247] - Quote
IsTheOpOver wrote:First of all, I'd like to applaud CCP Sreegs and CCP for banning bots. The last few months have been somewhat depressing as the bots running rampant (despite petitions, gankings, whatever) seemed unhindered. The "War against bots" thread that was very active right after fanfest had been dead and buried for the better part of a year. It truely seemed that CCP did not care. This is very good news and a step in the right direction. CCP Sreegs wrote: We're simply not going to design our game, played by piles of people legitimately, around a few bad apples. We may make changes because they make sense from a gameplay perspective or to spice things up or for a plethora of other reasons, but we're not going to sic the design team on making it impossible to bot via complete randomization of everything or captchas or *insert flavor of the day barrier to getting things done in a videogame here*.
Except for calling Eve a videogame (it's a computer game) I agree with your paragraph there completely. Please do not add captcha to the mining process (or anything else that a bot would be created to circumvent and make it even more of a pain in the ass to legit players) Now about the 3% number. C'mon man. Instead of saying "3% of the botters did not change their behavior and had to be permabanned", it would have been much more accurate to say "3% of the botters were too stupid to not sell character, start new account, buy new character and continue on botting." The whole idea of botters being "reformed" by a ban and not changing their ways is rediculous. It might fly with the board of directors when describing how you didn't have to turn off 10,000 paying accounts, but to the average player in eve it's quite insulting. Cheaters are gonna cheat. Penalizing players for a maximum of 1/2 month subscription time for earning 100's of billions of ISK via illegal botting is obviously not a deterrent. Now that you have implemented the "character freeze" for offending accounts, this should help things. But really it's just upping the penalty to 3 billion (or perhaps more for a ratting character) that the botter would not get back by cashing in his old character on the Bazaar. If this is going to continue to be a once-a-year thing (see you next Fanfest!) then the problem will continue as the botters will make that 3b back soon enough and be back out there doing evil. I'll be optimistic that the whole Incarna/reorg/whatever was the reason for the lack of progress in this matter of the last year and that from now on things will be better. As a legit player who puts a lot into this game, I appreciate my efforts not being mitigated by cheating botters. Keep up the good fight!
The 3% number was quoted out of hand and was not meant to be taken as law. The 3% number was also quantified. I will say that the difference between the 3% number I gave and the numbers you just mentioned related to bots and character transfers is that yours were invented out of thin air and mine came from actual measurements. I don't give these numbers to any board, council of elders or anyone else. These numbers at the time were pulled solely because we wanted to start taking measurements of effectiveness on our (mostly)volunteer time for what was a (mostly)volunteer effort.
I know that we did spend some time keeping an eye on character transfers and that initially it wasn't a problem. It might be fun to go back and run the actual numbers, but I find it to have been as good a measurement for it to have popped up in a "how not to get caught" guide as for us to devote time to writing queries. It was bad and we fixed it.
As you say only time will tell and to be honest I don't even see curbing the activity as so much of a challenge of curbing people's preconceived notions of that activity.
So big takeaways are more communication and that was something we've always identified as necessary. It can't be a flood of information because I have 100 jobs to do but it can't be nothing either, because in essence a lack of communication has been translated as a lack of activity whether that's true or false, good or bad. |
|
Carlos Aranda
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:27:00 -
[248] - Quote
I sleeped 1 day over this - and I can tell you, I am still raging about what our PR-blue cop Darius Johnson tells us here.
You confess between the lines, you did nothing several months at least vs bots and cheaters. You do not confiscate or track their ill-gained ISK. All you do, is giving them a 14day ban and hope, they now really, really find their rightous way to be no more cheaters. This is not, how power works!
Acknoledged you did some work and fu_cked u_p - then the result is overall still f_uck u_p and not minus x minus = plus how you want to sell it to us.
I have a question for you:
How many days you think a botter with a tengu needs to break even, if he calcs in, that you ban him and he is losing the account with the tengu+char for it?
All you did, you catched some small fish and bragg about it.
I told you, from my experience many of them had the bots for months ,becuase you did nothing against them. Even if they get banned, it is still a huge profit for them. |
Soporo
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:32:00 -
[249] - Quote
Nmae and shame the Corps and, especially, the Alliances who are shown as the worst offenders and you will change the rather morose perceptions people often have about anti-botting efforts. Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken |
Carlos Aranda
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:40:00 -
[250] - Quote
Soporo wrote:Nmae and shame the Corps and, especially, the Alliances who are shown as the worst offenders and you will change the rather morose perceptions people often have about anti-botting efforts.
agreed.
It is not like the 0.0 people do not know, who is bot-friendly and who not. CCP, Darius and also other CCP-moderated forums just prefer not to talk about these unpleasant people, often stop discussions about it, because it could be bad for their reputation.
This way they only protect the botters. make the problem worse, make ppl like me, who see them every day, at least angry, many other honest players just leave to find a better game.
|
|
Jouron
Hadon Shipping
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:59:00 -
[251] - Quote
Botting is unacceptable. Always.
However people do it currently because they believe it makes more sense to take a risk and save time and let a program do a remarkably simple and mundane task for them instead of doing it themselves.
Creative gameplay changes which increase player interaction to complete a task is another way of combating boters.
If all pve rat killing became more similar to how incursions are, people wouldn't be able to run ratter bots in null sec. How many people do you know are farming Incursions...With bots? Probably none.
Same thing with mining. increase the player involvement to achieve the task. Make it more like PI. Now I know there are PI bots out there, However; I would hazard a guess most of those bots still need a player to make a functioning colony in the first place for the bot to be any use at all, it still need player involvement on the front end.
Hearts and Minds.
No one should bot it is cheating. However people do bot for there own reasons and to them it makes sense, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Another way to combat botting is to take away that reason and one way to achieve that is creative gameplay development. Hopefully in the future with improvements to eve people wont be able to bot either because bots cant handle it or player experience in an activity will improve to the point where people will have fun doing an activity and the bot wont be desired. |
IsTheOpOver
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:01:00 -
[252] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: The 3% number was quoted out of hand and was not meant to be taken as law. The 3% number was also quantified. I will say that the difference between the 3% number I gave and the numbers you just mentioned related to bots and character transfers is that yours were invented out of thin air and mine came from actual measurements. I don't give these numbers to any board, council of elders or anyone else. These numbers at the time were pulled solely because we wanted to start taking measurements of effectiveness on our (mostly)volunteer time for what was a (mostly)volunteer effort.
The numbers I mentioned were not taken from thin air. You can get a perfectly able mining character for 3 billion on the Bazaar pretty much any day of the week. 14 days is about 1/2 of a month. Forgive me if I can't accept that a botter making billions is going to be set straight by such a petty fine when it was so easy to get started again (perhaps out the money for buying a different bot program). (if you want to say my "97% of botters did this" was taken out of thin air.. okay )
CCP Sreegs wrote:So big takeaways are more communication and that was something we've always identified as necessary. It can't be a flood of information because I have 100 jobs to do but it can't be nothing either, because in essence a lack of communication has been translated as a lack of activity whether that's true or false, good or bad.
It's not the communication, it's the rampant botting that has plagued the game for the last year visible by anyone who's playing the game. Actions not words.
Thanks for taking the time to respond personally to our concerns, even if some of us are a bit antagonistic. |
Seb Seba
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:10:00 -
[253] - Quote
This should be 30 days / 60 days + ISK wipe into negative and on third offence perma ban. 14days for a botter is nothing. Change the IP you log from? Nothing. Rule of three is ok just make it meaningful. |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
525
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:11:00 -
[254] - Quote
CCP Sreegs and the rest of the team killing bots,
I just wanted to say once again, thank you. I am especially excited because a friend of mine who helped get me into this game quit five years ago due to his frustration with bots. All he really liked to do was mine and build ships and such. He was more about the whole process of building with the very stuff you mined. Anyways, he quit because the botters made it impossible to compete. I showed him your blog and pointed out some dotlan graphs and such and now, he said he it going to reactivate his account. He wants to dust off his pick ax and get busy building ships.
Now granted the moment he sits still in a belt I plan on suicide ganking his Hulk for epic lulz , but the point is, your work is causing players to return to the game.
Keep up the good work!
|
kakmonstret
Domain Mining and Trading Corp
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:14:00 -
[255] - Quote
Another metric that could be interesting and maybe give a hint on th effectiveness of different system is to relate to the "Report a bot" system.
So how many of the bots banned had previously been reported by a player? How many characters have been reported in total by players? My guess is that the latter will be huge and probably quite useless. But the first could be interesting as my hunch is that players might be good at finding bots, sadly I think we have a large amount of false positive in that reporting to.
If a large portion of bots actually are tagged as such by players maybe it would be worth it to use more costly methods for finding bots in this group? |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:17:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:My perspective has always been that we make a client to interface with our server and that's what you're allowed to use
Oh really? Isn't it more like a pc game, soon a console game, a number of websites like evegate, an XML API and maybe a JavaScript API (more a client interface really)? Because if we take that statement literally, everyone interfacing his evemon, eft or pyfa with the API uses an interface to the server that is not allowed.
|
Xantor Bludberry
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:35:00 -
[257] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:RMT is a different problem that we're dealing with and we're not ready to have a discussion about that yet, but it's being worked on and there's a huge gap between "being worked on" meaning "we're doin' thangs" and "ready to tell players what we're doing". Example of RMT: http://www.hotcoins.ru/eve-isk/ In fact, they sell the game 2 months for the price of one. One billion ISK for 15 bucks. No need to attack me now, this **** is not only on Russian sites. I just search in Google. You just need to buy ISK from them. Keep track of all their conversation. BAN f***k all. Can CCP track of all these ***? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:37:00 -
[258] - Quote
Why did you link a RMT site? Are you crazy? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1014
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:39:00 -
[259] - Quote
So this thread has 10+ pages already. I'm really lazy today so could someone make combined "top 10 tears" quote.
Get |
Xantor Bludberry
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:40:00 -
[260] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why did you link a RMT site? Are you crazy? Because I personally have the impression that the CCP did not see and live in what is an illusory world. Yes, there are bots, but the RMT is so difficult, "how do we track?" Ok, here's a SAUCER FOR THIS ****! Kill them! |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:44:00 -
[261] - Quote
Xantor Bludberry wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why did you link a RMT site? Are you crazy? Because I personally have the impression that the CCP did not see and live in what is an illusory world. Yes, there are bots, but the RMT is so difficult, "how do we track?" Ok, here's a SAUCER FOR THIS ****! Kill them!
We're very well aware of the various websites out there people may use to illegally purchase product. There's a bit more to it than that but it's really kind of off topic. I'd be happy to have a discussion about RMT at the appropriate time. Grab me if you're heading to fanfest even. :) |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:51:00 -
[262] - Quote
It looks like some bots raised their ugly head back up again. Please nukeeeeeeeeee! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:55:00 -
[263] - Quote
Carlos Aranda wrote:I sleeped 1 day over this - and I can tell you, I am still raging about what our PR-blue cop Darius Johnson tells us here.
You confess between the lines, you did nothing several months at least vs bots and cheaters. You do not confiscate or track their ill-gained ISK. All you do, is giving them a 14day ban and hope, they now really, really find their rightous way to be no more cheaters. This is not, how power works!
Acknoledged you did some work and fu_cked u_p - then the result is overall still f_uck u_p and not minus x minus = plus how you want to sell it to us.
I have a question for you:
How many days you think a botter with a tengu needs to break even, if he calcs in, that you ban him and he is losing the account with the tengu+char for it?
All you did, you catched some small fish and bragg about it.
I told you, from my experience many of them had the bots for months ,becuase you did nothing against them. Even if they get banned, it is still a huge profit for them.
We can disagree without being disagreeable. Please try to maintain some degree of civility as per the forum rules. Being directly insulting really doesn't engender me to want to respond to your posts.
To your points as I can grasp them:
Confessing between the lines - The notification that the system had been off for some time was directly in the dev blog before a single post was made. I have no idea how this can be construed as trying to hide anything.
14 day ban - Our numbers showed that to be effective and that was the policy that was chosen at the time. We also stated we'd change that policy if it was found to not be working, which is why changes have been made. In addition it is not merely a 14 day ban it is an escalation of bans. We also reserve the right to increase this and may very well do so, but only if this proves to be ineffective.
"All you did, you catched some small fish and bragg about it.":
A) We didn't brag about anything. This blog wasn't even going to be written. The detections were re-enabled quietly and the blog itself was written to directly respond to things players had noticed and were talking about. I'm not sure how that can be considered bragging but if you think the better move is to simply let people make up stories about what's going on without an explanation I will inform you that you are incorrect.
B) The scope of what we've caught and missed remains to be seen. I'm not in the business of speculation.
"Even if they get banned, it is still a huge profit for them" - That also remains to be seen. They don't seem very happy at the moment at all the nothing you claim they've lost.
Have a wonderful weekend! |
|
Xantor Bludberry
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:57:00 -
[264] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:We're very well aware of the various websites out there people may use to illegally purchase product. There's a bit more to it than that but it's really kind of off topic. I'd be happy to have a discussion about RMT at the appropriate time. Grab me if you're heading to fanfest even. :) I'm not quite sure what the concept of "RMT" is well correlated the word "discussion". I believe that there should be an expression "total destruction". I, as a Russian, a very unpleasant, in fact, ever hear the words addressed to us that we are totally stuck in RMT. You know, there's a game "World of Tanks." There is no RMT. Because money is not transferable. Perhaps this is a harsh measure, but perhaps, for what it is worth the time period to implement? |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:58:00 -
[265] - Quote
Soporo wrote:Nmae and shame the Corps and, especially, the Alliances who are shown as the worst offenders and you will change the rather morose perceptions people often have about anti-botting efforts.
As I said this is constantly being reviewed, but a casual reading of this thread will highlight that this isn't as simple as just deciding to do so. There's a tremendous impact on all players not just botters and much of that impact could be negative or flatly illegal. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:00:00 -
[266] - Quote
Xantor Bludberry wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:We're very well aware of the various websites out there people may use to illegally purchase product. There's a bit more to it than that but it's really kind of off topic. I'd be happy to have a discussion about RMT at the appropriate time. Grab me if you're heading to fanfest even. :) I'm not quite sure what the concept of "RMT" is well correlated the word "discussion". I believe that there should be an expression "total destruction". I, as a Russian, a very unpleasant, in fact, ever hear the words addressed to us that we are totally stuck in RMT. You know, there's a game "World of Tanks." There is no RMT. Because money is not transferable. Perhaps this is a harsh measure, but perhaps, for what it is worth the time period to implement?
That's the EVE conundrum really. One of the core concepts of the game is that everything can be built, sold, bought and transferred among players. With that comes the ability to do bad things and it's really to us to solve that problem. I agree it would be simpler to turn all your items purple and bind them to your character so you can't give them to anyone ever, but then it wouldn't be EVE it would be some other game where you could more than likely still purchase things on websites on the Internet. :) |
|
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:08:00 -
[267] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Xantor Bludberry wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:We're very well aware of the various websites out there people may use to illegally purchase product. There's a bit more to it than that but it's really kind of off topic. I'd be happy to have a discussion about RMT at the appropriate time. Grab me if you're heading to fanfest even. :) I'm not quite sure what the concept of "RMT" is well correlated the word "discussion". I believe that there should be an expression "total destruction". I, as a Russian, a very unpleasant, in fact, ever hear the words addressed to us that we are totally stuck in RMT. You know, there's a game "World of Tanks." There is no RMT. Because money is not transferable. Perhaps this is a harsh measure, but perhaps, for what it is worth the time period to implement? That's the EVE conundrum really. One of the core concepts of the game is that everything can be built, sold, bought and transferred among players. With that comes the ability to do bad things and it's really to us to solve that problem. I agree it would be simpler to turn all your items purple and bind them to your character so you can't give them to anyone ever, but then it wouldn't be EVE it would be some other game where you could more than likely still purchase things on websites on the Internet. :)
Once, a looong time ago. I read about this interesting activity. It is called sleep. Kinda strange, but you just lay down someplace comfy and close your eyes and somehow some pictures appear (like playing EVE but with more boobies). You should give it a try sometime! Christ man! Don't kill yourself to answer our silly questions!
|
Xantor Bludberry
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:12:00 -
[268] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:That's the EVE conundrum really. One of the core concepts of the game is that everything can be built, sold, bought and transferred among players. With that comes the ability to do bad things and it's really to us to solve that problem. I agree it would be simpler to turn all your items purple and bind them to your character so you can't give them to anyone ever, but then it wouldn't be EVE it would be some other game where you could more than likely still purchase things on websites on the Internet. :) Yeah, yeah, I totally agree with you. I perfectly understand it all. But the fact is that there is no confidence in anyone. None of whom can not say that he was not involved somehow in the RMT. And it is annoying. In Russian official Eve forum constantly being accused UAxDEATH that he is engaged in RMT and bots. And nothing you can do about it. You can not deny that it is impossible to prove in principle. And because the charges will always be. While CCP does not kill all the bots and RMT to 100%.
You see, I last year and a half almost no play, because I have little time to play. But when I go to the game, I was beginning to strain the situation is that when I lose my ship, I will be forced to spend three weeks in order to save money on the same ship with equipment and modules. And who's just run a bot, or pay money for this site here and get painlessly as much money as me six months to collect. Everyone should be equal. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:13:00 -
[269] - Quote
kakmonstret wrote:Another metric that could be interesting and maybe give a hint on th effectiveness of different system is to relate to the "Report a bot" system.
So how many of the bots banned had previously been reported by a player? How many characters have been reported in total by players? My guess is that the latter will be huge and probably quite useless. But the first could be interesting as my hunch is that players might be good at finding bots, sadly I think we have a large amount of false positive in that reporting to.
If a large portion of bots actually are tagged as such by players maybe it would be worth it to use more costly methods for finding bots in this group?
Yep we have this. I haven't looked at it yet and I really dont' want to go crazy until we get at least one more round of data. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:14:00 -
[270] - Quote
ps3ud0nym wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Xantor Bludberry wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:We're very well aware of the various websites out there people may use to illegally purchase product. There's a bit more to it than that but it's really kind of off topic. I'd be happy to have a discussion about RMT at the appropriate time. Grab me if you're heading to fanfest even. :) I'm not quite sure what the concept of "RMT" is well correlated the word "discussion". I believe that there should be an expression "total destruction". I, as a Russian, a very unpleasant, in fact, ever hear the words addressed to us that we are totally stuck in RMT. You know, there's a game "World of Tanks." There is no RMT. Because money is not transferable. Perhaps this is a harsh measure, but perhaps, for what it is worth the time period to implement? That's the EVE conundrum really. One of the core concepts of the game is that everything can be built, sold, bought and transferred among players. With that comes the ability to do bad things and it's really to us to solve that problem. I agree it would be simpler to turn all your items purple and bind them to your character so you can't give them to anyone ever, but then it wouldn't be EVE it would be some other game where you could more than likely still purchase things on websites on the Internet. :) Once, a looong time ago. I read about this interesting activity. It is called sleep. Kinda strange, but you just lay down someplace comfy and close your eyes and somehow some pictures appear (like playing EVE but with more boobies). You should give it a try sometime! Christ man! Don't kill yourself to answer our silly questions!
<3 almost done then I'll go kill some people or something on the internet |
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:15:00 -
[271] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:My perspective has always been that we make a client to interface with our server and that's what you're allowed to use Oh really? Isn't it more like a pc game, soon a console game, a number of websites like evegate, an XML API and maybe a JavaScript API (more a client interface really)? Because if we take that statement literally, everyone interfacing his evemon, eft or pyfa with the API uses an interface to the server that is not allowed.
I was oversimplifying so if we're going to be forum lawyers about it, yes we make a client AND an API in order to interface with the server. :) |
|
Wai Ish'inre
Intaki Armaments
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:30:00 -
[272] - Quote
Are you going to be dressed as an Aeronaught at FanFest?
Also- 14 day bans are kind of a joke- if you manage to angry a community mod/dev on the forums with witty prose or lewd comments, you get a 60 day ban, what gives? |
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:32:00 -
[273] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
There's no discussion about changing it at this time. I'm just leaving us an out because I like to talk like I'm in court and someone's going to read this back to me in the future. It happens sometimes on the Internet.
I like that, keep it up!
Also: MUHAHAHAHAHA, locked chars FOR EVAR!1!! \o/
|
Carlos Aranda
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:44:00 -
[274] - Quote
I do not like, how you waste time to argue for 14day bans against some chars with 3-4 months training and only a tengu on it. As long as you do not confiscate ISK and big assets, you will be always wrong.
Plz bring some stats, where the illigal ISK go to and you have to ban this guys. Ban just some accounts, who have only a char, 3-4 months old, + tengu will not change anything.
Did you ever watch how real investigators vs organized crime work? NSA remote is the trip USA is on, but it is not, how you stop anybody big in business. You have to take their assets and freeze their money. In Italy they do it better, because the have to. If there is an investigator serious, he confiscates the assets a clan. It happens often, if one boss/clan is fallen already, but they take it and then they auction the assets. This is the right sign to say, ok this guy is done. This is how you do it. If you just arrest some henchmen, nothing will change.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 18:50:00 -
[275] - Quote
Wai Ish'inre wrote: Also- 14 day bans are kind of a joke- if you manage to angry a community mod/dev on the forums with witty prose or lewd comments, you get a 60 day ban, what gives?
A pay per month game is not a free forum.
Also, I am sure their current ban length comes from trying different lengths and it fits the "straighten up the casual 1 account botter" (probably the majority, wetting their pants when they notice they got banned) while still providing increasing penalties for the hard core cheaters.
What is the real deterrent is not the insta-capital penalty but a widespread feeling that you WILL be caught.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
490
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 19:22:00 -
[276] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: <3 almost done then I'll go kill some people or something on the internet
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSC_56HNIxyy22qaBes73fcC6OuOZjDOJkIgk_5W-asvw1sW009ObolXulJxw Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 19:52:00 -
[277] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Wai Ish'inre wrote: Also- 14 day bans are kind of a joke- if you manage to angry a community mod/dev on the forums with witty prose or lewd comments, you get a 60 day ban, what gives?
A pay per month game is not a free forum. Also, I am sure their current ban length comes from trying different lengths and it fits the "straighten up the casual 1 account botter" (probably the majority, wetting their pants when they notice they got banned) while still providing increasing penalties for the hard core cheaters. What is the real deterrent is not the insta-capital penalty but a widespread feeling that you WILL be caught.
14 days is a chunk of time to anyone who actually likes to play eve online, and indeed many people who 'casually bot' do like the game. If they aren't bright enough to stop after a sharp warning, then sure you need to kill them dead - but the guys you really want are the 10 bots/VMs/VPNs etc etc who roll around in billions of ratting income every single day and RMT it. Botting for easy ships and faction goodies and pimping your ride may be wrong and it is certainly impacting the economy to a degree - but it is not the same level as the large scale Botting networks run by players to make RL monies.
The small guys will shut down once it becomes clear that it is a 'when' rather than an 'if' you get caught.
How well you catch the big fish will determine what happens next, and it is clear to me from kugu/SH/etc that these monied individuals are already up and running with new accounts, new IPs, and new/spare characters. And seriously, **** em.
|
SabotNoob
Sabot Industries
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 00:44:00 -
[278] - Quote
Part of the reason why market botting is so rampant is because updating large amounts of orders is such a pain. I posted about this in the "Give me all your little things" thread, but I'll just mention it here again and maybe you can pass it along (I know it's not your department).
Right now, if you double click on an outstanding order in your Orders window, it brings up the item's information window. Why can't this be customized so that you can have it bring up the item's market information instead? Then, when you right click and Modify Order the item, the amount is NOT highlighted, thus creating an extra step of double clicking it or Cntrl+A to highlight it and change it.
So here's the current process:
-Right click on order -View Market Details -Right click on order -Modify Order -Double click on amount in the Modify Order window -Enter
See how many steps are there? Imagine doing that over and over again to 100+ orders. IT SUCKS. I can have about 180 outstanding orders and do this manually. Trust me, the current method stinks. People are turned off by it, or resort to bots.
A more efficient way:
-Double click on order to bring up Market Details -Hit Shortcut/button to modify highlighted order -Enter new order amount (the amount in the Modify Order window is ALREADY highlighted- that eliminates the highlighting/selecting step)
Efficient, isn't it? Putting in a Buy Order should should be similar to this as well.
Again, I know it's not your department, but I'm just throwing it out there to bring attention to something I think needs fixing, and is pushing players to use bots.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
737
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 02:03:00 -
[279] - Quote
SabotNoob wrote:Part of the reason why market botting is so rampant is because updating large amounts of orders is such a pain. I posted about this in the "Give me all your little things" thread, but I'll just mention it here again and maybe you can pass it along (I know it's not your department).
Right now, if you double click on an outstanding order in your Orders window, it brings up the item's information window. Why can't this be customized so that you can have it bring up the item's market information instead? Then, when you right click and Modify Order the item, the amount is NOT highlighted, thus creating an extra step of double clicking it or Cntrl+A to highlight it and change it.
Or simply add the "view market details" button to the "modify order" window. |
Endeavour Starfleet
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 02:07:00 -
[280] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. It seems to me that you're involved in business ventures which carry with them some risk. In those ventures you're clearly dealing with people you can't trust and if I'm tracking this correctly you're asking me to ensure you that if bad people do things we won't reverse the transactions and I simply won't ever make a blanket statement like that based on potential future scenarios. Everything is dealt with on a case by case basis and every business venture carries risk. CCP does not subsidize that risk for you and it's to you to determine that the isk you're gaining is being gained legally. If you're engaging in markets such as loans which are beyond the intent of our systems by design then that risk is yours.
You could make an argument that CCP should design some form of guaranteed loan system but that wouldn't be my department. Every time you make a transaction outside of the scope of our controlled systems such as the market or contract system you are choosing to accept that risk.
Thank you for your reply. I did not mean about the risk of losing ISK. I meant about the risk of being banned myself just because someone cheated / RMT in the "chain" that ends with me holding collateral. Also, I read that in other MMOs they flag players handling large amounts of ISK and I think the 100B I would get, could make me blacklisted somewhere.
My personal opinion on the subject is this.
If you ever suspect the funds you have received is generated against the EULA petition and gives as much info as you can. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 02:13:00 -
[281] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Can we keep this topic about real solutions about botting instead of it becoming another "Nerf teh local" silly topic. Botting is a different matter than you not being able to get that juicy kill because a real player is paying attention. Removing local wont kill botting. Hitting report bot is the best thing we can do. If you are running into juicy bot targets report them and let CCP get teh bot remove mail. Now about this whole "Bot banz before teh Fanfest" thing. I do believe CCP has had some communication on the subject between these waves but I will say this. While I applaud your efforts on this CCP you have to keep up the pressure on these botting idiots. And continue to talk about it and continue to urge people to use the report bot function. There has been far too many able to say "CCP likes botting because of PLEX" on this forum and it needs to stop. Constant communication will help. I agree that 10 bot bans is better than a single message on the forums. However you simply cant let such rumors grow because they actively sap the morale of the active players. Even if it is as simple as "Ok report the botting idiot and let us get to work " I don't disagree that we need to be better at communicating. It's something we've highlighted internally quite often and why I spend days following these threads.
Understood I am just stating that in my opinion even simple communication can seriously help people feel they are empowered to actually do something against botters.
That's why say if a topic comes up saying "Wtf CCP why is teh botter still in mah system" You simply say "Report him and we will see what we can do " If someone says "Frak that CCP luvs them some botters for PLEX" You say "Not true report them and see how much we really luv them "
Simple but effective at getting players to actually do something. And maybe even getting more people reporting blue bots.
|
Noir Elsuno
SCAR. Partisans People in Lousy Ships
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 03:00:00 -
[282] - Quote
We will see how efficient u will do it this time. I believe I can remember a time there was a similar announcement and after all it seemed that CCP gives a **** on all replies about spotted bots, macros and hackers.
A other thing is the effect to the economy in eve. I really hate all the bothers out there, but I hope I am wrong with it, after all the years about doing nearly nothing I really can imagine that all the bothers out there makes the market thing a bit more affordable. not sure but with all that items on the market (mining, mission etc) from the botters I think it could have an effect on the markets prices too.
But like I said, we will see how restrictedly u go out for them this time. And I am not sure why, but I think cheaters (in my eyes bothers are cheaters swell) should be banned perm if they are detected.
Whats about other accounts from the same person? does they got banned aswell? If not, forget about all I wrote before, then nothing will change. |
Didi Baraccuda
PILSGESCHWADER Monkey Circus
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 03:02:00 -
[283] - Quote
Noir Elsuno wrote:We will see how efficient u will do it this time. I believe I can remember a time there was a similar announcement and after all it seemed that CCP gives a **** on all replies about spotted bots, macros and hackers.
A other thing is the effect to the economy in eve. I really hate all the bothers out there, but I hope I am wrong with it, after all the years about doing nearly nothing I really can imagine that all the bothers out there makes the market thing a bit more affordable. not sure but with all that items on the market (mining, mission etc) from the botters I think it could have an effect on the markets prices too.
But like I said, we will see how restrictedly u go out for them this time. And I am not sure why, but I think cheaters (in my eyes bothers are cheaters swell) should be banned perm if they are detected.
Whats about other accounts from the same person? does they got banned aswell? If not, forget about all I wrote before, then nothing will change.
indeed |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
136
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 05:56:00 -
[284] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Xorv wrote:Oh and another thing regard to bots. It's a good thing CCP is taking some action against those players that engage in such activity, but the best thing CCP could do is make game changes that creates an environment unfavorable to bots in the first place.
Remove Local Chat Intel from Null Sec and add random false positives to DScan.
Fix Wardecs and make NPC corps somewhere only for raw newbies or automatically part of a Faction War system.
Take the leash of the Sandbox and players themselves will sort most of this out on their own. Game design isn't my department. I'll caveat what I'm about to say having said that and also stating that I'm not responding directly to your above suggestions. We're simply not going to design our game, played by piles of people legitimately, around a few bad apples. We may make changes because they make sense from a gameplay perspective or to spice things up or for a plethora of other reasons, but we're not going to sic the design team on making it impossible to bot via complete randomization of everything or captchas or *insert flavor of the day barrier to getting things done in a videogame here*. Not addressed at you directly but it is a statement I wanted to get out there and your post gave me the shot. I'll also say that, yes design is a component of our strategy and while it may seem contradictory to what I said above it's not I just can't give specifics today.
Thanks for the reply Sreegs, your efforts in dealing with botters and communicating with the EVE community here is genuinely appreciated. Still very underwhelmed by the punishment , 14 days is barely a slap on the wrist for someone who has gone out of their way to get a third party program with the specific intent to cheat in the game.
While it is understood you did not respond to my specific suggestions, and I appreciate why,. I will say this, EVE needs holistic treatment that addresses the disease not merely treating the symptoms, and that can only be done at the design level. A lot of us are hoping that Inferno moves in that direction and really delivers. |
Endeavour Starfleet
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 06:22:00 -
[285] - Quote
Well the forum ate my $#@%#$$ post so ill say it simple.
14 days with a 3 percent 2nd ban rate seems to be working.
Report the bots. Once they rectify the botters who do it for shiny ships and can be reformed. They can focus on the RMT and Alliance bots.
Report blue bots. Alliances can't seriously make "No report Blue Bots" rules. |
Orbit Uranus
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 07:33:00 -
[286] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Report blue bots. Alliances can't seriously make "No report Blue Bots" rules.
Alliances aren't playing EVE to be CCP's police task force on bots. Let the ones who get paid for it find the bots.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 07:53:00 -
[287] - Quote
Noir Elsuno wrote: Whats about other accounts from the same person? does they got banned aswell? If not, forget about all I wrote before, then nothing will change.
They are all banned, not just the bot account(s).
Noir Elsuno wrote: A other thing is the effect to the economy in eve. I really hate all the bothers out there, but I hope I am wrong with it, after all the years about doing nearly nothing I really can imagine that all the bothers out there makes the market thing a bit more affordable. not sure but with all that items on the market (mining, mission etc) from the botters I think it could have an effect on the markets prices too.
Bots reduce spreads between buy and sell orders. To you it might seem good, but all that ISK they suck off legit traders are then converted in real money to sell with RMT. Making ISK and items in EvE is so easy that bringing the "but bots make things more affordable" argument, is really a stingy statement.
The only negative effect I foresee is that legit null-sec and WH inhabitants will grab all the benefits.
Hi sec newbies and miners? They are constantly target of "KILL THE BOT!" campaigns and now we start seeing "dilatory campaigns" with people encouraging to report everything you see (because EVERY miner really looks like a bot unless you spend 3-4 hours to see if they log off / kill them). If I was a miner in these days I'd just stop playing it. Besides the lowest rewards in game you get the highest probability to be griefed up to forced account termination.
This will cause well bigger items cost increase than banning 10 market bot accounts.
And the "14 days are a slap on the wrist" my ass. First of all if for any reason you were unjustly banned, you are flagged for life. I will believe anyone can succesfully turn CCP "bot ban" decision the day I will see a petition text saying so. Because with the current situation you are given Z E R O ways to exculpate. You take the bone in the ass and that's it. And everyone around you "well these things happens tralalalah!"
Second, even if there was a way to exculpate, you'd still get no reimbursement, your POS would go offline, if it's in low sec it will likely get destroyed (just to mention a couple of effects).
The only ones who won't be scratched by a 14 day ban are the real bot-as-profession exploiters because they certainly don't have all their assets and money tied in their disposable accounts. But there's more: they won't be scratched by 1 month or even 2 months bans. They have 10-20 disposable pilots, some of them probably in "hatchery accounts" unrelated with the ones at risk of being caught. They get new accounts also by hacking other people accounts. How much a cheater will care of a 14 day or 1 month ban done on a pilot they hacked? Zero.
On the contrary, in the next days there'll be people reporting whole (hi sec only!) constellations of unsuspecting players because "99.999999999999999999999% miners MUST be bots because I read it on the forums so it's true". Among the volume there will be guys who ALT TAB mining for 8h a day because they do it a work / work at home and their behavior will be undistinguish-able from bots. They will get banned. And no way to recourse / prove anything, the game provides them ZERO tools to, except beg CCP for mercy (I'd like to read *1* that begged CCP for unban and got believed by them).
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Consequence Zero
Non Affiliation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 10:21:00 -
[288] - Quote
Hypothetical Question: Why do confirmed Bot characters get a permanent ban on character trading, yet players that would prefer that very option are not allowed character sales denial etc.
As a security measure, this would make sence in my opinion.
If a player does not have the intention to ever sell his/her character, but is still at risk from a "fire-sale" from a random hack...
Maybe its an option that comes with the security key fob from last years FF.
(And no I have not been hacked, banned, or presented a fancy key fob. Just an observation i've noticed) |
Endeavour Starfleet
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 12:13:00 -
[289] - Quote
Orbit Uranus wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Report blue bots. Alliances can't seriously make "No report Blue Bots" rules. Alliances aren't playing EVE to be CCP's police task force on bots. Let the ones who get paid for it find the bots.
You do realize this is a highly suspicious remark no?
We all lose to bots. Reporting them Blue Grey or Red will help everyone including the goons. Help CCP fix this issue so that the game is better for everyone. |
Xantor Bludberry
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 13:25:00 -
[290] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:That's the EVE conundrum really. One of the core concepts of the game is that everything can be built, sold, bought and transferred among players. With that comes the ability to do bad things and it's really to us to solve that problem. I agree it would be simpler to turn all your items purple and bind them to your character so you can't give them to anyone ever, but then it wouldn't be EVE it would be some other game where you could more than likely still purchase things on websites on the Internet. :) Ok, I will suggest another, less than an incredible idea: remove the ability to sell game time for ISK. I believe that all evil is gone from it. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
364
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 13:29:00 -
[291] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: CCP has stated that absusing the report system will have consequences. And there are quite a few ways to tell bot miners from the real ones. And there is no evidence of mass false positive bans. Just alot of whiny botters.
Waiting to see *1* report about someone having had those "consequences".
Also waiting to see your infallible method for discerning an alt tabbed legit miner with "normal" name doing his stuff 8h a day vs a bot.
Xantor Bludberry wrote: Ok, I will suggest another, less than an incredible idea: remove the ability to sell game time for ISK. I believe that all evil is gone from it.
Bots were in game (in every MMO actually) well before one could sell game time for ISK. People, expecially PvPers, want ISK / shiny stuff anyway and those with fat wallets may be tempted resorting to RMT. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
voetius
Starwinders The Unwilling.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:31:00 -
[292] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Also waiting to see your infallible method for discerning an alt tabbed legit miner with "normal" name doing his stuff 8h a day vs a bot.
Maybe I can help you out here Vaerah. When you blow up a Hulk or Mackinaw and you see the pod warping off to the station and then coming back to the same spot their ship was in and "mining" in the pod for the 18 minutes or whatever it takes to fill a Hulk that would seem a pretty infallible method to me.
HTH
|
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
176
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:34:00 -
[293] - Quote
Soporo wrote:Nmae and shame the Corps and, especially, the Alliances who are shown as the worst offenders and you will change the rather morose perceptions people often have about anti-botting efforts.
I'll do you one better. If an account is character locked (no transferring) for abuse, also visibly flag the characters on it to name and shame the players for their behaviour.
Maybe make it a 2nd strike thing, maybe have it expire after X time period, but I can see that acting as a strong deterrent. How many corps are going to want their pilots wandering around openly flagged for cheating? http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
Belloche
Revelation Exploration Inc. Without Remorse.
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:46:00 -
[294] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote: CCP has stated that absusing the report system will have consequences. And there are quite a few ways to tell bot miners from the real ones. And there is no evidence of mass false positive bans. Just alot of whiny botters.
Waiting to see *1* report about someone having had those "consequences". Also waiting to see your infallible method for discerning an alt tabbed legit miner with "normal" name doing his stuff 8h a day vs a bot. .
Vaerah, I agree with you and understand that you do not want to see a single innocent person banned. I also get that you are trying to be the voice of reason by not joining the mob with torches and pitchforks. I believe you went off the cliff! I feel that the only possible way to get what you want, CCP could NEVER BAN ANYONE AGAIN! Is that what you are asking for? It seems to me that you want CCP to tell exactly what methodology they are using to determine bots. If they say on the forums, bot programmers would incorporate that info into their programs. Since no one is infallible, I agree that they need to minimize mistakes. However, I am willing to accept 95% accuracy since this is a game and not real life.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
364
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 16:49:00 -
[295] - Quote
voetius wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Also waiting to see your infallible method for discerning an alt tabbed legit miner with "normal" name doing his stuff 8h a day vs a bot.
Maybe I can help you out here Vaerah. When you blow up a Hulk or Mackinaw and you see the pod warping off to the station and then coming back to the same spot their ship was in and "mining" in the pod for the 18 minutes or whatever it takes to fill a Hulk that would seem a pretty infallible method to me. HTH
That's like saying "I diagnosed that guy's stomach: I eviscerated him and found out he was healthy indeed!". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
365
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:45:00 -
[296] - Quote
Belloche wrote:
Vaerah, I agree with you and understand that you do not want to see a single innocent person banned. I also get that you are trying to be the voice of reason by not joining the mob with torches and pitchforks. I believe you went off the cliff! I feel that the only possible way to get what you want, CCP could NEVER BAN ANYONE AGAIN! Is that what you are asking for? It seems to me that you want CCP to tell exactly what methodology they are using to determine bots. If they say on the forums, bot programmers would incorporate that info into their programs. Since no one is infallible, I agree that they need to minimize mistakes. However, I am willing to accept 95% accuracy since this is a game and not real life.
Well, thank you there's at least one person who understands what I want to say.
It's a tiny bit different though. I am ok with accuracy being 95%. I am even ok with super-perma banning at first strike those who run cheat software that cannot be confused with legit other stuff you could have on the computer. But I am less OK for general purpose "engines". I.e. some years ago I had Autokey installed to enable 5 mouse buttons in old games. If I still had it and CCP considered it a bannable software (or is it? No idea) I'd get banned without even knowing why. And no way to convince them I did not mean to use it for EvE!
But my biggest issue - and I am not being expecially altruistic here - is with heuristics. Ok let's imagine they have a 95% accuracy. With the previous CCP very mild attitude, 95% would be ok. You get a penalty just because you happened to be unluckly to fulfill some parameters. It would also happen once a year (when CCP felt like showing they were figthing bots, like before Fanfests or expansions etc.).
With the CCP advent of "serious mode", the same guy who happened to be in that 5% now is permanently flagged. He won't have an idea about why so he will keep playing his way and the next week the "system" (now always on, not just once a year) will detect him as cheater again.
Third case: you swap something with someone. You can't know whether he's legit or not. Was that contracted Raven Navy Issue a money laundry? Who knows. Yet you risk all sorts of issues. It's easy to say "EvE has risk, you have to accept it". No, the game risk is fine: you undock with 73 PLEXes in Iteron and get popped. Though luck. But this is RL risk (RMT induced) risk: you get an item and voil+á banned. CCP Sreegs can say: "sure just contact us and get it sorted on a personal case. Too bad *any* writing under the EULA clause of the petition system takes 2 weeks to 1 month just to be replied the first time, and those were just questions (yes I am asking CCP in game too)! In those 2 weeks one can lose all his POSes.
Now, with all the 3 cases above, it would be fine to have a 95% accuracy and indeed is VERY COMMENDABLE off CCP to finally have cranked in an high gear after years of slacking.
But what happens now is that the 95% (I am using your number as example) is going to be continuously re-checked. Imagine 99% guys "pass" this week. 1% gets banned. Then 99% of the remaining ones pass next week and 1% get banned. Then 99% next week. Sounds allright, no? Nope. Use some probability calculus and you'll see how easy will become to be in the "unlucky 1%" after some time.
This - in my opinion - prompts a need to figure out a way for the players to be able to prove their innocency. Because it gets easier and easier to be the unlucky black sheep and the consequences are harsher and harsher but without a corresponding improvement in the way to prove you were just unlucky, not a cheater. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:24:00 -
[297] - Quote
Quote:Don't do anything bad today, Huh!?! You do know this is Eve right, where Empires are forged by doing bad things .. GBTWOW !!!!!11111
PS: Love the character lock solution, elegant in its simplicity.
|
Tester128
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:25:00 -
[298] - Quote
What you should really implement is this - if a character is banned and were petitioned as a bot before - ppl who have done this should get a nice letter - Thank you for petitioning bot %username, it is now banned for x days.
Also you should really look into missionrunning bots in highsec. |
Belloche
Revelation Exploration Inc. Without Remorse.
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:20:00 -
[299] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
But what happens now is that the 95% (I am using your number as example) is going to be continuously re-checked. Imagine 99% guys "pass" this week. 1% gets banned. Then 99% of the remaining ones pass next week and 1% get banned. Then 99% next week. Sounds allright, no? Nope. Use some probability calculus and you'll see how easy will become to be in the "unlucky 1%" after some time.
This - in my opinion - prompts a need to figure out a way for the players to be able to prove their innocency. Because it gets easier and easier to be the unlucky black sheep and the consequences are harsher and harsher but without a corresponding improvement in the way to prove you were just unlucky, not a cheater.
Do you mean is there some extra software I can install on my machine (that CCP can check) to see that I was NOT a botter? Is that what you mean? I see no way to disprove a negative. Is that what you are asking?
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
366
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:55:00 -
[300] - Quote
Belloche wrote: Do you mean is there some extra software I can install on my machine (that CCP can check) to see that I was NOT a botter? Is that what you mean? I see no way to disprove a negative. Is that what you are asking?
Here are a couple of ideas:
1) Someone reports a guy as botter => his report immediately triggers a snapshot of the reported guy computer (like the debug dump), on a low priority thread so not to disrupt his gameplay. That would avoid CCP to only use heuristics and thus have an higher chance to ban someone who does not deserve it. The dump would also help at discovering new undiscovered bots.
2) For the transactions stuff: make them actually mean their name: transactions. A guy contracts me a Supercarrier for 3rd party. Before accepting the contract I click a "start secure transaction" button on the contracts UI which instantly creates a record of the thing happening. The record will hold a time stamp and will add to a "CCP secured transactions" table and warns CCP to check that transaction. Once they find the contractor was a RMTer, every transaction between me and him past that saved time stamp is rolled back so I get back my stuff without getting banned myself. I actually warned CCP to check for that stuff so they can't put me in the same boat of that RMT guy. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Carlos Aranda
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 23:33:00 -
[301] - Quote
Orbit Uranus wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Report blue bots. Alliances can't seriously make "No report Blue Bots" rules. Alliances aren't playing EVE to be CCP's police task force on bots. Let the ones who get paid for it find the bots.
This is very wrong. In RL, too. If you do not fight criminals, they take over your world. Especially alliances, who have Corporation, who accept the EULA and kick botters, must go more public. Name and shame. If CCP does not do it, name and shame CCP, too. Silence by the good guys helps only the cheaters. It is the worst that can happen. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
442
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 02:45:00 -
[302] - Quote
Carlos Aranda wrote:This is very wrong. In RL, too. If you do not fight criminals, they take over your world.
Not only do you seem to have great difficulty in seeing that real life is not the same as a video game, but I get the impression you come from a rather corrupt area of the world and seem to be rather bitter about that fact.
It's not my job to hunt down and fight criminals on behalf of the police*, and neither is it my job to hunt down and catch botters on behalf of CCP. Perhaps if you reined in your seething rage over ZOMG SPACESHIP CHEATERS you'd be able to join an adult discussion on the matter, without resorting to trite cliches or evading word filters because swearing is so edgy.
*although I did enjoy the film Super |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
544
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 02:51:00 -
[303] - Quote
Orbit Uranus wrote:Alliances aren't playing EVE to be CCP's police task force on bots. Let the ones who get paid for it find the bots.
Yeah... I see what you wrote but, here is what I heard you say...
Orbit Uranus wrote:I just had some of my bot accounts banned and I'm pretty upset. Ban the other guys bots, not mine!
|
Samroski
Games Inc. EVE Trade Consortium
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 06:29:00 -
[304] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote: It's not my job to hunt down and fight criminals on behalf of the police*, and neither is it my job to hunt down and catch botters on behalf of CCP. Perhaps if you reined in your seething rage over ZOMG SPACESHIP CHEATERS you'd be able to join an adult discussion on the matter, without resorting to trite cliches or evading word filters because swearing is so edgy. *although I did enjoy the film Super
It is your civic duty to report a crime in RL, if you are witness to it, no matter where in the world you live. I agree that you do not need to apprehend the criminal- but you cannot justify not reporting it to the police.
|
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security Random Coalition of Corporations
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 07:32:00 -
[305] - Quote
Most of these issue are resolved if CCP is just intelligent in their approach and follows some simple rules:
- Use an intelligent, statistical based detection algorithm to detect suspected bots. Make sure every reported bot gets tested ASAP using the algorithm. Unlike real life, CCP actually is god and does know everything you've been doing. This can be made to work, and well.
- Lock characters suspected of botting, but not just accused of botting. Be sure to send the on file email account a notification of the lock down along with an explanation.
- Have a system by which owners of lock characters can appeal the lock down. Make this a standard appeals process by which any owner who need it, has easy access to it.
- Owners that fail to appeal or fail their appeal should have their accounts banned.
- Have an escalation path for banned accounts (similar to a senior or appeals court).
- Make sure innocent locked/banned accounts are compensated in game & training time.
This seems like a lot at first, but these are paying customers and if they are not truly at fault they should not be punished. Think of this as a final death execution where the defendant is granted a number of appeals at higher and higher levels of court until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or set free with an apology.
Also, some will say this is too much and will cost a lot. Well as far as I can tell, CCP just raised our fee by US$5/month.
Finally, to restore faith and trust: CCP should post statistical number about locked/banned accounts due to botting. They should also post number about how many were accused but found innocent. The data should be broken down by the types of botting being done and the region of space it was being done in. - A.Mobius |
Endeavour Starfleet
683
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 11:12:00 -
[306] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Carlos Aranda wrote:This is very wrong. In RL, too. If you do not fight criminals, they take over your world. Not only do you seem to have great difficulty in seeing that real life is not the same as a video game, but I get the impression you come from a rather corrupt area of the world and seem to be rather bitter about that fact. It's not my job to hunt down and fight criminals on behalf of the police*, and neither is it my job to hunt down and catch botters on behalf of CCP. Perhaps if you reined in your seething rage over ZOMG SPACESHIP CHEATERS you'd be able to join an adult discussion on the matter, without resorting to trite cliches or evading word filters because swearing is so edgy. * although I did enjoy the film Super
Well if you don't want to put much effort into it I can understand. However if you see an obvious blue bot you would report it right? |
Carlos Aranda
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 11:35:00 -
[307] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Carlos Aranda wrote:This is very wrong. In RL, too. If you do not fight criminals, they take over your world. Not only do you seem to have great difficulty in seeing that real life is not the same as a video game, but I get the impression you come from a rather corrupt area of the world and seem to be rather bitter about that fact.
Criminals are very emotional ppl. If organized crime makes law no more count, they rule and murder ppl, who break their law. It is about live and death, or fight and silience.
Eve is only a game. It is so easy compared to RL to be not silent and hide from the cheaters. Just do not be silient and let them do what they want. that is exactly what they want. Silent people. Maybe the cheater companeis ahve more rescourses than Darius and CCP. If we do nothing, it can not be controlled.
In Italy are many cams, sometimes they film a mafia murder with people around it. But nobody want to be witness in mafia land. Or if your car stolen and police only laugh about you. Next time stolen again. Then it will not take long time until the first guys, whose car was stolen, steal car "back" from somebody else. Mafia towns are very silent, because everybody has fear.
But you do not need to have fear in Eve or be silent. So you should use that privileg. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Broken Toys
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 17:21:00 -
[308] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Adding to my post above with a practical example.
There's a 3rd party tool that has been announced weeks ago (has 20 or so forum pages!) that completely automates in game market prices gathering. It really opens the right window for you, fills in the right item for you, then switches to the next and so on.
With such cumbersome default UI, a player seeing such software would rejoyce!
But wait, is this software - residing on the official EvE forums but never "checked" legit? Or is it a bot? What to the dozens who use it? Until what point an end user is meant to be so much geek to know if a certain python thing is good, another is bad, a DLL is ok and another is not? This is the lack of "tools" I am talking about.
That sounds illegal. It probably is and the ones using it will get probably banned soon (if its first time then rather temporarily). If in doubt you can always petition and ask if something you plan to do is legal in EVE. No need to guess.
It has been posted several times by devs and GM's what they consider illegal in EVE. As a rough rule of thumb - if it automates the game to the point where without your input the game "plays on its own" its illegal. And it does not matter if you are sitting at computer and watching it to do it or not.
Now fancy keyboards n stuff are a bit of a gray area, but there are limits what CCP allows in there as well. I know as I petitioned a while ago asking if one thing is legal and was told not to do it as it would get me banned. I was asking about old PI system which was very damn clik heavy and a mouse driver which were able to record the mouse movements and then replay them. So it would have been relatively easy to record the mouse movements once and then replay them every morning for 20 minutes it took me to refresh my PI farm while just sitting there and sipping my morning coffee. Ofc as I was told to not do it I did not and continued wasting 20 minutes of my life every morning clicking on PI crap until I got fed up with it and stopped doing PI.
It's ok to use fancy keyboard to activate hardeners or launchers/turrets with one button press. It is not ok to make the same keyboard macro activate the launchers once every ~3 minutes, load up with FoF and go watch TV (also, by the same logic, putting papewrweight on F1 is bannable offence, as it allows "AFK play"). Anything that allows "AFK play" is not allowed, regardless if it's fancy hardware, clever python script, some recorded pattern of movements or even just plain old rock put on F1 on the perfectly ordinary keyboard. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 17:55:00 -
[309] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Adding to my post above with a practical example.
There's a 3rd party tool that has been announced weeks ago (has 20 or so forum pages!) that completely automates in game market prices gathering. It really opens the right window for you, fills in the right item for you, then switches to the next and so on.
With such cumbersome default UI, a player seeing such software would rejoyce!
But wait, is this software - residing on the official EvE forums but never "checked" legit? Or is it a bot? What to the dozens who use it? Until what point an end user is meant to be so much geek to know if a certain python thing is good, another is bad, a DLL is ok and another is not? This is the lack of "tools" I am talking about. That sounds illegal. It probably is and the ones using it will get probably banned soon (if its first time then rather temporarily). If in doubt you can always petition and ask if something you plan to do is legal in EVE. No need to guess. It has been posted several times by devs and GM's what they consider illegal in EVE. As a rough rule of thumb - if it automates the game to the point where without your input the game "plays on its own" its illegal. And it does not matter if you are sitting at computer and watching it to do it or not. Now fancy keyboards n stuff are a bit of a gray area, but there are limits what CCP allows in there as well. I know as I petitioned a while ago asking if one thing is legal and was told not to do it as it would get me banned. I was asking about old PI system which was very damn clik heavy and a mouse driver which were able to record the mouse movements and then replay them. So it would have been relatively easy to record the mouse movements once and then replay them every morning for 20 minutes it took me to refresh my PI farm while just sitting there and sipping my morning coffee. Ofc as I was told to not do it I did not and continued wasting 20 minutes of my life every morning clicking on PI crap until I got fed up with it and stopped doing PI. It's ok to use fancy keyboard to activate hardeners or launchers/turrets with one button press. It is not ok to make the same keyboard macro activate the launchers once every ~3 minutes, load up with FoF and go watch TV (also, by the same logic, putting papewrweight on F1 is bannable offence, as it allows "AFK play"). Anything that allows "AFK play" is not allowed, regardless if it's fancy hardware, clever python script, some recorded pattern of movements or even just plain old rock put on F1 on the perfectly ordinary keyboard.
Actually, this specific one is fine. It's a web page that uses the igb browser's javascript calls to open the market pages (CCP provided) and a cache scraper for getting the prices. Both have been oked by GMs. Doesn't change anything.
It's what eve central, eve market data and eve marketeer use. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 08:09:00 -
[310] - Quote
THANK YOU, this means allot to me. |
|
Stragak
Mangi Consilii S E D I T I O N
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 11:54:00 -
[311] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know! I would like those details as well |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 13:04:00 -
[312] - Quote
In the name of our whole corporation i want to thank you guys for taking actions against these people.
We have made real friends while playing the best game ever and would love to keep doing so.
I just hope the "three strikes" dont mean three chances for botter (...fill in your favorite offense here...) to refine their software.
+ awesome pic - no graphs and why the hell is it that expensive to go to fanfest once the special offers are sold out Next year i will be with the early birds
Cheers Gal |
Onar Maldarian
WALLTREIPERS WALLTREIPERS ALLIANCE
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 15:47:00 -
[313] - Quote
8 years. [irony]Good job[/irony] |
Trainwreck McGee
Ghost Ship Inc.
229
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 15:59:00 -
[314] - Quote
I think it should be
1 warning with a 30 day ban and a year character lock and if they do it again perma ban.
Why give them more then one warning? it makes no sense....
I dont care if only 3% of people get a third strike Why let people bot for 2 strikes? I know a guy who said he botted for 2 years and got 2 strikes in that time and stopped botting. BUT HE BOTTED FOR 2 YEARS BEFORE STOPPING.
This is not good.
CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool |
Chevy Hakoke
Shockwave Innovations Stellar Economy Experts
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 23:00:00 -
[315] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Suggestion:
After first offense/14-day ban:
Reduce the character to -10.0 security status and -5.00 faction-standing with all four factions, to be improved using the standard methods.
I think this will make absolutely clear that they should never, ever do that again whilst giving them a legitimate chance to "rehabilitate" themselves.
After second offense:
Wallet reduced to zero, all assets removed, plus the standings penalty above, again able to "rehabilitate" using normal methods.
Third offense:
Permanent, account-level, not just that character--ban, all characters and assets on that account biomassed.
Because...because **** them, that's why.
E:
The second offense's penalties should apply to all characters on that account, not just the one botting, and any re-rolls in empty slots will be "born" with those standings as well.
Botting is bad, m'kay? It just needs to be shown very explicitly to anyone who does it that it will carry harsh, long-term consequences. the current first 2 strikes are a slap on the wrist, although the character transfer-lock is a big step in the right direction.
yes....Yes....YES!!!!!!!! |
Elanor Vega
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 00:25:00 -
[316] - Quote
Trainwreck McGee wrote:I think it should be
1 warning with a 30 day ban and a year character lock and if they do it again perma ban.
Why give them more then one warning? it makes no sense....
I dont care if only 3% of people get a third strike Why let people bot for 2 strikes? I know a guy who said he botted for 2 years and got 2 strikes in that time and stopped botting. BUT HE BOTTED FOR 2 YEARS BEFORE STOPPING.
This is not good.
It must be PERMANENT lock. In any other way they will only have more accounts. This is banned, make new, this is banned, make new, this is banned, first is unlocked, sell char from first, make new acc, buy new char. And here is cycle closed again. With more accounts botter have the same thing as now, when is banned, sell char, buy new char on new acc.
THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN, SO LOCK MUST BE PERMANENT!!! |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:45:00 -
[317] - Quote
It seems like the market bot bannings have relaxed the jita market, but regional markets like VFK in Deklein still feel like they are being mechanically/methodically manipulated. Most things I add are undercut by 0.01 isk within 30minutes. Various analytical tools have let me target specific things to test this. I'm willing to share my data on how I arrived at what goods to monitor and the patterns that have developed as a result. Also, please ban these jerks. They can't be sharking people 23x7 day in and day out, and still be human. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 14:28:00 -
[318] - Quote
How about making a way for the bots don't work anymore? this is a bot site with its description vids and whatever so you guys from ccp can start with it: http://www.reboot.gr/ I saw it on my facebook and i had to post it here, it will help understand how bots work.
Bots are usualy dumb, they can't handle against the intelligence and determination of good players.
I already saw many drakes in null-sec using this feature. Since my corp and Alliace are totaly against botters we usually get a tackler fleet, put 1 player on each belt of the botter system and then everybody logs off... then we log back again at the same time and we try to point it down before it warps away and cloaks. and we repeat the process until it is tackled. Then we kill it, and then we help the char back to a station PODing it back home.
Today we need about 10 players to kill a botter, but as soon as CCP delivers the cloak hunter ship this number will go down to 2 or 3. Because most of the botters use the safe-spot+cloak strategy. And as we get able to track the "botter cloaker" we can decloak and kill him easly. So it it get way more dangerous for bots, this will reduce significantly their numbers... ( Althoug this will also end the afk cloaker griefing... since it is a way to play the game afk, and also a form of bot imo.)
Please CCP, you guys don't need to hunt most of the bots. You can make the own system and players hunt the majority of them for you.
Also remove the mineral drop from Drones and give them bounty. So there will be more profit on mining and more minners and players will go to null-sec. removing the space of the botters. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 15:46:00 -
[319] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:How about making a way for the bots don't work anymore? this is a bot site with its description vids and whatever so you guys from ccp can start with it: http://www.reboot.gr/ I saw it on my facebook and i had to post it here, it will help understand how bots work. Bots are usualy dumb, they can't handle against the intelligence and determination of good players. So that was the source of the majority of the anom/belt ratting bots that were banned. |
Luvvin McHunt
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:50:00 -
[320] - Quote
So if the light assault launchers are called 'Arrays' now - the new name implies every loaded missile can be shot at once.
Not a good name change for a launcher as it's less accurate/descriptive than the old name. |
|
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
404
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:53:00 -
[321] - Quote
bot get loots get strike one bot more get more loots get strike 2, darn it oh well i have a plan sell the actual account to some sap on the internet for $$
this is one of the many reasons the 3 strike system is foolish, maybe MAYBE 2 strikes.. but 3? come on.
the 2 strikes would be for players botting a few hours because they wanted a shiny battlecruiser, not to fund an alliance titan or 4.
other then that keep banning them. |
Vassilius Amilupar
Vassilius Amilupar Corporate
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 10:08:00 -
[322] - Quote
I think CCP are a bit late on fighting bot since they are here from 6 years if not since the begining of the game ...
They already did their massive amount of damage on the game by providing easy ISKs to some groups(by industrialisation of the botting) and maybe more tricks about hacking the client.
But anyway, you have to do it, congratulation on that !!
I think the 3 strikes is too much friendly, people try, people get warned, end of it, if they go a second time they will do it whenever is possible. The bad things for you as a company, is that give you less subscription ... ( We are not blind ).
but there is something more interesting things behind the bot in a casual manner. Doing NPCs, or mission is a pain after few hours of play, the fun is not here from my point of view, i'm playing this game for 6-7years with lot of mate and we agree on that ...
You are already a bot when you do mining with 2 or more account , or doing boring mission or boring belt or similar activity .
Will you ban us all ? :D
Anyway good job on chasing bot CCP Sreegs and team, that from a ex-ally doing boring pos shooting with your ex-alliance :)
PS: sorry for the bad english text ... |
Aren Dar
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 10:39:00 -
[323] - Quote
Selling characters is a side business to most botters, and not their main one. They make more in a weeks botting than they will do by selling their Tengu pilot of Character bazaar. So this will slightly raise the cost of botting, but won't prevent it. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:10:00 -
[324] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Have a wonderful weekend!
Thanks Sreegs - As an industrial player this is great news. BTW - I don't like rude people - but I will have a good weekend as well now thanks to this effort of yours and your team.
Even just - Simply stating / restating an intention to act against cheats will deter some of them I am sure.
Nice work - and you have a good weekend too! |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 02:53:00 -
[325] - Quote
KFenn wrote:Bubanni wrote:OH ccp, what are you doing to make sure they don't just RMT away the accounts? (sell the account for real money) when they get locked... In all honesty, what can they do? If they suspect the account has been involved in RMT they can close it, but it's really, really hard to detect that.
The account could be RMTed away, but under the old system a gold miner could have his character jump accounts, along with fortune who would know if the new account is the same person or a different one.
If the same char is on the same account of a suspect botter is stuck, if they (or someone else) does it again, with the same char and account the strikes could keep raising. Doesn't matter if its peter or paul who is now farming with the account, the offenses would (or should) be tied to the same account, and lead to banning.
Yes it might be possible to RMT a farming char for botting who has a warning on them, but then they pay $100 for a account that is one flag away from ban, I don't believe telling ccp that the account was traded illegally would help the case of the new owner over past offenses, and explaining any new offenses.
As others suggested, 3 strikes is way too lenient, I would say if suspect botting/laundering isk for botting, lock the chars and account, and assets at once. Then do a judicial review of the account, if it is found to be a botter, permaban if it is, or unlock if it is not (innocence). Or one warning with char lock, then permaban after next offence.
Also make sure that stuff like freezing assets and char transfers, and warnings are never revoked over time unless innocence is proven. Don't encourage cycling characters. |
Parthonax
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 12:35:00 -
[326] - Quote
Who cares CCP you are killing your own game anyway Bots are not the the real reason this game has become dull and one sided
Your own failure in giving newplayers a reason to keep playing your own idiotic policy in encouraging griefing and your biased opinion and way you favour nullsec alliances , favoring them over the majority of your subscribers ,
that what will kill your game not bots You probably already lost more subscribers because of these facts than the whole incarnia debacle and , these latest bot purges together so this is permanence |
Beckie DeLey
Brigade of Guards SpaceMonkey's Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 13:11:00 -
[327] - Quote
botter detected It's The Legendary Extraordinary Me |
Parthonax
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:36:00 -
[328] - Quote
Beckie DeLey wrote:botter detected shut up you little braindead i have the right to out my opinion , even when it is the truth and you or CCP don't like it so this is permanence |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:42:00 -
[329] - Quote
Parthonax wrote:Who cares CCP you are killing your own game anyway Bots are not the the real reason this game has become dull and one sided
Your own failure in giving newplayers a reason to keep playing your own idiotic policy in encouraging griefing and your biased opinion and way you favour nullsec alliances , favoring them over the majority of your subscribers ,
that what will kill your game not bots You probably already lost more subscribers because of these facts than the whole incarnia debacle and , these latest bot purges together
Hi welcome to the bot thread. Please stay on topic. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:49:00 -
[330] - Quote
Xorv wrote:
Thanks for the reply Sreegs, your efforts in dealing with botters and communicating with the EVE community here is genuinely appreciated. Still very underwhelmed by the punishment , 14 days is barely a slap on the wrist for someone who has gone out of their way to get a third party program with the specific intent to cheat in the game.
While it is understood you did not respond to my specific suggestions, and I appreciate why,. I will say this, EVE needs holistic treatment that addresses the disease not merely treating the symptoms, and that can only be done at the design level. A lot of us are hoping that Inferno moves in that direction and really delivers.
Not directly at you but since this is a common refrain, 14 days works. It simply does. You may not like that it works but it does and we'll show you the numbers that back that up. In addition there's some other fun things that are happening like that character lock, as well as something fresh I'll announce once it's ready. |
|
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
498
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:27:00 -
[331] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Xorv wrote:
Thanks for the reply Sreegs, your efforts in dealing with botters and communicating with the EVE community here is genuinely appreciated. Still very underwhelmed by the punishment , 14 days is barely a slap on the wrist for someone who has gone out of their way to get a third party program with the specific intent to cheat in the game.
While it is understood you did not respond to my specific suggestions, and I appreciate why,. I will say this, EVE needs holistic treatment that addresses the disease not merely treating the symptoms, and that can only be done at the design level. A lot of us are hoping that Inferno moves in that direction and really delivers.
Not directly at you but since this is a common refrain, 14 days works. It simply does. You may not like that it works but it does and we'll show you the numbers that back that up. In addition there's some other fun things that are happening like that character lock, as well as something fresh I'll announce once it's ready.
Forcing them to watch Beiber music videos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AGH2JcVVL0 Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:33:00 -
[332] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Xorv wrote:
Thanks for the reply Sreegs, your efforts in dealing with botters and communicating with the EVE community here is genuinely appreciated. Still very underwhelmed by the punishment , 14 days is barely a slap on the wrist for someone who has gone out of their way to get a third party program with the specific intent to cheat in the game.
While it is understood you did not respond to my specific suggestions, and I appreciate why,. I will say this, EVE needs holistic treatment that addresses the disease not merely treating the symptoms, and that can only be done at the design level. A lot of us are hoping that Inferno moves in that direction and really delivers.
Not directly at you but since this is a common refrain, 14 days works. It simply does. You may not like that it works but it does and we'll show you the numbers that back that up. In addition there's some other fun things that are happening like that character lock, as well as something fresh I'll announce once it's ready. Forcing them to watch Beiber music videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AGH2JcVVL0
Now that is just cruel!
Aren Dar wrote:Selling characters is a side business to most botters, and not their main one. They make more in a weeks botting than they will do by selling their Tengu pilot of Character bazaar. So this will slightly raise the cost of botting, but won't prevent it.
Yes but it is still a major blow to botters. They cant get affected characters and accounts "off the books" now. And that will reduce their effectiveness.
CCP Sreegs wrote: Not directly at you but since this is a common refrain, 14 days works. It simply does. You may not like that it works but it does and we'll show you the numbers that back that up. In addition there's some other fun things that are happening like that character lock, as well as something fresh I'll announce once it's ready.
Agreed. And folks as much as we would like to see bot accounts thrown into the lava in the first detection. Fact is many can be *saved* And eventually become good players who will find and report bots on their own as well.
Looking forward to hearing about more stats and efforts in the future. Until then folks keep reporting the bots that you see! Even if they are blue!
|
Chokichi Ozuwara
Lucky Dragon Convenience
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 21:23:00 -
[333] - Quote
I really like what you guys have done to combat botters. Seeing the effect throughout the game tbh, particularly in the commodity markets and with missions.
|
Zleon Leigh
90
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 22:49:00 -
[334] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective. I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :)
Naming and shaming of a character that CCP owns anyway?
Name them! I want to be as far away from a botter/rmt'er as I can get....
Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
557
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 00:25:00 -
[335] - Quote
Anyone done some spreadsheet work to show what regions are owned by who and a graph that shows the NPC kills prior to the bot ban and after?
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 03:18:00 -
[336] - Quote
eXeler0n wrote:Good thing! It would be a nice idea to give them a -10 security status. So they have to work for the bad things they have done :) And everybody can shoot them ^^ And tag them as botters until they are outlaws :)
Most botters (off the top of my head it's 3am) are in 0.0. Sec status doesn't matter. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 03:21:00 -
[337] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
This highlights the perspective issue. We banned 10 market bots and the market people in this thread stated they noticed a tremendous difference...
We build our system to deal with certain things and we can show results based on that. We can't give overall perspective (nor can any other company out there). If I could answer this question then I'd know how many bots there were and I'd ban them all. |
|
Ballamann
Heuristic ALgorithmic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 09:11:00 -
[338] - Quote
yeh but why is it possible for me to detect bots by flying though 0.0 and using dotlan? Why is that not possible for the ccp guys? because every bot brings money every month like every other acc. -> They are not interested in banning somebody? they just do it to pour oil on troubled waters. and question ur selv why they do it just 2 times a year and everytime in front of the fanfest!
greetings |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1040
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 11:30:00 -
[339] - Quote
Awesome stuff - keep it up!
Get |
Abyss Azizora
Amarrian Warfactory
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 12:38:00 -
[340] - Quote
Ballamann wrote:yeh but why is it possible for me to detect bots by flying though 0.0 and using dotlan? Why is that not possible for the ccp guys? because every bot brings money every month like every other acc. -> They are not interested in banning somebody? they just do it to pour oil on troubled waters. and question ur selv why they do it just 2 times a year and everytime in front of the fanfest!
greetings
Pretty much agree with this. I see eve bot banning as more of a promotional thing than a concerned effort. I would LOVE to be proven wrong, but I still think CCP only bans a few rather than the masses in order to keep them paying.
I know finding every bot is impossible, but when I can and often do point out/report a dozen+ bots a day (And a week later they are still there.) while playing for only a few hours, and while in the process of doing other things, I damn well know a dedicated development team should be banning nearly 500 bots a day, every day. (They would come back with new accounts every day from botted PLEX, so that's sustainable numbers.)
I don't necessarily blame the people in the development team, more the suits in charge, that see bots as people paying to ruin the game, but also filling CCP's wallet. |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
2804
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 12:58:00 -
[341] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
This highlights the perspective issue. We banned 10 market bots and the market people in this thread stated they noticed a tremendous difference... We build our system to deal with certain things and we can show results based on that. We can't give overall perspective (nor can any other company out there). If I could answer this question then I'd know how many bots there were and I'd ban them all. Did you happen to ban some spambots this morning too perhaps... because Jita was really nice there for a while.
/c
|
|
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 19:30:00 -
[342] - Quote
Inovy Dacella wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
This highlights the perspective issue. We banned 10 market bots and the market people in this thread stated they noticed a tremendous difference... We build our system to deal with certain things and we can show results based on that. We can't give overall perspective (nor can any other company out there). If I could answer this question then I'd know how many bots there were and I'd ban them all. If players claim they can detect bots so easily, is it possible to make bot detecting a part of the game? Perhaps with some knid of bot detection software we could identify and report them to Concord, which in return could verify and issue a kill permit on the bot. Then we can pod kill them, loot them and collect the reward.
So you just want killmail and don't really care about the needed action is banning right?
And autodection rarely works. If botters learn how it works they will go 99 percent before ban and still RMT and destroy the market.
Report bot is the best tool for the players right now. The players notice the signs over time on the harder to find ones. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
847
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 21:45:00 -
[343] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:#4 Finally through the above try to encourage blues to report blue bots. This will help catch more botters.
This is just impossible since in major alliances there's a non written rule about bots: they're not CCP's police, it's not up to them to do their job and you could get yourself and your corp in trouble if you are known or suspected for bot reporting blues.
I guess this makes it pretty clear how the problem should be handled.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 22:51:00 -
[344] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:#4 Finally through the above try to encourage blues to report blue bots. This will help catch more botters. This is just impossible since in major alliances there's a non written rule about bots: they're not CCP's police, it's not up to them to do their job and you could get yourself and your corp in trouble if you are known or suspected for bot reporting blues.
I get that it's "not their job" but it's rather telling that you can get in trouble for reporting bots in these alliances, but not for botting itself. Doesn't surprise me though, my Darkfall clan disintegrated over similar issues. Just are rather sad state of affairs is all. |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 23:12:00 -
[345] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:#4 Finally through the above try to encourage blues to report blue bots. This will help catch more botters. This is just impossible since in major alliances there's a non written rule about bots: they're not CCP's police, it's not up to them to do their job and you could get yourself and your corp in trouble if you are known or suspected for bot reporting blues. I get that it's "not their job" but it's rather telling that you can get in trouble for reporting bots in these alliances, but not for botting itself. Doesn't surprise me though, my Darkfall clan disintegrated over similar issues. Just are rather sad state of affairs is all.
What, exactly, do you think is "telling"? Are you making a moral argument about a business solution? If so, you are a giant ****** who doesn't understand the realities of this game and is operating in a moral fantasy land that simply doesn't exist in EVE or in the real world as well.
What is telling is that allowing botting is pretty much something ANY non-tech holding alliance must allow or put themselves at a massive disadvantage due to their anaemic income potential without the influx of isk from botting taxes. If you don't you allow your enemies to gain an advantage over you that you simply CAN NOT match. You allow botters or you cut your own throat, live in highsec and have little to no impact on the game at all. The big nulsec entities don't encourage botting, but they have little choice but to allow it. The rules against reporting blues are simply ensuring loyalty. If you are more interested in reporting a botter, rather than flying with them in fleets and keeping your space, they you can **** right off and go back to running lvl4s in highsec. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 01:30:00 -
[346] - Quote
ps3ud0nym wrote: What is telling is that allowing botting is pretty much something ANY non-tech holding alliance must allow or put themselves at a massive disadvantage due to their anaemic income potential without the influx of isk from botting taxes. If you don't you allow your enemies to gain an advantage over you that you simply CAN NOT match. You allow botters or you cut your own throat, live in highsec and have little to no impact on the game at all. The big nulsec entities don't encourage botting, but they have little choice but to allow it. The rules against reporting blues are simply ensuring loyalty. If you are more interested in reporting a botter, rather than flying with them in fleets and keeping your space, they you can **** right off and go back to running lvl4s in highsec.
Even though you set out to flame me I sincerely thank you for your post. Both it's content and your accompanying attitude needs to be seen by CCP. It's the same combination that's sunk many a Sandbox MMO where bad game design meets a competitive gaming culture that think it's perfectly fine to cheat.
Then again hopefully CCP Sreegs is right and they will clear up the botting problem. So your alliance won't have to worry about blues reporting your bots as they will already have been flagged and banned alongside those of your competition that you use to justify your own cheating. |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 01:55:00 -
[347] - Quote
Xorv wrote:ps3ud0nym wrote: What is telling is that allowing botting is pretty much something ANY non-tech holding alliance must allow or put themselves at a massive disadvantage due to their anaemic income potential without the influx of isk from botting taxes. If you don't you allow your enemies to gain an advantage over you that you simply CAN NOT match. You allow botters or you cut your own throat, live in highsec and have little to no impact on the game at all. The big nulsec entities don't encourage botting, but they have little choice but to allow it. The rules against reporting blues are simply ensuring loyalty. If you are more interested in reporting a botter, rather than flying with them in fleets and keeping your space, they you can **** right off and go back to running lvl4s in highsec.
Even though you set out to flame me I sincerely thank you for your post. Both it's content and your accompanying attitude needs to be seen by CCP. It's the same combination that's sunk many a Sandbox MMO where bad game design meets a competitive gaming culture that think it's perfectly fine to cheat. Then again hopefully CCP Sreegs is right and they will clear up the botting problem. So your alliance won't have to worry about blues reporting your bots as they will already have been flagged and banned alongside those of your competition that you use to justify your own cheating.
You mistake my acceptance of a reality of the game as approval for the methods we are discussing. To be clear, I have no issue with botting per se (I prefer to call it automation), what I object to is an uneven playing field. I have no problem with automation commonly called "bots" as long as EVERYONE has access to them. I actually would encourage more automation of boring activities in the game using internal tools and scripting languages which would allow CCP to control exactly what and to what extent activities could be automated.
The real problem isn't that "Bots are ruining the game".. that is a nul statement with no meaning. It is that botting allows an advantage to those who use bots which upsets the level playing field that EVE is trying to achieve. Alliances allow botting simply because it evens the playing field against their enemies, who DO use bots. Any other course of action is suicide. Giving the enemy a massive advantage because you have moral issues with what you have to do to remain competitive is stupid. You do what you have to do. We have a blanket ban on leadership botting and anyone caught doing it will have themselves and their corp removed from the Alliance. Again, this has NOTHING to do with how we feel about botting, it is simply because we can't risk someone in our leadership being hit with a 14 day ban and leaving us high and dry.
I would be over the moon with happiness if Darius (Screegs) manages to fix botting, or at least reduces it to manageable levels. It would mean a level playing field, but until then I will continue to allow botting. As for the "Reporting Blues".. it is hard enough to hold and keep sov without dealing with botting drama. If your first loyalty isn't to the Alliance and your blues, then we don't need or want you as all you would be bringing to the alliance is more drama and fall-out for leadership to deal with. We don't need such blues. |
Jovius Marginus
the united Negative Ten.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 10:14:00 -
[348] - Quote
Here's an idea. How about some retribution evestyle before they were banned. Lets say that for a period of 24hours before the ban goes through, all chars on the acount are killable in highsec and a nice flashy red. This will give the bonus of us being able get some retribution eve style, they also have the added punishment of losing assets. |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC 0ccupational Hazzard
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:15:00 -
[349] - Quote
Pointless, doing it all wrong.
Rather than using bots to fatten up your wallets JUST BAN THEM AND KEEP THEM BANNED.
Honestly, if you have sufficient evidence someone is botting, WHY THE FUK WOULD YOU TEMP BAD THEM.
Once a cheater, always a cheater.
A man will cheat on his wife once and do it again with less hesitance. Once you type in that GTA San Andreas cheat code, you wont stop doing it every new game you start. People caught using flyhacks on my Minecraft server = instant perm ban, IP, not username.
Either get the message across or keep failing.
Do it right and ban the fukers perm if you have sufficient evidence. Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
501
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 01:55:00 -
[350] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Xorv wrote:
Thanks for the reply Sreegs, your efforts in dealing with botters and communicating with the EVE community here is genuinely appreciated. Still very underwhelmed by the punishment , 14 days is barely a slap on the wrist for someone who has gone out of their way to get a third party program with the specific intent to cheat in the game.
While it is understood you did not respond to my specific suggestions, and I appreciate why,. I will say this, EVE needs holistic treatment that addresses the disease not merely treating the symptoms, and that can only be done at the design level. A lot of us are hoping that Inferno moves in that direction and really delivers.
Not directly at you but since this is a common refrain, 14 days works. It simply does. You may not like that it works but it does and we'll show you the numbers that back that up. In addition there's some other fun things that are happening like that character lock, as well as something fresh I'll announce once it's ready.
I have the perfect punishment.
Take away ship spinning privileges from the botting accounts. They only get the CQ.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 11:49:00 -
[351] - Quote
GOOD DEAL - SMACK 'EM HARD AND SMACK 'EM EARLY!!
How about spicing up the time bans with a little fine to help them lose some of that cheated for ISK? Forget how much they have hidden in other accounts, send them into the red with a billion isk fine per cheating instance. Sieze property to satisfy the fine, set a 50% tax on all future earnings to pay for the fines. Make every chuckle they had about "getting over on the rest of us" cost them a huge amount per chuckle. Don't let them credit card their way out of the hole with plexes.
Crash down on the turd I heard in the computer store a couple of months ago bragging about making 300 - 400 USD a month off of Eve. Strange, he wouldn't tell me his toon's name, but his carseat was sticky when he finally left and sat down in a bucket seat full soda that slipped out of my hand when I was walking by his car. Damn, and that was the last Mountain Dew the store had!
Never let up on them!!! |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 12:02:00 -
[352] - Quote
ps3ud0nym wrote:[quote=Xorv][quote=ps3ud0nym] I would be over the moon with happiness if Darius (Screegs) manages to fix botting, or at least reduces it to manageable levels. It would mean a level playing field, but until then I will continue to allow botting. .
Here is an account to ban! At least dig into every account in his corp/alliance and root out the cheaters he encourages.
Just because others are cheating and getting an advantage on you is not an excuse to cheat - it is admitting that you are too weak to stand for what is right and help bring them to justice. If you have to cheat to survive in a game - what have you won and how can you see your accomplishments with any pride. You should feel shame instead of vindication. |
Abyss Azizora
Amarrian Warfactory
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 16:17:00 -
[353] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Abyss Azizora wrote:Ballamann wrote:yeh but why is it possible for me to detect bots by flying though 0.0 and using dotlan? Why is that not possible for the ccp guys? because every bot brings money every month like every other acc. -> They are not interested in banning somebody? they just do it to pour oil on troubled waters. and question ur selv why they do it just 2 times a year and everytime in front of the fanfest!
greetings Pretty much agree with this. I see eve bot banning as more of a promotional thing than a concerned effort. I would LOVE to be proven wrong, but I still think CCP only bans a few rather than the masses in order to keep them paying. I know finding every bot is impossible, but when I can and often do point out/report a dozen+ bots a day (And a week later they are still there.) while playing for only a few hours, and while in the process of doing other things, I damn well know a dedicated development team should be banning nearly 500 bots a day, every day. (They would come back with new accounts every day from botted PLEX, so that's sustainable numbers.) I don't necessarily blame the people in the development team, more the suits in charge, that see bots as people paying to ruin the game, but also filling CCP's wallet. I am just going to say that in my opinion you know very little of how complex the botting situation is so please stop posting libel about CCP. BTW. One of the main goals needs to be to "scare" the botters more than anything. Many run their bots full bore and more news of bot bannings will get them to start making their bots less delectable by changing their behavior. This causes a massive drop in output so many being forced to do that or reported or banned WILL help EVE. #1 Get rid of the easy to find empire bots. #2 Get rid of the easy to find null and WH bots. #3 Try to find some of the harder yet bigger to find bot networks that are involved with RMT and ban them. This generates news and scares botters. #4 Finally through the above try to encourage blues to report blue bots. This will help catch more botters.
While I fully admit I am not in any way in charge of banning bots, nor have I ever been in any game. In my opinion YOU have no idea how simple it is to ban bots in bulk. I "personally" report a large number every day casually playing. Most arn't hard to detect, they are all huddled up next to an orca, they almost always have "reject all convos" enabled, they sit out there for 18-23 hours on end, forever.
Let's say all I did was go after bots that fit this exact description, I could personally ban over a 100 a day just going from system to system for about 6 hours a day. (A bit of a estimation, but I feel it's fairly accurate.) Now a developer that works a full day doing just this, has access to teleport type commands, and can bypass convo blocks/send popup warnings etc... should be putting my numbers to shame.
If they really wanted to ban bots, 90% of bots would be gone in a month tops, they also wouldn't be giving this moronic temp bans for botting, it'd just be an outright perma-ban. And if CCP are somehow having an issue with this, hire me, and I will personally take care of almost all the bots in a month. I wouldn't make all these claims unless I could do the damn thing myself, I'm willing to backup my words with action if CCP can't do it.
Lastly, one thing I don't get... CCP could make a small fortune banning the bots rather than keeping them around. each one banned is a new account they have to make, and most bots use PLEX to make new ones. So they make $20 for each one banned, and even more if you nail the ones holding the bulk PLEX. But I guess they are worried the bots will move on or something instead of buying more PLEX. |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 16:49:00 -
[354] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:ps3ud0nym wrote:[quote=Xorv][quote=ps3ud0nym] I would be over the moon with happiness if Darius (Screegs) manages to fix botting, or at least reduces it to manageable levels. It would mean a level playing field, but until then I will continue to allow botting. . Here is an account to ban! At least dig into every account in his corp/alliance and root out the cheaters he encourages. Just because others are cheating and getting an advantage on you is not an excuse to cheat - it is admitting that you are too weak to stand for what is right and help bring them to justice. If you have to cheat to survive in a game - what have you won and how can you see your accomplishments with any pride. You should feel shame instead of vindication.
Wow.. thank you for your response. You are an excellent example of someone who appears to be rather mentally unstable and should likely quit EVE and seek medical assistance. From your other posts in this thread, it appears that you take the happenings in a Video Game so seriously that you are willing to commit illegal acts (Vandalism) in the real world because of someones actions in a video game.
I am not kidding, this is not a troll. Please, seek professional help. This is a video game. If you are unable to distinguish it from real life and are willing to take your anger out on people in the real world.. you shouldn't be playing and you need help. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:16:00 -
[355] - Quote
Ballamann wrote:yeh but why is it possible for me to detect bots by flying though 0.0 and using dotlan? Why is that not possible for the ccp guys? because every bot brings money every month like every other acc. -> They are not interested in banning somebody? they just do it to pour oil on troubled waters. and question ur selv why they do it just 2 times a year and everytime in front of the fanfest!
greetings
I don't believe that using Dotlan is in any way a valid measurement of botting activity. If you decide that it is then all I can do is argue with you and you're simply not going to agree with me. Believe it or not everything isn't some giant conspiracy amd if you're using financials as a measurement we believe we benefit more financially from doing something about the problem.
Your statement regarding twice a year is just clearly false as other posts in this thread have pointed out. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:18:00 -
[356] - Quote
Chribba wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
This highlights the perspective issue. We banned 10 market bots and the market people in this thread stated they noticed a tremendous difference... We build our system to deal with certain things and we can show results based on that. We can't give overall perspective (nor can any other company out there). If I could answer this question then I'd know how many bots there were and I'd ban them all. Did you happen to ban some spambots this morning too perhaps... because Jita was really nice there for a while. /c
We've always done work against spambots. Sometimes it just takes some time to get through the system. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:19:00 -
[357] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Inovy Dacella wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
This highlights the perspective issue. We banned 10 market bots and the market people in this thread stated they noticed a tremendous difference... We build our system to deal with certain things and we can show results based on that. We can't give overall perspective (nor can any other company out there). If I could answer this question then I'd know how many bots there were and I'd ban them all. If players claim they can detect bots so easily, is it possible to make bot detecting a part of the game? Perhaps with some knid of bot detection software we could identify and report them to Concord, which in return could verify and issue a kill permit on the bot. Then we can pod kill them, loot them and collect the reward. So you just want killmail and don't really care about the needed action is banning right? And autodection rarely works. If botters learn how it works they will go 99 percent before ban and still RMT and destroy the market. Report bot is the best tool for the players right now. The players notice the signs over time on the harder to find ones.
The reporting feature provides us with a lot of useful information. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:21:00 -
[358] - Quote
Jovius Marginus wrote:Here's an idea. How about some retribution evestyle before they were banned. Lets say that for a period of 24hours before the ban goes through, all chars on the acount are killable in highsec and a nice flashy red. This will give the bonus of us being able get some retribution eve style, they also have the added punishment of losing assets.
Stuff like this gets discussed all the time but it's really difficult for us to implement things like this. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:25:00 -
[359] - Quote
Abyss Azizora wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Abyss Azizora wrote:Ballamann wrote:yeh but why is it possible for me to detect bots by flying though 0.0 and using dotlan? Why is that not possible for the ccp guys? because every bot brings money every month like every other acc. -> They are not interested in banning somebody? they just do it to pour oil on troubled waters. and question ur selv why they do it just 2 times a year and everytime in front of the fanfest!
greetings Pretty much agree with this. I see eve bot banning as more of a promotional thing than a concerned effort. I would LOVE to be proven wrong, but I still think CCP only bans a few rather than the masses in order to keep them paying. I know finding every bot is impossible, but when I can and often do point out/report a dozen+ bots a day (And a week later they are still there.) while playing for only a few hours, and while in the process of doing other things, I damn well know a dedicated development team should be banning nearly 500 bots a day, every day. (They would come back with new accounts every day from botted PLEX, so that's sustainable numbers.) I don't necessarily blame the people in the development team, more the suits in charge, that see bots as people paying to ruin the game, but also filling CCP's wallet. I am just going to say that in my opinion you know very little of how complex the botting situation is so please stop posting libel about CCP. BTW. One of the main goals needs to be to "scare" the botters more than anything. Many run their bots full bore and more news of bot bannings will get them to start making their bots less delectable by changing their behavior. This causes a massive drop in output so many being forced to do that or reported or banned WILL help EVE. #1 Get rid of the easy to find empire bots. #2 Get rid of the easy to find null and WH bots. #3 Try to find some of the harder yet bigger to find bot networks that are involved with RMT and ban them. This generates news and scares botters. #4 Finally through the above try to encourage blues to report blue bots. This will help catch more botters. While I fully admit I am not in any way in charge of banning bots, nor have I ever been in any game... If they really wanted to ban bots, 90% of bots would be gone in a month tops, they also wouldn't be giving this moronic temp bans for botting, it'd just be an outright perma-ban. And if CCP are somehow having an issue with this, hire me, and I will personally take care of almost all the bots in a month.
Just gonna leave both of those out there. If this was a simple thing to deal with we'd already be there. I'm sure I could be accused of a lot of things but relishing wasting my time has never been one of them. The conspiracies fall apart when you accept the fact that the easy way out in all of this would have just been to leave the problem alone. We simply didn't feel that was the right thing to do and I've personally put in a lot of time and effort to ensuring things stay that way.
|
|
Dubaschu
BJ TitsnEvE
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:49:00 -
[360] - Quote
Hi CCP,
This is awefull that " I do need to add to that the fact that these things were turned off for a period of time". I spotted Bots everyday and we reported them and yet CCP didnot get removed...Explains why!
You have good news becuase now you look after this, sad beucase this shows CCP cannot keep full control of one team and that even though you look after this now, the last team also promissed this, and now we hear they got removed becuase of other resource requirement.
Can for once please CCP stop changing stuff and messing around. The current Market is massivly inflated...Bots.... Can you hit harder on Bots! As soon as i is reported...Bam get them
Thanks Dubaschu |
|
Mik kyo
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 20:28:00 -
[361] - Quote
So it seems a few dudes have recieved bans for afking domis while at work.
I would have hoped CCP would at least be banning botters by now |
Grumpy Owly
333
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 02:42:00 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Is it possible for you to tell us what the botters primary activity was? In a percentage like "67% were miners, 12% were market...". As an example. Yeah that kind of thing I'll report but I'd prefer if possible to wait a couple of weeks to do it.
Sure your busy with the commendable work CCP Sreegs.
Just like to remind you about this statement you made about 17 days ago.
I know you are more than likley aware of the apparent interest here and don't need it re-emphasising that stats and figures regarding botters would be of great interest to EvE players. And you have reminded us to be patient regarding the subject in the what I suppose needs to be an considered approach to how release the information etc.
So apologies if appearing to nag, but just a gentle reminder on the subject really. Bounty Hunting for CSM 7
Stop EvE Apathy |
Langori
Phoenix. Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 02:48:00 -
[363] - Quote
Congratulations to Sreegs and CCP for the action taken against cheaters. I think such actions are the base to make this game more balanced. Imho, the whole question about broken mechanics of titans and supercaps turn around on how it's easy to cheat and get this kind of ships and how these ships are deployed relatively lightly because obtained using macros/bot/cheats.
In the matter of banning bad guys, after reading this article appeared on EVE News 24 I have some doubts about how much the campaign against cheaters is really active:
A I can't confirm the truthfulness of the article published by Riverini but I played in the past in the same corp with several guys listed by Horus/A Puppetmaster and I can confirm that during the time spent together in the same corp they have absolutely no economic resources needed to purchase proper titan/supercaps pilots and the related ships. Now, only a short time later, they show up various pilots and ships like titans and motherships. I think you will agree that it's at least suspicious.
B Why wasn't made a check on the regularity and fairness for every supercaps pilot/player of the corp untouchable after a ban done by CCP over some members of this corp and why don't you take care about the fabulous speed with which this corporation has acquired so many supercaps and titans?
C Do you consider fair that ,even if just with a new corp name, these guys probably have cheated/cheat and that they are continuing to make fun of showing up their hundreds billions ships obtained in a rather suspicious way? |
Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 08:20:00 -
[364] - Quote
"retroactive to at LEAST February."
So will bans and hunting down include everything that has happened from february 2012 and on, or everything that happened before february 2012?
|
Fairhand
Aliastra Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 07:27:00 -
[365] - Quote
Raven Ether wrote:So will bans and hunting down include everything that has happened from february 2012 and on, or everything that happened before february 2012?
Why? Are you worried?
He said that the further they go back, the greater the workload increases.
|
Mei Ling Cobon-Han
MM Prospects
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 01:33:00 -
[366] - Quote
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but it has to do with banning and bots. You, CCP Devs and GM's. Have falsely banned my Corporation member for something he did NOT do. You banned my Corporation member for botting, something he does NOT do. The night you banned him he was mining on his own to make a living in EVE and it's extremely high prices, and mining gets boring, so he decided to watch a movie. And then for some reason he got banned for botting, which he was NOT doing. No offence, but you're out there, trying to ban people for botting, and you falsely ban someone for doing something they did NOT. This is completely unfair, and you should give the guy a chance to prove himself. Brett Stennis is the one who was falsely banned for actions he did NOT do |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:15:00 -
[367] - Quote
This post has nothing to do with botting, but banned accounts.
The bad guys the other bad guys and even more bad guys, but also sometimes good guys, (or at least bad guys in a different way)
Please revamp your petition system, to include a way that banned, (temp or otherwise) can still get at their petitions. currently a banned account (for what ever reason) is not allowed to log in to see its open petitions. Nor does CCP send even an automail in response to petitions (which would include a link to the open petition).
The current system asks you to log in to see/close petitions. Banned accounts cannot log in. This makes it rather hard to oblige.
Its really hard to defend a case if there isnt a way to continue a dialogue. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one page] |