Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello wonderful Internet Spaceship Pilots!!!!!
Though not all of you have seen my presentation last Friday at this point I have some time to kill so I'd like to get this conversation started that I not only promised, but that I'm really looking forward to.
In some of my past dev blogs and conversations with players it's been mentioned by a number of you that you'd like botters identified publicly. As you will eventually see from my presentation once it's posted, I'm not entirely convinced that this has any real tangible benefit to you as a player in any respect other than as a tool to implement the metagame.
I'm also not convinced that it's a worthless pursuit so what I'd like to see from you, the players, is a discussion regarding how you feel about this and I'm hoping to see some really cool ideas.
If I'm forced to frame it as a question I'd like answered I think I'd frame it as "What would you, the player, stand to benefit from being able to identify which characters had ever been caught botting, whether or not they were still engaging in this activity?"
Please try to stay on topic. If this thread gets garbaged (Sarah Palin License to invent words) then we'll clean it but I'd rather we just stick to the topic and provide some really good input personally.
DISCUSS!
:) |
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
first
|
OfBalance
Caldari State
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Good timing.
Content:
CCP Sreegs wrote:"What would you, the player, stand to benefit from being able to identify which characters had ever been caught botting, whether or not they were still engaging in this activity?"
Mocking said player until they discontinue the practice or commi- ok probably too soon for that joke. |
Javier McPoopbeard
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
poop |
Terminal Insanity
The Filthy Ones
430
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Name and Shame. Do it!
Bot/Macros are fairly predictable, and once you observe them in action it becomes reasonably easy to gank them. If you identify botters, it would make vigilante justice easier, and players would know who to keep an eye on. I bet many of them are repeat offenders. "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
The primary advantage of the scarlet letter would undoubtedly be as a deterrent and I support the concept for that reason.
Maybe the scarlet letter could be removed after say 1 year of good behavior? |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
I would hunt them down and make the botters wish they never discovered EVE
In game of course. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
It adds another "risk" weight to botting. Many corps won't touch botters, especially as bot-acquired assets are seized. If the practice of "scarlet letters" is itself advertised, it basically means anyone who chooses to bot does so knowing that they will lose all of the assets they gain and probably have to biomass their char if they ever get caught. It's all risk vs. reward calculations, so up the risk and the overall behavior of botting will likely become less common. |
Pampers Toralen
Peace Million Foundation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
This the distraction from the mittens thread? Any word from ccp about the issue |
Daviclond
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Eurosquad misses you Stoffer <3 |
|
Florian Bao
JinJing Trade Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
Pampers Toralen wrote:This the distraction from the mittens thread? Any word from ccp about the issue
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:The primary advantage of the scarlet letter would undoubtedly be as a deterrent and I support the concept for that reason.
Maybe the scarlet letter could be removed after say 1 year of good behavior?
But I could argue that there are plenty of other deterrents in place. This one has the additional negative of also providing a disincentive for turning into a Good Guy, which is something we've been trying to prevent. |
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Flatline.
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
Absolutely.
Edit: As a deterrent, fewer people would bot. --> Fewer people need to be given an opportunity to turn into a "good" guy. |
mechtech
Ice Liberation Army
144
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Naming botters will have a negative effect (kicking those who are already down) unless there is prior warning.
On the other hand, if there is a nice fat warning that occasionally pops up when logging in that says "automation and botting is harshly punished in Eve online, here is a list of those who were recently banned from New Eden", this would be a very positive thing, as it would make botting seem like a less attractive option. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
Pampers Toralen wrote:This the distraction from the mittens thread? Any word from ccp about the issue
There's plenty of other threads to post in about this. Leave mine alone. |
|
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
Name and shame. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
jonnykefka wrote:It adds another "risk" weight to botting. Many corps won't touch botters, especially as bot-acquired assets are seized. If the practice of "scarlet letters" is itself advertised, it basically means anyone who chooses to bot does so knowing that they will lose all of the assets they gain and probably have to biomass their char if they ever get caught. It's all risk vs. reward calculations, so up the risk and the overall behavior of botting will likely become less common.
But does simply adding risk without the capacity to become a good citizen by curbing action make sense is I guess what I'm curious about?
I know EVE and I know actions should have results but I'm a bit concerned about the terms. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3476
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Leaving it as it is (between the offender and CCP) makes sense. Naming and shaming accomplishes nothing. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
547
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Pampers Toralen wrote:This the distraction from the mittens thread? Any word from ccp about the issue There's plenty of other threads to post in about this. Leave mine alone.
Fine, here is something for you. What about the authentication dongles you gave out at fanfest 2011, or if it was 2010? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
116
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
There are playergroups in the EVE Universe who wish in no way to be identified alongside botters. They want no dealings with them since a botter doesn't play the game. a program runs ertain keystrokes.
Also people who want to buy a character from the character bazaar would like to know if the character they buy in any way got flagged or even temporary banned because of botting. It's like buying a house or car. You want to know a bit of history which could possebly affect your purchase.
I for one would be shocked if I were to purchase a character on the forums and then be forced in any way to explain to other people everytime that I wasn't the owner of said character which was caught with his hands in the cookiejar at some point.
If a character should go up for sale the potential buyer should be informed about a history which could affect him in the future if he were to aquire said character.
As for ingame policing. I personally think it's CCP's job to keep an eye on previously temp banned botters as to see if they return to their unlawfull ways of botting. This isn't something the playerbase should get into unless you would like to start off a witchhunt. We all know how well the public responds to convicted criminals. We also know how a large part of the EVE playerbase would respond by not letting a flagged botter get into the game as intended again.
|
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Flatline.
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:jonnykefka wrote:It adds another "risk" weight to botting. Many corps won't touch botters, especially as bot-acquired assets are seized. If the practice of "scarlet letters" is itself advertised, it basically means anyone who chooses to bot does so knowing that they will lose all of the assets they gain and probably have to biomass their char if they ever get caught. It's all risk vs. reward calculations, so up the risk and the overall behavior of botting will likely become less common. But does simply adding risk without the capacity to become a good citizen by curbing action make sense is I guess what I'm curious about? I know EVE and I know actions should have results but I'm a bit concerned about the terms. The red letter need not be permanent. Perhaps 3-6 months, maybe a year or more depending on the amount of isk involved. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
450
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Pampers Toralen wrote:This the distraction from the mittens thread? Any word from ccp about the issue There's plenty of other threads to post in about this. Leave mine alone. Fine, here is something for you. What about the authentication dongles you gave out at fanfest 2011, or if it was 2010?
A tentative date and explanation were given on Friday. We're looking at a release sometime in July and you can get the explanation for the delay from the stream as there's a lot of words involved. It'll be posted this week I imagine. |
|
Lord Aliventi
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cool idea. Try it out. Maybe corps/alliances will be more proactive about not allowing these people in. Possibly even do a CONCORD corp mail to their entire corp notifying them of their status change. Kinda like those never ending bio-massed Eve mails.
However I have a feeling their response will be: "Oh Noes! CCP decided to scarlet letter me because I was caught botting. Not like it makes much difference when I am POS'ed up out in a back-end middle-of-nowhere nullsec system." |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Well, are the other deterrents working?
From the fanfest presentation, I see a lot of downward spikes on patch days, followed by a speedy return to 'business as usual' levels.
I think 'behave for a year and the letter goes away' is a decent enough incentive to straighten up and fly right. |
Endeavour Starfleet
752
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
Name and shame does NOT work and leaves you open to ALOT of problems if it was a false positive.
The ONLY way I would support this is name and shame an entire alliance that has been gutted because a majority of its assets were bot based.
Edit: Also I dont want time being put on making sure it is right letting other botters get away. Do more against alliance "Do not report blue" rules first. |
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate
239
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
As CCP were saying at fanfest, as people are saying about Mitts.
It's all about consequences.
You do something bad there are consequences, as long as it's made clear to people beforehand I say do it. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Scarlet Letters should be implemented, but not visible to all players.
These should only be visible to corp CEOs when a pilot has put in an application to the corporation. Something along the lines of a notice that the applicant has had strikes against their account for botting.
This allows conscientious CEOs to turn away players with whom they seek to prevent their corporation members from exchanging ISK with. I say this because botters tend to be notorious for a certain type of transaction which is not allowed. I don't think any CEO would want potentially dirty ISK being passed directly from a "marked" botter to their corp members through trades, contracts, or what have you. There's also the possibility that one player's knowledge of botting could easily be shared to others (I think, Darius, you are familiar with a certain Space Captain Schettino who crashed his corporation into the rocks by spreading knowledge of botting).
Lying about your intentions ("Oh I'm not joining this WH corp to clean out the hangars") is one thing, but being able to lie about actions taken against your account is another.
TL;DR - Strikes not visible to everyone, only CEO/Directors of corps when a player with strikes against their account applies to that corporation. This allows them to make smart decisions and not accept players they would not otherwise. |
XavierVE
Concordiat Concordiat Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:30:00 -
[28] - Quote
Quote:"What would you, the player, stand to benefit from being able to identify which characters had ever been caught botting, whether or not they were still engaging in this activity?"
Taking a break from leading a corp myself, but the big benefit in my view is not recruiting a botter.
While it's nice to want them to turn into good citizens and the like, I wouldn't want to fly around with a botter in a corp I lead. Best to avoid people who take such extreme shortcuts. |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:31:00 -
[29] - Quote
I'd make it like this:
first offense: whatever the current punishment is + 1-year scarlet letter
second offense: whatever the current punishment is + permanent scarlet letter
third offense: biomass (which is the current punishment, I believe) |
Frying Doom
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:AkJon Ferguson wrote:The primary advantage of the scarlet letter would undoubtedly be as a deterrent and I support the concept for that reason.
Maybe the scarlet letter could be removed after say 1 year of good behavior? But I could argue that there are plenty of other deterrents in place. This one has the additional negative of also providing a disincentive for turning into a Good Guy, which is something we've been trying to prevent. Why not make the penalties more severe for botting like with this scarlet letter also give them a period without concord protection on all the accounts associated to the person and their alts. It would give the PvP guys something to do. Also it would make less people want to try botting. Like in real life crime deterants are in place but people still commit crimes, a lot of that is to do with poverty and perceived injustice, this is more like a crime of opportunity for the rich and botting costs money initially so make it so disgusting if you are caught no one would want to. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |