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) |
Prince Kobol
343
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:39:00 -
[151] - Quote
The is only reason why I would be against any naming and shaming..
Do you trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time?
For naming and shaming to work CCP need to be 100% sure that the person who is being accused is a botter and there can be no room for error.
As much as I like CCP I do not honestly believe that they are able to claim that they will be 100% right every time and will not make any mistakes. |
Largo Usagi
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:42:00 -
[152] - Quote
Oh Yea wrote:Largo Usagi wrote:Well as a former CEO and one who had logs of all of his corp members ratting I realized I had a botter in my corp. The pilot was on 14 Hours a day and brought a HUGE amount of ISK into the corp. That stated personally I feel that it adversely effects every one in the game but at the time my corp was befitting from the botter and shortly was removed.
I approve the scarlet letter with another side effect, removal of corp taxes yielded from the botter.
Here is some quick Math lets say a decent bot can get 80m an hour(this is not unheard of) 80m an hour 1.12b a day at roughly 14 hours a day with scheduled variance.
Now with 10% going to the corp that's 8m an hour 112m a day in the corp wallet.
In a 30 day cycle that's almost 3.4b isk
That immense amount of isk is seen by the corp that recruits a botter, and that is incentive to recruit botters and turn a blind eye if it is going on. Now if the corp lost 3.4b isk with the botter that isk is out of the economy and the corp feels the punishment too. If the scarlet lettering is in place and the player gets punished for botting the removal should be double that to server as a deterrent from recruiting players that have been flagged as botting. So if the player isn't a problem and isn't punished as a repeat offender then the corp has no issue but if they are then the corp has to feel the consequences of its risky decision.
This is real consequence already in play with new ones stacked to deter corporations from recruiting known botters.
Also a public list of the players who have been permaband from the game and bio-massed is useless, they are gone and never to be seen again.
A scarlet letter for a year of visibility is a fair idea because that allows for the possibility of oops i ****** up please don't perma ban me. I dont think a 3 strikes system should be in place here either, 2 is plenty, if you get a reprimand once then you now know the rules in this area. If you get a reprimand a second time then you deserve to get permaband for botting.
TL;DR
Make it publically shown if a pilot has been cought botting Wrap corporate level punishments for pilots with Scarlett letters if they get banned again. This is a concern that I would like to see addressed, as having bots in a corp and not knowing about it (or turning a blind eye) could put the corp unknowingly into hot water.
Hence why i said that a corp should only be punished if the character is scarlet lettered. This will hurt the corp if they only willing allow the actions to continue, couple that with a nice notification to every member of the corp of some one gets tagged and there is no excuse for a second time. Also I am not aware of the technical limitations with python injection but if there is a way to monitor certain game objects and see if they are being illegally accessed(basically an anti cheat) to auto flag accounts that could significantly cut investigation time and serve as a deterrent if its announced in a patch note.
Just some ideas, I would love to see bots burn, the farms of bots add alot of isk to the game and it has been brought up a few times that the economy has to much isk in and not enough isk out. This could be just one more way of fixing that problem |
WeRWatchingU
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:44:00 -
[153] - Quote
One of the biggest problems with this entire idea, is the fact that I personally know of several accounts that have been banned for botting, but the person who owned the accounts never used a bot. He's disabled, mines to support his sons efforts in null sec
He's been band twice, just because he has auto reject on and doesn't talk to anyone in local. EVER. The pilots that gank him report him as a bot because he doesn't respond to their hails, nor does he cry in local when he gets poded. He's just dedicated to providing isk for his son in null sec
How would any of this be fair to a pilot like this? The fact that you can get baned just because you auto-reject convos, don't talk in local, but sit and mine for 16-18 hours a day religiously.... there are more pilots like this than you'd think. I personally know o several handicapped people that mine for hours on end, in the same manor, so that they can buy plexs' to play EVE.
Since mining is a simple repetitive task that takes little focus, there are actually several institutions that provide laptops for their residence to play EVE. What do they do? MINE. Yet their accounts get banned all the time, just because they auto reject convos and never talk in local
It's even more pathetic that when they do get banned, they can't petition it because they can't even get on the forum to start one. If their pilots get named, it makes them a target for the pilots that shouldn't even be able to get into a ship in high-sec to start with. The whole system of reporting someone as a bot-then them getting banned needs to be reworked, if your going to publish a list.
Being banned just because joe-the-ahole tried to convo you and you auto rejected it, so he reports you as a bot, is about as lame as as it gets. If your going to publish a list,
|
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:45:00 -
[154] - Quote
I say no marking the player
the person has been punished all goods removed from the bot, characters can't transfere,
I want to see something the an alliance who realizes they have a botter in their mists can protect them selves from the loss that will happen when they report him. All the ore that the person has contributed to the corp or the alliance. Before they report him
As you mentions a person who is caught once is most likely not going to repeat. Marking them just will cause a witch hunt! And the person you tried to sway away from the dark side and change their way will be hekkeld out of the game.
Want an example ----- Do you see what the mittani is going though currently.... you will see the same mob mentality.
This mob mentality is even worse because everyone is ananomys.
Trust me this scarlet letter is worse than 1 strike you are out!
If you want to mark them Make them -10 sec status... Concord hate botters too! So they can wallow in shame having to work there way back into society. But Scarlet letter.. Bad bad Idea
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. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:48:00 -
[155] - Quote
The only posts which make a good deal of sense to me are the corp application suggestions.
Perhaps implement that with a 3 month expiry for the first offence, 6 for second etc.
Also there is probably something to be said for flagging up people caught botting to CEOs, but obviously only after all the ban/appeal process has completed. That way CEOs can't absolve themselves of all responsibility for bots in their corp as many/most currently do.
So a +1 from me for a corp application triggering a warning for the CEO.
Perhaps Sreegs would also consider triggering a warning for CEOs that PlayerXYZ in their corp has been banned for botting.
Provided the account is also prohibited from any future character transfers I think that's about as far as I'd want to see things go. A public flag would be counterproductive IMHO. |
Mallikanth
L V B Industries
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:49:00 -
[156] - Quote
I wouldn't bother.
I personally don't see any advantage in publicly identifying botters, as any mechanic would have sufficient disadvantages to make it worthless.
Let CCP do that and deal with the scum as they do now. Believe in what they do, not what they say. Occasionally posts stuff as @Hamerhead
|
Sasha Khaine
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:49:00 -
[157] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote: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.
It would also act as a deterrent. Getting your account permanently marked as a 'cheater/botter' would allow us to avoid trading with those who have obtained their isk illegitimately.
It would also be useful for recruitment screening, helping to keep our corps bot-free.
Excellent post, agree completely! *tips hat*
Welcome to EVE"The entire British empire was founded on cups of tea... and if you think I'm going to war without one, mate. You're sadly mistaken" |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:50:00 -
[158] - Quote
Just pointing this out since it seems to have been lost in the other chatter.
Terminal Insanity wrote:Perhaps allow CEO's to flag their corporation as bot-free and then deny botters the abitily to even apply to those corporations. This way his bot status is private but players still have some control. Similar Bot-Free flags could be applied elsewhere. To fleets for example.
I'd love the ablility to not buy from the botters but that would make it easy to see who have been naughty by comparing the two lists. And that of course means a list forming somewhere. But the corp function sounds like a good idea. Of course the invisible mark needs to be applied to all of that players accounts, not just the ones botting. |
Chokichi Ozuwara
Lucky Dragon Convenience
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:52:00 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Neither of those companies makes a videogame so what is being botted? I'm missing you here and I really don't want to be. They are botted all day long. Google's SERPs and data interfaces are botted constantly for scraping. People try to bot Google+. Facebook advertisers utilize submission bots to get past the manual reviewers (not all reviewers are equal). Then there are the click bots, the chat bots and the screen scrapers.
I've got a lot of experience with browser based botting. Happy to talk more about it off forum, needless to say a public thread is a hard place to have a conversation. Start a corp and do it yourself. You'll fail, but you'll enjoy failing. Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:53:00 -
[160] - Quote
Why don't you give us the ability to delete our employment history and change the name of our character with no history?
Same reason to scarlet letter botters, CCP Screegs, same reason. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 07:01:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Chokichi Ozuwara wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: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. This is a pipe dream, and you guys keep protecting and trying to reform criminals are doing it at the expense of existing players and future participants in Eve as well. You know what Facebook does when they take action? No appeal. Google? No appeal. The evidence needs to be solid, but if someone is botting, they need to be thrown out of the game because they are potentially ruining the experience for thousands of other players (butterfly effect and all that jazz). Neither of those companies makes a videogame so what is being botted? I'm missing you here and I really don't want to be.
Plus it's false, I am on the Google network and even in serious matters like breach of copyrights the defendant has a chance (or more) to recourse. Of course detected automated posting etc. has no "doubt" into it so it's dealt with immediatey.
Recourses, defense, appeals are all marks of communities / states / corporations who hold their citizens / customers rights in high regard. Leave the "no appeal, public execution with torture" to dictatorship and crap corporations who made billions yet are too cheap to implement a proper regulatory statute.
As for CCP, it's fairly simple.
If you give a guy 2 chances (then nuke) it means you proactively (want to) believe he can straigthen up. Maybe if you get a SURE cheater (i.e. using an EXE injection thing) you could really flag him. But why... just perma ban and be done with it.
For the minor cases, expecially those who are not into RMT, you should cater to their salvation (else you would not implement multiple chances) and thus:
- don't flag them publicly, it's a litigation between a subscriber and a company, not between his in game character and the others.
- flag him for resale or just make impossible to sell the characters, so who is the future recipient knows better than to buy a tainted character. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Grumpy Owly
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 07:02:00 -
[162] - Quote
With (or even without) the new crimewatch mechanic you could apply security hits to botters also.
If the majority use high sec to afford protection under Concord as way to avoid risk in their botting mechnics then apply a -10 for their security status on Botting. Principally this would mean players could enact their own brand of justice in Empire on them.
And if forced into the realms of null as a result then the mechanics there afford open season on the botters anyhow.
This is not to "push" a problem into null sec at all, so its not a political move, its to make the consequences of botting in all forms risky and open to players being able to effect them in their habitual daily practices.
So if its a 3 strike rule: 1st and 2nd strike: -10 security applied which can be managed. 3rd strike: perma fix them at -10, if needs be at this point apply a special -11 security so as not to confuse with genuine criminal playstyles?
So not to marginalise others or push a problem somewhere, but more to use the game's mechanics in a way to be preventative to botting.
If null sec players think this woould be too detrimental to have botting shifted in this way don't do it.
If criminals think the confusion or association is too detrimental don't do it.
Merely throwing it out at this stage as an idea. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Chokichi Ozuwara
Lucky Dragon Convenience
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 07:06:00 -
[163] - Quote
Nemo deBlanc wrote:CCP uses hardware fingerprints as well as IP's. But it's still quite the fallacy on their part to try and pretend like people don't fake that as well. They've said bans are also on actual people, not just an account. But even if so, nothing stops Russians who bot EVE for a living from just using their grandmother for billing. I think I have said this before, and that is that the incentive to bot has to be diminished, because the botters will always be one step ahead of CCP.
Stuff like the scarlet letter will help disincentivize the marginal botter, who is concerned with being caught and wants to develop his character long term, but the guy who churns and burns new accounts isn't going to give a damn about it because it doesn't affect what he does the same way.
Start a corp and do it yourself. You'll fail, but you'll enjoy failing. Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round. |
Emma Royd
Jupiter Industries C0LD Fusion
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 07:07:00 -
[164] - Quote
TLDR
But, if you've got evidence that you feel makes a player a botter, then why not freaking insta ban their sorry arse. Stuff name and shame, warnings, if people cheat, no warnings, just perma ban the account.
enough with the namby pamby 3 strikes rubbish! |
Aethlyn
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 07:10:00 -
[165] - Quote
Just disclose interesting stuff around the people caught, not names, e.g. their corp size, account/character age, etc. Looking for more thoughts? Read my blog or follow me on Twitter. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
670
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 07:41:00 -
[166] - Quote
Boter should be baned with no warning + ban there IP |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 07:59:00 -
[167] - Quote
Accepting that I'm in danger of mixing metaphors, making former criminals unemployable by marking them for life has historically never been successful from curing them of their criminal behaviour - it instead encourages it as you remove legitimate sources of income. I don't see how making someone walk around with a metaphorical yellow star on their chest is going to achieve your primary goal here of reducing botting.
I would be against a similar action being taken against those people who have had RMT-purchased ISK taken away. It a) encourages further purchases as it becomes harder to make money legitimately, and b) allows a complete and utter bastard to ruin someone's account for minimal investment by buying ISK from the dodgiest possible website, and having it sent to their account.
|
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:15:00 -
[168] - Quote
How about if CCP get to the point where they are going to close down an account they just flip a switch that does two things instead.
a) Disables the ability for the account or any linked accounts game time to be extended...ever b) Flags any char on these accounts now or newly created chars as GCC (or 'suspect' in the new system) permanently.
We, the players, can then have a great time killing them, collect some tears and then the account dies anyway.
I really like the idea of any verified bots being turned over to the mob for justice.
-CJ
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:19:00 -
[169] - Quote
I think the current policy has few deterrents for first time offenders. As it stands now, everyone can just try a bot and see if he gets caught. If so: no biggie, just a slap on the wrist. I do think a first-time offender should be given a second chance. But I disagree with giving them a third chance as well if they are caught again.
The fact that the graph from Fanfest shows the majority of botters are caught in Caldari space suggests that most botters caught are first-offenders just trying it out (and not in a very smart way in the most crowded region in the game) which supports the 'let's see if I get caught' attitude).
Peer pressure could be one of the most powerful tools to prevent people from trying out botting, knowing that a 'Scarlet Letter' could cost them their ingame friends and corpmates. A problem with this though is that I doubt many players bot with their main, so in order for it to be any effective it would have to be applied to all characters to be in known possession of that player.
Personally I don't like the idea of mixing out-of-game problems with in-game gameplay. But botting is proving to be such a resistent problem to tackle it may be deemed necessary. But it also means the process has to be extra careful to prevent false positives (and I know these happen), because the damage caused by this can be irreversible. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
240
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:38:00 -
[170] - Quote
Well, imagine a suicide ganker squad warping up on 10 mackinaws. 9 are marked as having previously botted, 1 is not. If said gankers are really, as they often have said themselves, just killing the bots then their job is easy and they know which macks to go for and leave the innocent not botting pilot alone =) To the whiners :-áCCP Soundwave "Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally" CCP Recurve "However, Incursions are not the biggest ISK faucet, bounties are"
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:40:00 -
[171] - Quote
I am getting 3 guys (not botting) banned for exploiting CONCORD, will they also have purple letters?
They are cheating too.
J3ssica Alba wrote:Well, imagine a suicide ganker squad warping up on 10 mackinaws. 9 are marked as having previously botted, 1 is not. If said gankers are really, as they often have said themselves, just killing the bots then their job is easy and they know which macks to go for and leave the innocent not botting pilot alone =)
No, if they warp to 10 macks they are doing it in disco ships which will kill all 10 anyway Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Prince Kobol
345
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:44:00 -
[172] - Quote
once again I will raise the point,
Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time?
What happens to the person who gets accused, gets flagged as a botter for all to see but it then turns out to be a mistake?
Would you want to be that person? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:46:00 -
[173] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:once again I will raise the point,
Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time?
What happens to the person who gets accused, gets flagged as a botter for all to see but it then turns out to be a mistake?
Would you want to be that person?
Also I see a nice way to exploit it.
1) Get banned for any reason.
2) Go boast how you got banned because you exploited CONCORD | WEB used as scrambler etc. because you were PRO PvPer and whatever. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Florestan Bronstein
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
477
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:48:00 -
[174] - Quote
J3ssica Alba wrote:Well, imagine a suicide ganker squad warping up on 10 mackinaws. 9 are marked as having previously botted, 1 is not. If said gankers are really, as they often have said themselves, just killing the bots then their job is easy and they know which macks to go for and leave the innocent not botting pilot alone =) yeah, that's exactly what I fear would happen.
Florestan Bronstein wrote:Marking botters would only lead to vigilantes hitting the report button again and again and again... no matter the character's actual in-game actions.
Once a botter always a botter.
Would turn the whole "3 strikes" concept which is centered around effecting a change in behavior ad absurdum.
you'd just gank any mackinaw that got a flag no matter whether its owner is still botting or not
If you want permaban on first strike then say that - but proposing to modify a policy that is designed to reform behavior in a way that would make reformed behavior completely unfeasible is stupid.
I don't think "I want first strike permabans but I think CCP won't give them to me so I try to get the same effect through the backdoor" is a good argument in favor of the flagging mechanic discussed in this thread. |
Malcom Vincent
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 08:58:00 -
[175] - Quote
I bet that there are plenty of players that would love nothing more than to hunt down botters, in an effort to serial-pound their illegally AI controlled passive income generators into flying chunks of internet space dust(514) particles
Outside of the personal fullfillment that some enjoy as a player in policing these serial offenders, it stands to reason that this may potentially be afflicting our current market in a big bad way and we need to be aware of the consequenses.
Without a scarlet letter, you'll simply create a situation where players may report botters, but due to lack of transparency - it may be discouraging to see the botting continue. It creates a lack of trust in TPTB to properly handle the issue.
If the scarlet letters were made public, the players could start policing offenders more violently and consistently thus removing the incentive to become a bot.
Just as our corp history sticks to us (and is an element of the sandbox), similarly there is no reason that we can't have scarlet letters stick. It gives recruiters the option to at least say "aye" or "nay" to a former botter, even though the person behind the bot may have changed their ways.
Without it, we won't be able to respond negativly to it.
How many of our corps are unintentionally hosting botters? EVE Stratics! Managing Editor Interviews, Guides, Reviews and more! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:07:00 -
[176] - Quote
Malcom Vincent wrote:
How many of our corps are unintentionally hosting botters?
1) How do you know if the guy was banned for botting or banned for doing something prohibited else?
2) How do you know if the guy was banned because of "suspicious behavior" (heuristics are not 100% sure) and not because of being a blatant 3rd party software abuser?
If the purple letters have to be, I'd only put them on:
- who circumvented game mechanics (not botting) and got caught.
- who used 100% proven 3rd party software that was detected.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Niraia
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:15:00 -
[177] - Quote
If information is to be shown to CEOs on application, could it please take into account violations from all related accounts?
Anything that would help mitigate damage to third party services from any EULA violations on the part of their potential employees would be something I'd welcome.
Otherwise, have you considered branding avatar foreheads with "AI"? :) - Chief of Security - http://www.eohpoker.com |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:18:00 -
[178] - Quote
Niraia wrote:If information is to be shown to CEOs on application, could it please take into account violations from all related accounts?
Anything that would help mitigate damage to third party services from any EULA violations on the part of their potential employees would be something I'd welcome.
Otherwise, have you considered branding avatar foreheads with "AI"? :)
That rack > any brand Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
The Snowman
Aliastra Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:21:00 -
[179] - Quote
Nevermind about deterring botters, how about rewarding those people that DO report botters!
A Public list probably wont do anything to deter said player from botting again, but it will show to people "yes - we banned this bot - thank you - please keep reporting"
The other message it sends out is..
"Yes, your corp, your space, that person, group of people you never suspected - Where infact botters! thats why they arnt about anymore and thats why you should be more vigilant in the future"
If such a list existed, even if it did nothing else at all but give innocent, law-abiding players a warm fuzzy feeling then CCP are duty bound to make it happen. |
Florestan Bronstein
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
477
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:25:00 -
[180] - Quote
The Snowman wrote:Nevermind about deterring botters, how about rewarding those people that DO report botters! . if you are a snitch that likes to rat out his fellow players then you might qualify for the "plex for snitches" program
(sorry, I have no issue with people reporting bots but I think the name for the program is idiotic - who wants to be called a snitch?) |
|
|
|
|
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 |