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. |
|
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
As a recruiter for my corp, If there was some sort of public display such as a decoration that you couldn't remove that displayed that character as a flagged botter. Possibly they could get this "Award" when they receive the first warning for botting. I would immediately reject a person regardless of circumstances if they had this sort of flag. I'm sure multiple corps would do this as well, not only would it discourage botting because trying to get into a respectable alliance (Mind you some corps in TEST do have slightly higher recruitment standards) would be very difficult.
If it was just a public list, that's just one more thing for me to check as a recruiter, and it would let us kick people out who were botting, because it is kinda hard to keep track of everyone in corp sometimes. And please do something with the API as well, having that info be available on an account wide API key would be very very handy as well. |
Pampers Toralen
Peace Million Foundation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:32:00 -
[32] - 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 PLEASE.
Wow Someone's crankey just posted here yes there is many threads but lack the blue mark from a ccp employee has posted Fixed your post also thing called manners? |
Chokichi Ozuwara
Lucky Dragon Convenience
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:34:00 -
[33] - Quote
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).
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. |
Terminal Insanity
The Filthy Ones
430
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:I think 'behave for a year and the letter goes away' is a decent enough incentive to straighten up and fly right.
This would be a solution to the 'preventing them from becoming a good guy' problem. They indeed need to be publicly shamed for participating in the destruction of our market though.
oh and if we see some guy ratting in our 0.0 belts who logs out every time we enter system... we'd be able to report them easier if they were marked this way. "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 |
Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
I am not sure if you watched the wardec video from Fanfest and that prompted you to ask this or not but I invite you to see what is be proposed there. Basically its a branding system of people dropping corps to avoid wardecs. During the Q/A portion it was asked why would you brand a corp jumper but not a botter. It sounded to me like a good suggestion for both cheaters.
I am sure that some would wear it like a badge of honor anyways but I think the penalty for botting is way to lax to begin with. Will you ever start showing the number of bans done on a monthly basis? I did not see over what period of time when you stated yall have banned over 1k botters. Thanks for your efforts. +1 for showing us the characters used for botting. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
450
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:35:00 -
[36] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote: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.
I think you might want to look at where the dips are happening again and watch the overall downward trend. What I seem to recall seeing is a nice slowly declining curve that I expect to start dipping lower. |
|
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:36:00 -
[37] - Quote
The only benefit that could come from this would be the resale value.
Three stars is bann so when selling a Char you look for no star chars. |
Tcar
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:37:00 -
[38] - Quote
Personally, I think name (character names) and shame works on the final ban. People can make mistakes or be ******** but don't need to be pointed out to the community on the first go around, or possibly the second. We all know how warm and fuzzy the EVE community is. . . anonymity and the internet are often bad.
Unless someone has been extra careful in all their dealings any "non botting" accounts they own or control will show up on a through API check, for those corps who would care, in the various transactions in the wallet.
Also it would show that CCP is actually banning peoples accounts for breaking the rules and give the community some feedback as to what you guys are actually doing about botting, as opposed to just saying you are banning accounts. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
450
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
Benilopax wrote: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.
This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3483
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote: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.
This is a better idea - it implies consent, rather than ridiculous and unnecessary crucifixion of idiots who decided that trying out an anomaly macro WAS A GREAT IDEA. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Eian
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
I wouldn't want lots of resources to go towards this but what I think would be cool if we could gank them freely for several days. |
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Guiding Hand Social Club
204
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:39:00 -
[42] - Quote
Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.
Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.
In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:39:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote: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.
Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation. |
|
OfBalance
Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:40:00 -
[44] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote:The only benefit that could come from this would be the resale value.
Three stars is bann so when selling a Char you look for no star chars.
Hi, welcome to over a week ago when it was announced that characters flagged for botting were bound to their account and unable to be sold.
Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.
Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.
In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency.
Good post. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:40:00 -
[45] - Quote
Pampers Toralen 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 PLEASE. Wow Someone's crankey just posted here yes there is many threads but lack the blue mark from a ccp employee has posted Fixed your post also thing called manners?
Please refer to the forum rules regarding on topic posts in reference to manners. <3 |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:41:00 -
[46] - Quote
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. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3483
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:42:00 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.
I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:AkJon Ferguson wrote:I think 'behave for a year and the letter goes away' is a decent enough incentive to straighten up and fly right. This would be a solution to the 'preventing them from becoming a good guy' problem. They indeed need to be publicly shamed for participating in the destruction of our market though. oh and if we see some guy ratting in our 0.0 belts who logs out every time we enter system... we'd be able to report them easier if they were marked this way. CCP's own deterrent isnt really enough. Does CCP monitor botters that have been caught on a regular basis? I really doubt it. But us players could.
This is gone over in the presentation but reported bots do matter. We've also decided to start removing all profits gained when we ban them so there's the market adjustment. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
Andski wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation. I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting?
So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me. |
|
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
673
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:44:00 -
[50] - Quote
Does anyone seriously think shaming is any sort of deterrant in Eve?
If I'm making phat isk doing something you don't like, you think wagging your finger is gonna stop me? |
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:45:00 -
[51] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.
I don't mean that CEOs should be able to pop open someone's info and see their strikes.
I mean that when a player puts in their application to a corporation, the server checks for strikes, and if strikes exist, they are mentioned as a warning in the application management interface for the corp CEO/Directors.
The only time that a marked player would be standing on the gallows in the rain like Hester Prynne is when they put in their application to a specific corporation.
I'm not familiar with the current API, but I don't believe any fancy API apps currently allow you to see strikes against an account, so I assume that information is not publicly available.
If you you get what I'm saying. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:45:00 -
[52] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote:The only benefit that could come from this would be the resale value.
Three stars is bann so when selling a Char you look for no star chars.
There is no resale value as these characters can't be sold legally. |
|
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
139
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
The Letters would not really add anything other then placating the current masses with real names to focus rage on rather than a graph of arbitrary lines.
Perhaps a list of the permanently banned. It saves face to the recently punished yet not deleted offenders. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.
I don't mean that CEOs should be able to pop open someone's info and see their strikes. I mean that when a player puts in their application to a corporation, the server checks for strikes, and if strikes exist, they are mentioned as a warning in the application management interface for the corp CEO/Directors. The only time that a marked player would be standing on the gallows in the rain like Hester Prynne is when they put in their application to a specific corporation. I'm not familiar with the current API, but I don't believe any fancy API apps currently allow you to see strikes against an account, so I assume that information is not publicly available. If you you get what I'm saying. Edit: CCP Sreegs wrote: So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me.
Yeah, that's exactly the idea.
Yeah this now makes a buttload (sorry for the foul language) more sense. BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS |
|
Pedro Snachez
The Rolling Clones
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:47:00 -
[55] - Quote
I'm actually against the idea. There was a This American Life episode that talked about a judge that had shoplifters wear signs that said "I stole" out in front of the store they stole from. The results weren't as positive or corrective as one would think. The people that were the worst offenders simply didn't care. Those that had stolen things for fairly understandable reasons (think baby formula) were put through even more shame than necessary.
While this might work most times in real life, it's probably more trouble than it's worth in an MMO. People who are caught and shamed are probably more likely to just quit than to try to "become a better person". That or biomass the character. |
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:47:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Andski wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation. I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting? So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me.
If CEO's are doing recruitment then they probably need to delegate roles a bit better. Anyone with roles to accept applications should be able to see it. But that isn't enough, most of the time people who apply have already been accepted because they went through the recrutiment process and were already accepted. The actual application is just there because it is necessary, but holds no substance in terms of the recruitment process.
This info being avaliable through the API would be ideal because any sane corp who does recruitment uses the API to check things. |
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
OfBalance wrote:Sisohiv wrote:The only benefit that could come from this would be the resale value.
Three stars is bann so when selling a Char you look for no star chars. Hi, welcome to over a week ago when it was announced that characters flagged for botting were bound to their account and unable to be sold. Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.
Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.
In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency. Good post.
You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
|
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
I don't think there should be a Scarlet Letter for the first strike. The first strike is a warning design to scare off botting and a message that you guys are watching.
That being said, a large red flashy warning, once the ban is lifted, saying your character will be publicly flagged if you're ever caught again, I see as fully justified. |
Tcar
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:50:00 -
[59] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Yeah this now makes a buttload (sorry for the foul language) more sense. BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS
I still think a list of the permabanned botters would be great. That and the permabanned RMT characters. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:50:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS
Where else would you envision seeing Scarlet Letters? I'm full of creativity and exceptionally thin semen this evening
The only thing I can think of (as seems to be the general consensus) is allowing CEOs to realize that a botter has applied to their corp.
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:51:00 -
[61] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Andski wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation. I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting? So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me. If CEO's are doing recruitment then they probably need to delegate roles a bit better. Anyone with roles to accept applications should be able to see it. But that isn't enough, most of the time people who apply have already been accepted because they went through the recrutiment process and were already accepted. The actual application is just there because it is necessary, but holds no substance in terms of the recruitment process. This info being avaliable through the API would be ideal because any sane corp who does recruitment uses the API to check things.
Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small. |
|
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:51:00 -
[62] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
673
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:52:00 -
[63] - Quote
As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:53:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS Where else would you envision seeing Scarlet Letters? I'm full of creativity and exceptionally thin semen this evening The only thing I can think of (as seems to be the general consensus) is allowing CEOs to realize that a botter has applied to their corp.
You may have spilt everything so to speak with your great feedback, but there's been other ideas I've heard and all I'm saying is that I don't want people to shy away because of it.
I can absolutely guarantee this as a thread where player opinion will find its way into a policy discussion internally so I want anything we can get. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:53:00 -
[65] - Quote
name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3484
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:54:00 -
[66] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all.
Absolutely not. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Tcar
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:54:00 -
[67] - Quote
Pedro Snachez wrote: People who are caught and shamed are probably more likely to just quit than to try to "become a better person". That or biomass the character.
Good, quit, or roll up a new toon. Either way works for me. They can play wow or spend more of some sort of subscription money while training a new character. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
447
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[68] - Quote
You have a point, Sreegs, about wanting to turn the player from bad to good, and would this instead make the player quit, which isn't good for any of us, if that player can be turned around.
What do we get out of it, some satisfaction for one, few people like the bots. We get a warm fuzzy "ccp hates bots too" from you guys, because now it is something we can see and "touch", and not some biannual dev blog of cold numbers and pretty graphs. We learn who we don't want to let into our corps and alliances, if they don't care enough about their own account, why they hell would they care about corp?
---
As I understand it, there is a three strike policy, 14 day ban, then something more nasty and then bye bye, banned. Perhaps the first instance does not tag one with the red letter, but the second one will. After a year is over or however long is deemed punishment, that letter is removed and the account goes back to only one strike committed, another year with out incident and they go back to zero strikes.
This way the player does get that second chance, CCP keeps a customer and life goes on. Once they're caught a second time they clearly don't care about their reputation and likely won't be turned around but they get one more chance to set things right.
One strike punishment should be enough for most people, if they're going to do it a second time with out the letter, chances are they'd do it with the letter too. But there might be one sliver of people that can be saved from the temptation if they can't be a secret cheat. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
673
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
Andski wrote:Jada Maroo wrote:As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all. Absolutely not.
Well surely Goons would never steal and would never receive such a tag so you needn't be worried. |
Liam Mirren
369
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[70] - Quote
Naming and shaming has several upsides to us as players, here's a few:
- it shows us that you're taking this stuff serious, which as PR moves go is a good thing
- it might prevent people who are thinking about botting to actually do it, as a "nah, I didn't have time to play this week" to them sounds far better than "yeah, I'm on that list and got suspended" when talking to corp members
- the person who actually reported that player gets a form of positive confirmation that his efforts have being appreciated, it's kinda like bug reporting; if you get the feeling it's a fairly useless thing to do you just stop reporting as it's wasted effort.
- it may remove or reduce our nregative views on certain entities ("all russians RMT"), then again it may also reinforce them. At any rate we'll have a clearer view of who's doing what, if a large number of members from a certain corp/alliance get caught we then know we shouldn't join them.
While I understand the "all actions towards our customers are on a confidential basis" I'm fairly sure the vast majority of (non-botting) players would agree to a EULA change where it would state "but if you get caught botting or RMTing we'll hang you out to dry" and mock you. APB started doing this a while back and it certainly helps would-be cheaters to reconsider. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS Where else would you envision seeing Scarlet Letters? I'm full of creativity and exceptionally thin semen this evening The only thing I can think of (as seems to be the general consensus) is allowing CEOs to realize that a botter has applied to their corp. You may have spilt everything so to speak with your great feedback, but there's been other ideas I've heard and all I'm saying is that I don't want people to shy away because of it. I can absolutely guarantee this as a thread where player opinion will find its way into a policy discussion internally so I want anything we can get.
Ah, I gotcha. I thought you meant more applications for such a mechanism |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.
Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.
In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency.
I'm just quoting this because I don't read the fiction but the idea of player consequences and being true to eve needs to be a factor and I'm just going to namesearch what I quoted later. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:57:00 -
[73] - Quote
Andski wrote:Jada Maroo wrote:As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all. Absolutely not. Don't assign hangar roles blindly and you won't have corp thieves to deal with.
Yeah don't worry I don't see that happening any time soon. ( not my department) |
|
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:57:00 -
[74] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.
Null bots are rare. I've done Null Mining Ops and 10/10 and there is no need to bot them. We could wipe a Plex belt in an hr or do a 10/10 in as much time. Everything is done in fleet out there. it's very efficient. |
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:59:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.
Just because corps are structured differently doesn't mean that some would see a large benefit from having API information knowing if someone was a botter. In terms of corp recruitment process, unless a corp has a specific open door policy, such as EVE UNI or Red vs Blue, then most likely there will be some sort of interview before hand.
Restricting how info about someone who is flagged as a botter will only make it harder for the people who recruit. If after a long interview process they were to only find out on their actual application that they were a know botter, that would mean a lot of wasted effort on recruiters part because some may have a strict no-botting policy. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3487
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:59:00 -
[76] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.
Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:00:00 -
[77] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote: Null bots are rare..
How coy
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[78] - Quote
Andski wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec?
Proportionally, yes.
Doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of them in 0.0 |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[79] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots
While I love the mythology that people have that they can remain anonymous on the internet it's a falsehood over time. The idea that, especially given EVE and all of the numbers involved, we can actually focus on this and any other *example here norms* apply is pretty silly.
The margins on one hand are completely different and we allow PLEX. We've shown at least three times in the early days that we can focus and completely shut down a bot developer because the margins frankly aren't there.
If you think this is some world where someone doing a bad activity we care about can just magically vanish those dog days are pretty much over. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
551
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
lol at fanfest they had a chart of bots by region
The Forge alone had more bots then all of nullsec rolled together |
|
Nambr1
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots
Lot of them are already in nps corp or small one with + standings with main alliance/corp. |
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:02:00 -
[82] - Quote
Andski wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec?
Go to the drone regions before massive civil wars..... |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:03:00 -
[83] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.
Just because corps are structured differently doesn't mean that some would see a large benefit from having API information knowing if someone was a botter. In terms of corp recruitment process, unless a corp has a specific open door policy, such as EVE UNI or Red vs Blue, then most likely there will be some sort of interview before hand. Restricting how info about someone who is flagged as a botter will only make it harder for the people who recruit. If after a long interview process they were to only find out on their actual application that they were a know botter, that would mean a lot of wasted effort on recruiters part because some may have a strict no-botting policy.
I was referring more to your statement about whom was doing the recruiting. The rest makes perfect sense. |
|
Nemo deBlanc
Phoibe Enterprises
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:04:00 -
[84] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. Null bots are rare. I've done Null Mining Ops and 10/10 and there is no need to bot them. We could wipe a Plex belt in an hr or do a 10/10 in as much time. Everything is done in fleet out there. it's very efficient.
Funny, care to explain my recent trip through deep Russian space then? ~10 systems in a row, each with Raven and Exequeror. The second you enter system, Raven heads to POS, Exequeror cloaks. Only characters in system, each made on the exact same day, all members of two different corps. But oh, I suppose that's perfectly normal, and those were all legit players, right?
All of this stuff is ******* pointless if CCP is going to keep failing so hard they can't even break injection bots. ******* Runescape has got everyone forced to work in Color and OpenGL now, yet CCP flails along paddling the fail boat trying to do resource intensive manual investigations and bans. If they'd actually just break bots and obfuscate their code better, they could stop paying us lip service and show real results. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
139
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:05:00 -
[85] - Quote
For punishment, first & second strikes. they should lose various ship privileges for an advanced time after unbanning like getting a DUI. A caught mining bot loses Barge skills for a month on first strike and 3 months on second. Caught ratting bots lose rights to BC and above for a month, then 3 month. Get a first strike as a miner bot and a second as a rater bot jump to 3 month ban on both trees. |
Benny Ohu
The Lazy Dragoons True Apathy
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:07:00 -
[86] - Quote
Hi, only read the OP
Sreegs said that most botters clean up their act once they'd been banned for the first time (a week?). With the removal of their botted ISK there's no reason to mark someone who didn't gain anything from it, isn't doing it any more, and is probably sorry they did it.
There might be a reason to mark someone who has been banned forever...
Also taking the opportunity to request the next botting devblog include an animated GIF of a Maller shooting at robots |
Tcar
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:08:00 -
[87] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:For punishment, first & second strikes. they should lose various ship privileges for an advanced time after unbanning like getting a DUI. A caught mining bot loses Barge skills for a month on first strike and 3 months on second. Caught ratting bots lose rights to BC and above for a month, then 3 month. Get a first strike as a miner bot and a second as a rater bot jump to 3 month ban on both trees.
Now that. . . that I like. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
786
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:09:00 -
[88] - Quote
Voith wrote:Name and shame.
I think that's a reasonable approach on the 3rd offense, resulting perma-ban.
Possibly a reasonable approach on the 2nd offense. Especially if they are warned after the first offense.
But naming / shaming or tagging with a scarlet letter for the first offense goes too far.
(For name/shame I want it at the corp/alliance level as well as information by region as to where people have been banned over the past 90 days. I don't think it needs to be finer-grained then that.) |
Pedro Snachez
The Rolling Clones
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:10:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tcar wrote:Pedro Snachez wrote: People who are caught and shamed are probably more likely to just quit than to try to "become a better person". That or biomass the character. Good, quit, or roll up a new toon. Either way works for me. They can play wow or spend more of some sort of subscription money while training a new character.
The problem with that is that it is redundant with what CCP is already doing with bots (bans). CCP Sreegs seems to be interested in a system to correct peoples' behavior via shame with the intention of them NOT quitting or rerolling a character. It's satisfying for those of us who don't bot to say GTFO to botters, but that doesn't seem to be what CCP Sreegs is aiming for here. With the reaction people have towards bots it is highly likely anyone caught would find quitting preferable to dealing with the malice they would undoubtedly experience. Therefore, shaming = self imposed banning. |
Ai Shun
419
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:10:00 -
[90] - Quote
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?
It would allow me to block those players, ignore contracts from them and generally ensure I don't need to interact with people that try to ruin EVE for the rest of us that play the game legitimately. This is not the same as scamming, can-flipping or similar but a deliberate breach of the EULA. I'd rather not play with those kinds of ass-hats and if I can prevent myself from actively interacting with them or supporting them through such interaction that would be great.
It does not matter to me if this is the first time they have been caught or not; the anti-botting stance is fundamentally entrenched in almost every single MMO out there. They cannot claim ignorance and I don't care if they repent or not - they actively chose to break that contract with CCP and the other players of EVE Online.
|
|
Largo Usagi
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:11:00 -
[91] - Quote
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. |
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient Electus Matari
160
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:12:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote: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. Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
But if you can only see the mark when they've applied to your corp, you're not going to get many ex botters applying to it if you're doing a public naming of them. If you combine this with a 6 (first offence) or 12 (second offence) month duration of the mark, you have an incentive for reformed botters to stay clean. As for what the mark is, I'd suggest a time/date stamp and why type of botting they were doing. What is the point if every race has an Jam/Damp/Disruptor/ ship etc? Not every race has to be a fluffy little mirror of each other, it's seriously not needed. Things like Gallente having the only drone BS and Caldari having the only ECM BS are incredibly cool distinctions that only add to EVE in both game play value and flavour. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:13:00 -
[93] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots While I love the mythology that people have that they can remain anonymous on the internet it's a falsehood over time. The idea that, especially given EVE and all of the numbers involved, we can actually focus on this and any other *example here norms* apply is pretty silly. The margins on one hand are completely different and we allow PLEX. We've shown at least three times in the early days that we can focus and completely shut down a bot developer because the margins frankly aren't there. If you think this is some world where someone doing a bad activity we care about can just magically vanish those dog days are pretty much over.
so you say that you can still identify me if im using TOR via 3g on my laptop for my bot and my normal Cable internet on my desktop for normal gaming, running two accounts who never ever have touched each other ingame and dont have anything in common on the account management site ? thats pretty interesting and i would like to hear more
concerning PLEX i think i have to agree with you, they are likely the single most powerfull weapon against professional RMTers but will do nothing about the guys who are simply to lazy to go and farm their ships via hard work like everybody else |
Zleon Leigh
103
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:14:00 -
[94] - Quote
Personal and Corporate recruiting security is paramount - even if CCP can reverse harm and unwind round two of dirty dealings that takes a lot of time, which can significantly impact players and corps. They can still do business on the open markets, but I at least I could avoid contracts and trades with probable repeat offenders. Let's set that deterrence bar as high as possible. Since you are determined to not make it a one strike and you are out (which is what is should be), then the Scarlet Letter it is. Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
Dar Saleem
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:14:00 -
[95] - Quote
Make an NPC corporation called something line "Concord penal legion" and put characters in it
Make a high tax rate, make it they cant leave for 6 months and possibly that you can war dec it.
|
Ordais
DARK ORCHESTRA
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:16:00 -
[96] - Quote
Why is it good?
- because as a CEO, i can identify botters and NOT let them into my corp. - because if i think someone is a bot, and is already marked, i know you are on to it and i won't misuse the "report bot" function (less work for you) - it detracts from botting, or at least they have to recycle accounts more often = more use of plex
how to make it work? - make it a "after 2nd strike" rule, = you don't get marked for your first offence. No mercy for REPEATED botting. - make it time limited, if you do well for 6months/1year, you are unmarked again - make it VISIBLE...don't hide it behind x-menues. i would even like to see what market orders come from ex-tradebots
I normally are not for mob-justice, because it doesn't work. But in this case its not about determination of guilt, thats your job, so all what happens is ppl can keep themselves safe not interacting with botters isk wise. |
Tcar
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:17:00 -
[97] - Quote
Pedro Snachez wrote:Tcar wrote:Pedro Snachez wrote: People who are caught and shamed are probably more likely to just quit than to try to "become a better person". That or biomass the character. Good, quit, or roll up a new toon. Either way works for me. They can play wow or spend more of some sort of subscription money while training a new character. The problem with that is that it is redundant with what CCP is already doing with bots (bans). CCP Sreegs seems to be interested in a system to correct peoples' behavior via shame with the intention of them NOT quitting or rerolling a character. It's satisfying for those of us who don't bot to say GTFO to botters, but that doesn't seem to be what CCP Sreegs is aiming for here. With the reaction people have towards bots it is highly likely anyone caught would find quitting preferable to dealing with the malice they would undoubtedly experience. Therefore, shaming = self imposed banning.
Except that generally, people who bot, by in large aren't doing it on their mains or even their main accounts. They are doing it on alt accounts with trash characters. it's not like it takes a heck of a lot to roll up a Hulk pilot or even a tengu alt, especially with the whole "power of 2" deals, buddy passes etc.
Name them when they are banned. It's not like some dude is going to be macro mining ice,ark etc on his main. I also doubt a hard core botter is gonna do anom/belt etc botting on their main. If they biomass the toon, so what. I doubt that getting caught macroing is going to make someone quit EVE entirely, and if it does, then I am not sure I want that person in this game to begin with, since they want to play a different game than I am. |
Kai Tel
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:18:00 -
[98] - Quote
It would just be a meta-gaming tool for griefing people out of the game. YouGÇÖd be setting someone up for a lot of abuse from players where a more forceful perma-ban system would work better and be a lot cleaner for CCPGÇÖs image with media and its own. Look at the fallout from the alliance panel right now. Do you really want to give someone another stick to call GÇ£bullyingGÇ¥ and beat CCP over the head with again? Though I am to a point where I wish you would look at a means of making miner botting part of the game so you can control and regulate it to our benifit and put the outlaws out of business. It all reads too much like alcohol prohibition age stuff from American history right now. LOL. |
Ai Shun
420
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:18:00 -
[99] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:so you say that you can still identify me if im using TOR via 3g on my laptop for my bot and my normal Cable internet on my desktop for normal gaming, running two accounts who never ever have touched each other ingame and dont have anything in common on the account management site ? thats pretty interesting and i would like to hear more
Here is a piece on Forbes that shows how Target used their systems to determine a customer was likely to be pregnant and advised this customer ... well. Read the article. Do not underestimate the footprint you leave in terms of movement, actions, communication and so forth. I think it would be damn difficult, but I wouldn't write it off as impossible either. |
Nemo deBlanc
Phoibe Enterprises
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots While I love the mythology that people have that they can remain anonymous on the internet it's a falsehood over time. The idea that, especially given EVE and all of the numbers involved, we can actually focus on this and any other *example here norms* apply is pretty silly. The margins on one hand are completely different and we allow PLEX. We've shown at least three times in the early days that we can focus and completely shut down a bot developer because the margins frankly aren't there. If you think this is some world where someone doing a bad activity we care about can just magically vanish those dog days are pretty much over. so you say that you can still identify me if im using TOR via 3g on my laptop for my bot and my normal Cable internet on my desktop for normal gaming, running two accounts who never ever have touched each other ingame and dont have anything in common on the account management site ? thats pretty interesting and i would like to hear more concerning PLEX i think i have to agree with you, they are likely the single most powerfull weapon against professional RMTers but will do nothing about the guys who are simply to lazy to go and farm their ships via hard work like everybody else
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.
|
|
Mintala Arana
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:22:00 -
[101] - Quote
Four things come to mind.
- Some people don't want botters in their corps, so a "scarlet letter" would allow filtering applicants for this.
- Some people don't want to do business with botters, so you get a benefit there.
- Some people's play style is oriented toward, umm, making other players miserable; perhaps they'd prefer to pick on botters?
These are all positives, overall.
- People identified as botters will be pariahs.
This is sort of a negative overall. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
287
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:22:00 -
[102] - Quote
Besides the fact that such a thing would be somewhat immersion breaking, I really couldn't care less about knowing if someone had been caught botting. All I want is Delayed Local so that the players have a chance to self-police in 0.0 at the very least. Why isn't this getting done?? |
Nemo deBlanc
Phoibe Enterprises
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:25:00 -
[103] - Quote
Razin wrote:Besides the fact that such a thing would be somewhat immersion breaking, I really couldn't care less about knowing if someone had been caught botting. All I want is Delayed Local so that the players have a chance to self-police in 0.0 at the very least. Why isn't this getting done??
This. But make it no local. There's absolutely no easier fix for CCP to address botting than simply not sending clients info on players in a system until the player is detected by scanning/entering grid. Unless I'm missing something, it's the blatantly obvious fix here, and it disappointing me that CCP won't actually make it happen. Sure, nullbears will cry. Who cares? |
Terminal Insanity
The Filthy Ones
432
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:26:00 -
[104] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. 1) Most botters are in highsec, as shown by CCP's own pie charts at fanfest. 2) Banishing highsec botters to low/null would only make them not want to play the game at all. (and even less of a chance to become a good guy, which is what CCP wants them to do...)
Even making the 'mark' available to see in the Recruit Application, i guarentee there will be sites that pop up that will allow CEO/Directors to report these player's names and keep the list public.
Marking them should ether be completely public, or not at all. There is little choice in the matter tbh.
It would not be immersion breaking since you could RP it offf, CONCORD caught them using illegal tech and is warning other players about interacting with them. You might be infected with rogue AI!
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. "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 |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:32:00 -
[105] - Quote
Nemo deBlanc wrote:Sisohiv wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. Null bots are rare. I've done Null Mining Ops and 10/10 and there is no need to bot them. We could wipe a Plex belt in an hr or do a 10/10 in as much time. Everything is done in fleet out there. it's very efficient. Funny, care to explain my recent trip through deep Russian space then? ~10 systems in a row, each with Raven and Exequeror. The second you enter system, Raven heads to POS, Exequeror cloaks. Only characters in system, each made on the exact same day, all members of two different corps. But oh, I suppose that's perfectly normal, and those were all legit players, right? All of this stuff is ******* pointless if CCP is going to keep failing so hard they can't even break injection bots. ******* Runescape has got everyone forced to work in Color and OpenGL now, yet CCP flails along paddling the fail boat trying to do resource intensive manual investigations and bans. If they'd actually just break bots and obfuscate their code better, they could stop paying us lip service and show real results.
Hi I'm the guy who keeps showing you charts. I'll ask someone else to show more and we'll see if that cracks through. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:34:00 -
[106] - Quote
Ai Shun wrote: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? It would allow me to block those players, ignore contracts from them and generally ensure I don't need to interact with people that try to ruin EVE for the rest of us that play the game legitimately. This is not the same as scamming, can-flipping or similar but a deliberate breach of the EULA. I'd rather not play with those kinds of ass-hats and if I can prevent myself from actively interacting with them or supporting them through such interaction that would be great. It does not matter to me if this is the first time they have been caught or not; the anti-botting stance is fundamentally entrenched in almost every single MMO out there. They cannot claim ignorance and I don't care if they repent or not - they actively chose to break that contract with CCP and the other players of EVE Online.
No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected. |
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
547
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:35:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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.
Ah. I missed that. But you got any information on authenticators being available to those that didn't go to fanfest or is that something that will be revealed in the devblog? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Largo Usagi
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:35:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Ai Shun wrote: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? It would allow me to block those players, ignore contracts from them and generally ensure I don't need to interact with people that try to ruin EVE for the rest of us that play the game legitimately. This is not the same as scamming, can-flipping or similar but a deliberate breach of the EULA. I'd rather not play with those kinds of ass-hats and if I can prevent myself from actively interacting with them or supporting them through such interaction that would be great. It does not matter to me if this is the first time they have been caught or not; the anti-botting stance is fundamentally entrenched in almost every single MMO out there. They cannot claim ignorance and I don't care if they repent or not - they actively chose to break that contract with CCP and the other players of EVE Online. No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.
If no other MMO is naming and shaming, Trend Set to me just naming and shaming them seems like a minimal change on your behalf and its more ammunition against the problem. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:38:00 -
[109] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots While I love the mythology that people have that they can remain anonymous on the internet it's a falsehood over time. The idea that, especially given EVE and all of the numbers involved, we can actually focus on this and any other *example here norms* apply is pretty silly. The margins on one hand are completely different and we allow PLEX. We've shown at least three times in the early days that we can focus and completely shut down a bot developer because the margins frankly aren't there. If you think this is some world where someone doing a bad activity we care about can just magically vanish those dog days are pretty much over. so you say that you can still identify me if im using TOR via 3g on my laptop for my bot and my normal Cable internet on my desktop for normal gaming, running two accounts who never ever have touched each other ingame and dont have anything in common on the account management site ? thats pretty interesting and i would like to hear more concerning PLEX i think i have to agree with you, they are likely the single most powerfull weapon against professional RMTers but will do nothing about the guys who are simply to lazy to go and farm their ships via hard work like everybody else
I can tell you based on professional experience that the sense of anonymity you seem to be professing is really overblown and is the kind of thing that puts deliciously round "O" faces on people in handcuffs being escorted from their houses. I'm sure you're interested in more, but that's what the news is for.
PLEX just owns and it's a great tool against this problem :) |
|
Ai Shun
421
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:38:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.
Ai Shun wrote:[It does not matter to me if this is the first time they have been caught or not; the anti-botting stance is fundamentally entrenched in almost every single MMO out there. They cannot claim ignorance and I don't care if they repent or not - they actively chose to break that contract with CCP and the other players of EVE Online.
I wasn't saying they were. I was saying that a botter cannot claim they thought it was okay to bot - unless they have never played a MMO or read anything about MMO gaming in their entire lives. |
|
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate
240
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:39:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Benilopax wrote: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. This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense.
Botters are breaking the sandbox. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:41:00 -
[112] - Quote
Nemo deBlanc wrote:Gilbaron wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots While I love the mythology that people have that they can remain anonymous on the internet it's a falsehood over time. The idea that, especially given EVE and all of the numbers involved, we can actually focus on this and any other *example here norms* apply is pretty silly. The margins on one hand are completely different and we allow PLEX. We've shown at least three times in the early days that we can focus and completely shut down a bot developer because the margins frankly aren't there. If you think this is some world where someone doing a bad activity we care about can just magically vanish those dog days are pretty much over. so you say that you can still identify me if im using TOR via 3g on my laptop for my bot and my normal Cable internet on my desktop for normal gaming, running two accounts who never ever have touched each other ingame and dont have anything in common on the account management site ? thats pretty interesting and i would like to hear more concerning PLEX i think i have to agree with you, they are likely the single most powerfull weapon against professional RMTers but will do nothing about the guys who are simply to lazy to go and farm their ships via hard work like everybody else 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.
Firstly the statements about what we do or don't use to identify things aren't quite what people think. Secondly it'd be pretty cool if we could stop labeling ethnic groups.
The hyberbole regarding how to be anonymous on the internet has replaced the Internet Lawyer in the near future where the Internet Lawyer has ceased to exist. (this future will never happen) |
|
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:42:00 -
[113] - Quote
All you need to do is put a large tag on their avatar such as:
FAIL POO BOT
Make them temporary:
First time for a week Second time for two weeks
Allow players to right click such players and request for 4 hour kill rights with 5 minute warning
This will sure teach Botters a lesson, not to log in too much.
Oh, and another one, move botters automatically into a low sec system, and don't allow any access to empire for the duration of the tag. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:43:00 -
[114] - Quote
Nemo deBlanc wrote:Razin wrote:Besides the fact that such a thing would be somewhat immersion breaking, I really couldn't care less about knowing if someone had been caught botting. All I want is Delayed Local so that the players have a chance to self-police in 0.0 at the very least. Why isn't this getting done?? This. But make it no local. There's absolutely no easier fix for CCP to address botting than simply not sending clients info on players in a system until the player is detected by scanning/entering grid. Unless I'm missing something, it's the blatantly obvious fix here, and it disappointing me that CCP won't actually make it happen. Sure, nullbears will cry. Who cares?
I'm pretty sure "protecting botters" isn't even on the list of reasons for local to exist. This is really a question better answered by someone in game design but I'll see if I can find an answer. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
561
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:44:00 -
[115] - 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. CCP Sreegs, there are actually very few deterrents in place, at least for a first time botter. Consider a player picking up the game a couple of months from now. What deterrents will that player see? This thread? Buried, dozens of pages down. Your blogs or Fanfest presentation? He might not even know there are blogs or a Fanfest. The EULA? Its there, but I bet most do not read it. So if he is so inclined, he may start botting thinking CCP does not care. Sure, you can catch him, but better is if he was deterred from even trying it, not even once.
That said, I do not think a scarlet letter is needed for this (It would be better for deterring repeat offenders). Just do a weekly report of the number of first, second and third bans and isk removed. Have it posted in the news seen when you log in.
Continuous and persistent deterrence to first time botting. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:45:00 -
[116] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: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. Ah. I missed that. But you got any information on authenticators being available to those that didn't go to fanfest or is that something that will be revealed in the devblog?
Assume the same timeframe with more information to follow. I'm not in the distribution department. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:46:00 -
[117] - Quote
Largo Usagi wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Ai Shun wrote: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? It would allow me to block those players, ignore contracts from them and generally ensure I don't need to interact with people that try to ruin EVE for the rest of us that play the game legitimately. This is not the same as scamming, can-flipping or similar but a deliberate breach of the EULA. I'd rather not play with those kinds of ass-hats and if I can prevent myself from actively interacting with them or supporting them through such interaction that would be great. It does not matter to me if this is the first time they have been caught or not; the anti-botting stance is fundamentally entrenched in almost every single MMO out there. They cannot claim ignorance and I don't care if they repent or not - they actively chose to break that contract with CCP and the other players of EVE Online. No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected. If no other MMO is naming and shaming, Trend Set to me just naming and shaming them seems like a minimal change on your behalf and its more ammunition against the problem.
I do not in any way disagree with trend setting. Based on the statement that was made I just wanted to be clear. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
470
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:48:00 -
[118] - Quote
I'm going to bed now guys I'll be back in a few hours. NN! |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
446
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
If there was a 'Scarlet Letter' in EVE, I'd do my best to get one.
I'd wear it as a badge of honoure.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
256
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:54:00 -
[120] - Quote
A public shaming won't solve anything, and will just make sure that botters quit the game completely after they get caught because nobody wants to be around a player who does that kind of stuff. Botters are bad people and all, but give them a chance to come back as normal players after CCP punishes them. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:55:00 -
[121] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
The hyberbole regarding how to be anonymous on the internet has replaced the Internet Lawyer in the near future where the Internet Lawyer has ceased to exist. (this future will never happen)
i have to note that thing down somewhere, pretty nice sentence to have as a sidearm in some internets discussions :D
well, back to topic:
first strike: no
second strike: maybe
third strike: hell yeah
|
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:57:00 -
[122] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:If there was a 'Scarlet Letter' in EVE, I'd do my best to get one.
I'd wear it as a badge of honoure.
If I was an alliance head / corp CEO, I would only recruit scarlet letters, so I would know who to hit like post for. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1048
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:57:00 -
[123] - Quote
Andski wrote:Leaving it as it is (between the offender and CCP) makes sense. Naming and shaming accomplishes nothing.
I owe you one :)
Agreed.
Naming and shaming an anonymous internet character that can be deleted and a new acct opened in minutes is not only a waste of time but a waste of CCP manpower. It makes no sense.
I'd never bother looking at such a list. By the time it went live, the accts with high level characters that bot would have been safely tucked away and the only thing on it would be low level throw away alts on throw away accts. And they surely won't care if they are named or not.
Haven't read the thread so if already said many times, consider this just adding my voice to the choir.
Mr Epeen Me too!-á I ate one sour, too! |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
952
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:59:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
Something that you have to search to find the information. Has you said, if you can turn the bad guy in to a good guy then everyone wins, I'm ok with that but it takes some time, so for this period of time (probationary?) some info should be available by the right click menu. This would aloud miners in the same system to have a better 'eye' on the guy but shouldn't be a tool to mock indefinitely. This is where I think that nothing like this should be implemented. you either kick the guy definitively and decisively or you forgive, and if you do you just don't put the guy in blood and throw it to sharks, because it's what the game is about right? |
Sky Liddell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:00:00 -
[125] - Quote
Nemo deBlanc wrote:Funny, care to explain my recent trip through deep Russian space then? ~10 systems in a row, each with Raven and Exequeror. The second you enter system, Raven heads to POS, Exequeror cloaks. Only characters in system, each made on the exact same day, all members of two different corps. But oh, I suppose that's perfectly normal, and those were all legit players, right? All of this stuff is ******* pointless if CCP is going to keep failing so hard they can't even break injection bots. ******* Runescape has got everyone forced to work in Color and OpenGL now, yet CCP flails along paddling the fail boat trying to do resource intensive manual investigations and bans. If they'd actually just break bots and obfuscate their code better, they could stop paying us lip service and show real results.
Bot's don't safe up, players do. Look at the thousands of Hulk kills for more proof. |
Alara IonStorm
1832
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:10:00 -
[126] - Quote
I have no love for botters and ideally would like to see this. I only have one concern.
If an innocent person receives a ban for botting and his name is cleared after going on the list then he is open to harassment. The same people who will go after him might not bother looking at a list that says who is innocent before they attack or check to see if the name is still on the list.
Shepherding players to harass people which may not be the stated purpose of this but is the likely outcome is wrong when CCP misses and ends up taking out a legitimate paying subscriber who gets a noose around their neck is wrong.
If you can 100% confirm botting or at least hold off placing the name on the list until it is 100% confirmed then I have no issue.
I just don't want to see any fellow EVE Players accidentally get hit by the anti-botter buckshot.
|
Chokichi Ozuwara
Lucky Dragon Convenience
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:13:00 -
[127] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:[quote=Benilopax]This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense. So you want to be in the sandbox without being in the sandbox?
No botting is a hard and fast rule inside the sandbox. Lots of stuff goes. Botting does not.
Where is the problem with enforcement?
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. |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
160
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:26:00 -
[128] - Quote
Public ridicule is a stronger deterrent for many than some official sanction that only the badbotter and CCP are aware of (this goes for general life situations too, beyond botting and EVE). Humans are, by and large, dependent on society and seek peer approval, being ostracized has been bad for survival reasons and the desire to avoid it is now instinctive to your average Homo sapiens
Kind of as a complement to that, though, is many people's love for exciting drama and the desire to be the source of public ridicule. I think these forums are a pretty good testament to that. So, it is my opinion that most of the desire to establish a "name and shame" system stems not from the desire to deter botters via a chance of being scalded by peers, but from the desire for delicious drama that can result from it. This may not be a great reason to institute a public flagging system.
However, one possibly beneficial result that I can see is perhaps some increase in public awareness of which alliances and corps seem to have a lot of these marked offenders. Currently if someone is banned, they are banned quietly and it's not really possible to tell whether they've just stopped logging in or what. But imagine if you could see that a lot of marked botters had some corp/alliance in common. Personally, I wouldn't want to join those people and I would want to encourage in-game player-based action against them (burn them alllll!). And if idly choosing a target for a bored Tornado squad in, say, Osmon it would be pretty easy to go after those who've been temp banned for botting at some point. Currently it's not really possible to tell without a lot of observation, but a mark of shame would help out a lot. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:41:00 -
[129] - Quote
The advantage for me and my corp would be to filiter out known botters a little quicker and confront them before we accept them in our corp. In addition I think it would help deter some of the more causal botters, as a few were discovered and shamed internaly and seemed to straighten up their acts afterwards.
So I am all in favor of branding them with a bit of shame as I think it would help improve the game over all.
|
Postitute
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:50:00 -
[130] - Quote
If maintaining such a public list would take ANY time away from CCP actively hunting down, and dealing with botters, then no, don't do it. |
|
Florestan Bronstein
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:04:00 -
[131] - Quote
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. |
WilliamMays
Stuffs Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:14:00 -
[132] - 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.
^^100% this
make it happen, please |
Nemesis Factor
Clann Fian Narwhals Ate My Duck
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:19:00 -
[133] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:I'm going to bed now guys I'll be back in a few hours. NN!
You need more than a few hours of sleep to function. Unless...... is CCP Sreegs a bot?? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3530
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:27:00 -
[134] - Quote
Razin wrote:Besides the fact that such a thing would be somewhat immersion breaking, I really couldn't care less about knowing if someone had been caught botting. All I want is Delayed Local so that the players have a chance to self-police in 0.0 at the very least. Why isn't this getting done??
technical solutions to social problems never work "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition
982
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:32:00 -
[135] - Quote
Here's an idea...
They can buy their way out of the Scarlet Letter.
In order to do this they will have to make the ISK legitimately. It should be high enough that even if they buy the ISK with PLEX they will have to pay a fairly significant price and of course with a Scarlet Letter active, no one in their right mind would help him and donate ISK. The Drake is a Lie |
Oh Yea
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:33:00 -
[136] - Quote
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. |
Postradamus
Asstronauts
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:35:00 -
[137] - Quote
I think you'd better be SURE someone is guilty of botting before you slap a visible stigma on them.
I used to assume CCP's methods of cracking down on botters was sound. Then my little brother, who is certainly not a botter, caught a ban for "macro"ing.
He was farming NPCs in highsec COSMOS sites with a Dominix & RR'd sentry drones. No click automation was required.
He didn't deserve a ban, and he certainly wouldn't deserve the scorn he would receive from a "scarlet letter". |
YuuKnow
157
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:36:00 -
[138] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
I think the general sentiment from the entire Eve community is that we don't care about the statistics in regard to repeat offenders. All want harsher punishment.
It should be: 1st time caught and your skill points are deleted 2nd time caught and your bannded.
That should be more pleasing to the playerback. We all demand harsher punishment for botters.
yk |
Jenny Brownpants
Pilsener and Cameltoe Research Inc
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:48:00 -
[139] - Quote
Jenny Brownpants wrote: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). They can be like a trial account or have a 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
That was my post from the last time we talked about botters.
|
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1073
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:49:00 -
[140] - Quote
I can not find any other good reason, than protect the other player from doing _direct_ business with player who has been botting or doing RMT. That is rather valid concern as that could get yourself involved also. At least financially. Also I would not like to recruit players who have been doing botting/rmt related activity in the past.
However I agree that name and shame lists are bad solution. That is why I would rather choose option to hide such users from my contract search and block any direct trade from them to me. I also would prefer if you could block them from applying to your corporation.
This way I wouldn't really know who the 'bad' guys are, but would prevent them with interacting directly with me.
Technically this should not be too hard to implement. You just need hidden flag for players and couple checks to key functions mentioned above.
Obviously there should be option in esc menu which needs to be checked to enable this procedure.
Get |
|
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
410
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:55:00 -
[141] - Quote
A "Scarlet Letter' would violate CCP's end of the Terms of Use (or maybe it's the privacy policy?) On top of that, this would cause an *enormous* amount of damage in the event of a false positive.
I say the best thing to do is either:
a) 2 Strikes, your out. Not 3. After your first strike, you have absolutely NO EXCUSE for going back to botting. A GM told you it was against the rules, and you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY went back to botting.
b) Make rules against botting abundantly clear to ALL players of the game - even the ones who don't read the EULA/ToS/etc... Then you know that all players who bot are intentionally breaking the rules - ban them, permanently. They have no place here.
The reason why I am against the scarlet letter, is that if a player is wrongly accused then the damage is already done - even if CCP later reverses the scarlet letter. People know on the forums, and your reputation is potentially shot. At least with bans, CCP can reverse the ban, restore lost items, reimburse with ISK, get free game time, etc... without causing any lasting damage. |
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:02:00 -
[142] - Quote
Between the posts here and the events in the forum yesterday, I think a public flag would be counter-productive to your goal (trying to keep the player). For certain, the first strike should never show anything publicly.
My personal taste has always leaned toward setting silent flags/counters on corp/alliance as well. An internal review (not some set number) kicks off generic ('please clean house') warning emails if too many found, then disband if it continues. Yes, this will force the RMT folks down to NPC corps (different can of worms), but then we also get a lessening of the whole 'null bot / blue bot' discussion.
CCP Sreegs wrote: I can tell you based on professional experience that the sense of anonymity you seem to be professing is really overblown and is the kind of thing that puts deliciously round "O" faces on people in handcuffs being escorted from their houses. I'm sure you're interested in more, but that's what the news is for
PLEX just owns and it's a great tool against this problem :)
You're making me wonder if you've attached internal UUIDs (a 32-bit serial number) to every PLEX ever created. If not, why not? And I understand fully if you cannot answer this, but as a SysAdmin its something I'd consider doing.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Acwron
Meet The Fockers Vera Cruz Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:08:00 -
[143] - Quote
Andski wrote:Leaving it as it is (between the offender and CCP) makes sense. Naming and shaming accomplishes nothing.
Gee, I never thought I could agree with this Andski guy...or girl...can't tell by the hair...
Naming and shaming does nothing good, on the contrary, makes the player's Eve life miserable. You better poke him in game and tell him : Hey, I know what you did last summer ( read night) ! Don't do it again ! I bet will be the end of his botting and will become the good guy whether he wants it or not. |
Jax Slizard
Celerna
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:09:00 -
[144] - Quote
The three main uses of ethical punishment are: deterrence, retribution (vengeance, societal protection), and rehabilitation (education, restitution etc.)
A scarlet letter is certainly some form of deterrent. While it may not deter RMT bots, it may act as a barrier to 'casual' botters, especially if botting is brought into harsh public view with bi-monthy reminders of just how many people have been banned recently as some others suggested. It would also be a deterrent to bot if corps could identify botters and refuse to take them.
I think it would also be worth while for CEOs to get Evemail telling them that one of their corpmembers has been banned for botting, so that they could kick them if they wanted, or so that it would mess with the inbox of a CEO of a botting corp by filling it with messages.
On the retribution front, nobody is concretely harmed by the botters actions, but they have taken action against the social contract, (or in this case the EULA.) In addition, they have hurt regular miners in that they have bottomed out the mineral market. Also, people don't like being cheated. I think that its reasonable for people to enact their own vengeance. A scarlet letter makes you more of a target for retribution from suicide gankers, and I think thats fine.
For rehabilitation, things get messier. Clearly, hardcore botters won't care, but thats not a hard and fast reason not to do it, unless its going to take a massive massive amount of time and resources, (but it shouldn't, because you already have a long-term tag on accounts for botting, etc.) The question is more about casual players. Are people who dabble in botting capable of reform? Given the effectiveness of the strike policy, it would seem the answer is yes. So then given that these people often reform without the letter, is it justified?
The answer depends on the number of casual botters who will quit (presuming that that is the whole 'good guy' thing Sreegs is talking about) as a result of the letter that wouldn't have quit without it, versus the number of casual players that would choose not to bot as a result of the creation of the letter, and how much you care about that difference.
Given what people have said about not letting botters into corps, and ganking people who are labeled botters on sight, I think its reasonable to believe that fewer people would casually bot, especially if they were to witness the particular brand of hatred most people seem to have towards botters. I think it would be even more effective if there were more awareness from the start of the game just how bad botting is.
Further, I'm not convinced that saving those few people that reform in the current system but would quit if they had a scarlet letter are worth trying to save. Either they like the game and are invested enough to play for a year with a letter or they probably just don't belong, and might not have tried botting in the first place if the letter system was in place before they tried it.
TL:DR Who wins: Everyone except botters. (CEOs, gankers, miners.) Ethics. Who loses: People who would have kept playing after their first offense, but now quit in tears that they have been labeled the cheaters that they are. (And we shouldn't care about those people.) Who doesn't care: People that bot for money, or with alts, or would have quit after their first strike anyway. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
410
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:16:00 -
[145] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:You're making me wonder if you've attached internal UUIDs (a 32-bit serial number) to every PLEX ever created. If not, why not? And I understand fully if you cannot answer this, but as a SysAdmin its something I'd consider doing.
UUID's are 128-bits, not 32-bits, fyi. A 32-bit number would only have roughly 4 billion unique representations - that's not even enough to represent each person on this planet. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
204
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:18:00 -
[146] - Quote
Flag them for all players to see and give the date they were caught. Then delete all assets and ISK on that account. If it can be known with certainty that other accounts are linked with the bot account apply the same to any of those as well.
Deliberately going out of your way to get third party software to cheat should be given no leniency when caught. |
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:21:00 -
[147] - Quote
D'oh, corrected, thanks. Been far too long since I dealt with SL (which used UUIDs for every object in game).
That said, if the column is not presented to the players, a UUID is still feasible. I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:29:00 -
[148] - Quote
Instead of name and shame they should recieve -25% sp on all character for each warning. |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:36:00 -
[149] - Quote
I think a temporary letter would be acceptable. This of course wouldn't be rolled back to apply to pre initiated botters. But if it was said that starting in one week, anybody caught botting would receive the scarlet letter and it be for 6 months from last violation, would be excellent. |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 06:37:00 -
[150] - Quote
Tetragammatron Prime wrote:Instead of name and shame they should recieve -25% sp on all character for each warning.
Not sure on that one. If somebody is botting with supercaps, etc, the sp penalty will have a much lower effect. |
|
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?) |
|
Malande
Zervas Aeronautics Otas Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:39:00 -
[181] - Quote
As many have pointed out the corp ceo flagging system seems pretty neat, and i agree that s scarlet naming wouldn't really help convert first time offenders.
Where naming and shaming might work though is for repeat offenders (those on their second strike); the corp flagging on the first would allow ceo's to decide if they were going to give this person a second chance, offending a second time lets everyone know your probably not going to learn.
Also as for NPC corpr's i think once you reach a second strike you should be booted from the npc corp into a "botter corp" with a much higher tax for a period of time (6 months+). Although that might just be my vigilante justice side talking ^^ . |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:55:00 -
[182] - Quote
If there is an alliance or corp that is 100% against botting, and do not want a botter among them... I think it is their right to know whos been botting before...
Many botters know full well what they are doing is "wrong!". If a VET bots... he should at least be shunned by everyone and never be able to show himself in public again... and if he really loved eve, he shouldn't have botted...
If a newbie starts botting in the beginning, he can just make a new character if he really wants to continue playing...
I think a nice little 1 year "This guy botted" on character information would do... then it's up to themselves to get forgiveness from their fellow peers... and admit what they did was wrong! and if the rest of eve wants to punish him/her for their action, and punish the corp harboring them... then so be it. |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:57:00 -
[183] - Quote
Given the within-account recidivism rate is 8.5%, is this even necessary, except to placate the torches-and-pitchforks-wielding Daily Mail reading crowd?
(Before anyone accuses me of protesting too much, I've never botted) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:00:00 -
[184] - Quote
RDevz wrote:Given the within-account recidivism rate is 8.5%, is this even necessary, except to placate the torches-and-pitchforks-wielding Daily Mail reading crowd?
(Before anyone accuses me of protesting too much, I've never botted)
Imo it's exploitable and could include heuristics-catched false positives.
If it has really to be implemented it should at least be able to expire after a certain time. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
2913
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:03:00 -
[185] - Quote
tbh I think there should be some sort of visible flags on pilots that would show that a character is locked from transfer - be the reason botting or other reasons.
The reason does not need to be known and a flag like that could make CEO's make decisions about their members simply by knowing they done something that has locked the character.
As fun as it would be to be able to view names/track history and make wicked pie charts, I don't think there will be much good coming from actually outing the names.
Many botters are already known by the majority anyway since they many times get reported by players to begin with.
The visible flags should not be removed imo, a permanent mark is very suitable imo
Sort of not on topic with the flags, I would love to see (err I wouldn't but...) spambots getting silenced as well, they will keep thinking they are spamming everyone but no one will see their texts. That would be a win win maybe, CCP might still earn money from any spam account that do pay, and we wouldn't be bothered by their spam.
/c
|
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1094
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:08:00 -
[186] - Quote
On the first strike, the bother loses their character transfer rights. On the third strike, they lose their account entirely.
On one hand, it would be nice for a recruiter to be able to see that an applicant has been caught botting: after all, if you trust that guy with the keys to the castle (in years to come) and he gets caught botting again, you could stand to lose a whole heap of corporate assets.
On the other hand, being labelled with "caught botting" really doesn't mean much to a corporate recruiter. Certainly not as much as "corp thief" or "awoxer"! Guy gets caught botting, suddenly we're down one all-5s orca pilot GÇö that's easy to overcome. As for "trusted holder of the castle keys", the corp should have that under control through various roles and the ability to vote out the CEO.
Of course, finer grained roles and hangar access rights (and the ability to put ACLs on cans in hangars, and the ability to grant take rights to a can that is in a view-only hangar) would be nice. But that's wandering way off topic.
In my opinion, Scarlet Letters won't achieve anything except rabid foaming at the mouth lynch mobs. They will end up driving people out of the game who otherwise would have been happy being slapped over the wrist a couple of times and have now decided to play "honestly" (as honestly as scamming, piracy and corporate coups can be).
I would be more interested in keeping players in the game than having big red signs saying, "EX BOTTER" hanging over people's heads so I had someone visible to blame for the economy, my child's ******** learning development, the leaks in my roof and the goddam rent being to damn high.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:10:00 -
[187] - Quote
Chribba wrote: Sort of not on topic with the flags, I would love to see (err I wouldn't but...) spambots getting silenced as well, they will keep thinking they are spamming everyone but no one will see their texts. That would be a win win maybe, CCP might still earn money from any spam account that do pay, and we wouldn't be bothered by their spam.
/c
I also wondered why a game so evolved like EvE can't silence Jita spammers. I mean, they do it in text based games and in way less decent MMOs than EvE. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:12:00 -
[188] - Quote
Though I've never used a bot program or anything I'm not sure this would be in the best interest of the game. I'm sure some folks get caught botting and do repent and not do it anymore, others well....
Problem is if you mark anyone ever caught at it you make them a target thereafter always, even if they repented. Thus if they are a target there is less incentive for them to change their ways is what I see it. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:15:00 -
[189] - Quote
Mecinia Lua wrote:Though I've never used a bot program or anything I'm not sure this would be in the best interest of the game. I'm sure some folks get caught botting and do repent and not do it anymore, others well....
Problem is if you mark anyone ever caught at it you make them a target thereafter always, even if they repented. Thus if they are a target there is less incentive for them to change their ways is what I see it.
I also think that if someone "paid to the justice" then he should be able to come out. He could be in a "sentenced to jail" registry like in RL that can be seen if he tries to sell the account or to be hired in a new corp but not some flashing "here's leper" neon sign on the forehead.
Else, what's the incentive to stop doing it? You are done anyway. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:17:00 -
[190] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: 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.
But its not about the metagame, its naming and shaming. We all know who's doing the botting and we know that botting has paid for certain game changing events, its about time those people were named and shamed and certainly banned for life.
BY not naming them, you've given your tacit agreement that botting is OK. |
|
ctx2007
Wychwood and Wells
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:21:00 -
[191] - Quote
name them and write it into the code that other capsuleers can shoot them down, without being concorded or loss of standings.
Make it a bot shoot and bring some fun into the game.
|
Zoloft Rx
Forged Prophets
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:32:00 -
[192] - Quote
PERFECT COMPROMISE......
1st BOT OFFENSE: No scarlet letter; but warning of future scarlet letter. 2nd BOT OFFENSE: Scarlet Letter as promised. -A- |
Nooto
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:37:00 -
[193] - 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.
exactly what this man said. there's not a single excuse to use a bot in game nor should there be any kind of pardon with those |
Prince Kobol
350
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:46:00 -
[194] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: 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.
But its not about the metagame, its naming and shaming. We all know who's doing the botting and we know that botting has paid for certain game changing events, its about time those people were named and shamed and certainly banned for life. BY not naming them, you've given your tacit agreement that botting is OK.
Unless of course by some mistake you are accused of being a botter and then are labelled as one, because we all know CCP does not make any mistakes
Then what happens?
Even if CCP did retract the label ans state they made a mistake people will just say, "There is no smoke without fire" and you will always have that label hanging over your characters head. |
Obviously Confidential
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:50:00 -
[195] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
I don't like, basically because it "gamifies" the sanction against cheating and this kind of stuff shouldn't be handled out in the open through scarlet letters public or private or anything else.
The best deterrent is to NOT know what is coming or when it is coming, or who was punished or wtf is going on. The idea of CPP Sreegs constantly investigating everyone under the hood and that any account can be ganked at any moment of time is awesome and it works by creating a Kafkesque environment that actually promotes good behaviour.
If we start publishing scarlet letters, bringing it out into the open, putting it into the game, we are revealing too much information out about what is going on. Also we are effectively "gamifying" the cheaters, giving them space and visibility in the New Eden universe, which in a way is recognizing they are part of the world, which is actually better for them than just stating that they shouldn't be there in the first place and will all be eradicated...eventually.
In essence, by having a Scarlet Letter we are recognizing that we fail at effectively removing all of them from the game. Whatever this initiative requires in terms of investment, that effort is more productive if it involves directly ganking some more cheaters. Be relentless. They should not exist. Give them nothing. Keep it secret. Kill them all. |
hermot
The Back Yard Twilight Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 10:58:00 -
[196] - Quote
Would it be a better deterrent to not let bots use PLEX to pay for their accounts? Once caught, they are banned from using PLEX for (insert time here).
Also, having a Scarlett letter upon application to another corp is a good idea. |
Sturmwolke
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:00:00 -
[197] - Quote
The term publicly "flagging" a botter would probably be easier to understand, rather than the hyperbole of "a scarlet letter". I know it spices up your text, but the rest of the world doesn't speak English as a first language.
My first thought, it really doesn't make sense in view of the 3 strike policy. The first strike, there's usually the benefit of doubt, so it doesn't really make sense to flag it here. The third strike means an account ban, it's fairly pointless to do this after-the-fact (EVE makes it easy to remain anonymous ... probably would even extend to voice comms with a custom voice font). The only opening is narrowed to the second strike. If implemented, this is the only place where it makes sense.
Next, is to evaluate what would that achieve? You'd need to look at the kind of botters. It'll certainly impact casual botters, the type who runs in corps and everyone knows him. It may impact the hardcore botters, as players would have an indicator that makes his characters a valid target - however, by far and large, I'm fairly skeptical that this will affect them that much (due to their mode of operation). In a sense, you're making a fish net designed to catch the small fishes, rather than the big fishes. All in all, imo, the public flagging is a hoo-ha over nothing.
It would be interesting to see some graphs on the time period that elapses between the first ban and the third ban (minus the ban period) for the number of characters. It can be used as a general indicator on the effectiveness of CCP countermeasures against hardcore botters.
P.S Does CCP have any dedicated GM operational staff (not technical staff), hired specifically to hunt bots 24/7 ingame? If not, why?
|
Deceduto
Sons Of Alexander AL3XAND3R.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:05:00 -
[198] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.
I don't mean that CEOs should be able to pop open someone's info and see their strikes. I mean that when a player puts in their application to a corporation, the server checks for strikes, and if strikes exist, they are mentioned as a warning in the application management interface for the corp CEO/Directors. The only time that a marked player would be standing on the gallows in the rain like Hester Prynne is when they put in their application to a specific corporation. I'm not familiar with the current API, but I don't believe any fancy API apps currently allow you to see strikes against an account, so I assume that information is not publicly available. If you you get what I'm saying. Edit: CCP Sreegs wrote: So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me.
Yeah, that's exactly the idea. Yeah this now makes a buttload (sorry for the foul language) more sense. BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS
|
My Postman
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:12:00 -
[199] - Quote
Zoloft Rx wrote:PERFECT COMPROMISE......
1st BOT OFFENSE: No scarlet letter; but warning of future scarlet letter. 2nd BOT OFFENSE: Scarlet Letter as promised. -A-
What this guy said!
IMO it won-¦t kill botting all over, but there will be individuals who won-¦t even trying once, because of that.
The one beeing flagged, will have to biomass sooner or later, buy another char, rinse and repeat. In that way, it will cut down every botters (illegally) achieved income, and that is a good thing. I also have no troubles when this (flagged) player is hunted down by the playerbase, at least he knew what he is up to when started botting.
My 2 cents. |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:16:00 -
[200] - Quote
I think that every time I try to make a deal with someone I must know if he's involved in some illegal activity because that could turn against me.
Since there is a slight probability that a player caught for botting will do it again, It is my interest not to interact with that player and I demand a way to discriminate these player for my own safety.
Moreover, even if there are not other games with "name and shame", EVE is different because of the sandbox. A botter affects all the player in the sandbox, that is much more people than in any game out there. Bigger the fault, bigger the penalty.
Name and shame now. |
|
gfldex
404
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:18:00 -
[201] - Quote
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?
As a CEO you don't want any botters near you because botting ISK can end up in your corp wallet (happened with RMT ISK before) and after being removed can turn the corp wallet negative. What if a corp buys an IHub with that ISK. Could that vanish? Could entire fleets of Nyxeseses vanish before your eye? If you don't give CEOs the tools to tell if ISK is clean petitions will have to be filed to get an OK from a GM. I would do that (because I'm mean).
You can't trust a cheater. When things get nasty they will try to do it again and this time your corp can be in it. Any corp has a reputation to lose. I did see your presentation and for some strange reason you seam to be unwilling to name and shame the alliances that got the most botters. Do you see the problem?
I don't want to play with cheaters because the achievements (in the non Valve sense) I have in game are devaluated by ISK-printing-machines (how about T2 BPOs btw?). Wars are won by ISK and cheaters have no right to win them. Nor do I want to win a war because some members of my team cheated. You know better then I how many empires will fall thanks to your bot banning actions. I would not want to be among them. (That's one of the reasons why I *beep*ed off to empire after MAX2. Neither winning thanks to botters nor competing with them is any fun.)
You may want to talk to somebody good with laws why there are so many countries that allow the general public, including employers, to find out if somebody committed a crime in the last 10 years. There must be a reason why it's healthy for a society to restrict civil rights of evil doers in such a way.
In the end this is all futile ofc. There are alts and ISK can be transfered in many ways untrackable by a CEO. If at all you have to mark players as cheaters not chars. And you can't do that because you have no way to tell if that newly signed up fellow is really new.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:24:00 -
[202] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: 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.
But its not about the metagame, its naming and shaming. We all know who's doing the botting and we know that botting has paid for certain game changing events, its about time those people were named and shamed and certainly banned for life. BY not naming them, you've given your tacit agreement that botting is OK. Unless of course by some mistake you are accused of being a botter and then are labelled as one, because we all know CCP does not make any mistakes Then what happens? Even if CCP did retract the label ans state they made a mistake people will just say, "There is no smoke without fire" and you will always have that label hanging over your characters head.
There are ways CCP can tell if someone is a botter 100%, certainly with the simpler botting programs. The inputs they give are not the same as humans and detectable so its a risk they should take.
I'd like them to post up the botting by alliance information from the last few years because its common knowledge who these are, its common knowledge where they do it and by not doing it CCP give them tacit approval that its ok to continue. CCP just needs to come clean with the information they have, name and shame.
Maybe you've never played the 0.0 Sov game but botting has ruined it and its a major cause for super cap proliferation. There are whole areas of EVE given over to cap and super cap production to sell on RMT sites. That needs the approval of the SOV holding alliance.
Do you realise that right now, you can go and buy any EVE product in an online shop and CCP has no way to detect that transaction happened? Why, because they do not have the ability to monitor contracts. Its an enormous hole thats exploited all day every day. The best way they have right now to combat that is to name and shame botters at the alliance level .
|
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:27:00 -
[203] - Quote
RDevz wrote:Given the within-account recidivism rate is 8.5%, is this even necessary, except to placate the torches-and-pitchforks-wielding Daily Mail reading crowd?
(Before anyone accuses me of protesting too much, I've never botted)
Yes, 8.5 % is really high, I don't want to have anything to do with such people.
Moreover, I think that I should be able to choose if I want to ineract with them in any way, that is through contracts, station trade or even the market (the last is pretty unfeasible unfortunately). |
TheButcherPete
Titan Inc. Apocalyptic Legion.
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:32:00 -
[204] - Quote
Name and shame, but then Shadow of xDeath might implode if you do. Still not a bad thing, bots hurt everyone. My moncole doubles as a cigarette lighter, a flashlight, a laser and x-ray goggles. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm in love with Punkturis. -á-á-á
|
Vaarkk
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:34:00 -
[205] - Quote
I absolutely support scarlet lettering the **** out of bots. We shouldn't make any concessions for their owners if they are breaking the rules. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:35:00 -
[206] - Quote
Camios wrote:RDevz wrote:Given the within-account recidivism rate is 8.5%, is this even necessary, except to placate the torches-and-pitchforks-wielding Daily Mail reading crowd?
(Before anyone accuses me of protesting too much, I've never botted) Yes, 8.5 % is really high, I don't want to have anything to do with such people.
I don't know enough about the MMO market to judge the recidivism rate accurately, however 8.5% does seem high.
Gut feeling for me is if its over 5% then the first strike penalty isn't harsh enough. |
Zimmy Zeta
Battle Force Industries Tactical Invader Syndicate
943
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:48:00 -
[207] - Quote
I really like the idea with the scarlet letter. If something makes me grin maliciously over ten minutes it has to be good. And I really see no problem with it. The players have been warned, they knew the risk- if they chose to bot nonetheless, they deserve every scarlet letter in the alphabet. -.- |
Miliam Brinalle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:49:00 -
[208] - Quote
I find this whole scarlet letter thing completely ********. The only way to deal with a botter is permanently banning them and all their other accounts, otherwise botting is still worth the risk.
I suppose the reason it is not done is because botting is so widespread that it would cause a serious problem to the game if all these people were banned, but keeping this bullshit of virtually no consequences for botting is only going to make the problem worse in the long run.
Botting ruins the game for legit players. Give it the importance it deserves. |
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:50:00 -
[209] - Quote
See Sreegs - I want to DO something about it ..personally
I want the bounty hunter profession to be employed properly. Their task is to collect bounties and to kill bots.
I envisage the bounty hunter would either observe or receive reports of observations of botting like behaviour, register the target with your dept. The offender would be contacted (in all languages) that he has been flagged a botter and after 3 days - bounty hunter is free to engage (with no repercussions). Should a mistake be made (as is possible) the target can recieve his goods back.
I also believe if they are in this profession, they should be able to operate in all-secs with CONCORD/DED approval. I am aware of my own ignorance and have checked my emotional quotient - thanks for asking |
Dracoth Simertet
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:50:00 -
[210] - Quote
Name and shame, anything that puts a bump in the road for botters is a good thing.
o7 Drac |
|
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:53:00 -
[211] - Quote
after banning account: 1. 30 day "shame" tag visible for all player 2. after 30 day warning for CEO when player step into corporation |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
446
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:56:00 -
[212] - Quote
Scarlet letters
What is CCP's intent? To deter botters and retain customers? Or to deter botters and run people out of the game?
We can say without a doubt that there are two classes of botters: the professionals and the casual. One cannot be rehabilitated. The other might. The professional won't care. They'll just create new accounts. The latter might care. Such a tactic would only be ineffectual on the former and most likely alienate from the game, the latter.
Scarlet letters do one thing well, create a discriminatory class of people in whatever context such tactics are used. Lets face it, people love to discriminate against someone else. Who doesn't enjoy the feeling of superiority and the ability to mock, badger, harass & defame someone else with complete impunity? As a point of history, it has worked well to enable such behavior. I need not cite references to anyone that has been alive since the 1930's although as exampled a star of David, not a scarlet letter was used.
So, Sreegs, what is CCP's intent?
Marking botters as botters will have zero effect on the professionals who are running +20 accounts, recycling and discarding tunes as a routine course of business. Which ones affect CCP's bottom line the most?
We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
hermot
The Back Yard Twilight Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:01:00 -
[213] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Scarlet letters
What is CCP's intent? To deter botters and retain customers? Or to deter botters and run people out of the game?
We can say without a doubt that there are two classes of botters: the professionals and the casual. One cannot be rehabilitated. The other might. The professional won't care. They'll just create new accounts. The latter might care. Such a tactic would only be ineffectual on the former and most likely alienate from the game, the latter.
Scarlet letters do one thing well, create a discriminatory class of people in whatever context such tactics are used. Lets face it, people love to discriminate against someone else. Who doesn't enjoy the feeling of superiority and the ability to mock, badger, harass & defame someone else with complete impunity? As a point of history, it has worked well to enable such behavior. I need not cite references to anyone that has been alive at any time since the 1930's although as exampled a star of David, not a scarlet letter was used.
So, Sreegs, what is CCP's intent?
Marking botters as botters will have zero effect on the professionals who are running +20 accounts, recycling and discarding tunes as a routine course of business. Which ones affect CCP's bottom line the most?
Casual botters and professional botters alike shouldn't be welcome in the game. So running any type of botters out of the game is for the best i think. |
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:13:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense.
Oi! Mate, if you want to stay out of the sandbox you have to give me the tools to hunt botters. Or should you not? Well, you should not because I'm just mean but I hear there are players in EVE that are nice fellows. Power to the people!
Funny, actually. You have just disproven yourself. We can't kick that specific sandcastle and that's why you have to. It's a scary prospective isn't it? As a goon you always wanted to do that but now that you have The Power Of The Gods you shy away. :)
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:24:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:There is no resale value as these characters can't be sold legally.
And selling accounts illegally is not creating resale value? Could I have your rose coloured glasses for a moment? I feel a little sad right now.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Nirnias Stirrum
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:29:00 -
[216] - Quote
First time caught: Assets and ISK seized Second time caught: Name and Shame (Whether publicy that its flagged in their character profile, or privately that it only shows up to CEO of alliances and corps). Third time caught: Biomass the character
The only downside i can see to naming and shaming is knowing Eve as well as i know Eve, people are gunna go no holes barred on people flagged as botters, whether it be a simple comment as "filthy botter" or just being down right mean to the person" . I have no problems with trolling as its all for sh.ts and giggles but going out of your way to make someone feel bad is far beyond the line.
Even done so CEO can only see it, lists will be made and shared and eventually we will have a big huge list of names publicly available and lots of killing will happen (personally i love this idea, love me some hulk kills).
I cannot think of a situation where naming and shaming would be a great idea and should be implemented publicly. If it was kept the way it is but its actually freaking implemented and they get banned, im all for it... I used to hunt bots cause they annoyed me ESPECIALLY the obvious ones. But months after reporting and petioning most of them were still active (i gave up and deleted them all from contacts), but i do still have my list saved somewhere.
Hell why not after the second time caught that players character is automatically attacked by concord or the navy, they die horribly and everyone will just assume someone did something silly. e.g caught bot mining, if they get in a mining ship, CONKORDUKENED caught as a courier bot, if they get in a courier ship, CONKORDUKENED caught mission botting, if they hop in a combat ship, CONKORDUKENED
/me waits for the day watching 30+ ice miners in a belt, SUDDENLY CONCORD, BOOM BOOM BOOM for no reason what so ever.
doing the mission bot one will severely hamper someone being able to play the game (well from my perspective as all i do is pew pew), but no sympathy for people caught so.... |
Carneros
The Vehement
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:40:00 -
[217] - Quote
I would advocate on the side of "No Scarlet Letter".
A previous poster is correct. There are serious/professional botters and there are casual experimenters. We wish to remove entirely the first group and reform the second group.
A Scarlet Letter will have zero effect on the first group. It will have a negative effect on our objectives for the second group. Instead of encouraging reformation, it will encourage departure.
Let's try to find another path forward. Thanks. |
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:48:00 -
[218] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.
So if they are all so awesome why are you still working for CCP? If we would all just do what our neighbours do we would still be walking the planes with a club in our hands. I like bow and arrow and I would not mind to improve further. Very weak argument on your side there.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Elmoman7
Got R0ot
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:49:00 -
[219] - Quote
Why not have it as a list based on Alliance (Historically) banned for botting? |
baltec1
896
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:53:00 -
[220] - Quote
Not sure if this has been said or not but how about having it so that upon their second offence they get the name and shame treatment. It could be seen as the next step given that they did not learn their lesson the first time. |
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
265
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 12:56:00 -
[221] - Quote
Here is something that could potentially benefit both CCP Games and those playing the market aspect of Eve Online.
In addition to one of the previous posters here suggesting that the first offense shouldn't include a public flag but for those who are directors or CEOs, why not allow a filter of sorts in the advanced market settings in which a legitimate seller or buyer would be able to tell the market to accept only buy/sell orders from players who are not flagged by this scarlet letter?
If I was going to purchase minerals from the market for my manufacturing jobs that I have pending in a station, I want to make sure that I am not contributing ISK to some botter who is looking to ruin the in-game economy, which they all do anyways. Also, I don't want to sell minerals to botters who spend their ill-gained ISK to create their shiny ships while the money they made ends up in my wallet which could potentially have me investigated by CCP as a potential RMTer. I don't want anything to do with RMT or botters except to try to destroy their operations.
This is a very big benefit for both legitimate miners who sell minerals for ISK and for legitimate buyers who don't want to give ISK to bots.
Of course, your question is still about what benefits there would be for a "public" list of names. In that case, it could potentially help career gankers focus their resources in attacking the right targets as that is something people like me always strive to aim for. I don't want legitimate miners being ganked simply because of the illegal actions committed by another miner next to them in the belt. But of course, like others have said, public naming and shaming should be limited to a second offence. At first offence, only the CEOs and Directors of corps should have access to that information. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Claire Voyant
103
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:06:00 -
[222] - Quote
I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been suggested before. I think corporations' concerns about asset seizures due to actions of their members is legit. If you don't want to name and shame publicly, then obviously a new API flag would be one way for corps to have this information on anyone who applies or is a current member. If you don't want to blackball them for life, then maybe a probationary flag set on the account for 12 months after a first offense. It would be reset after that and invisible to the API. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1098
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:07:00 -
[223] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:We all know who's doing the botting
If you know who's doing the botting, why do you need to be told?
What happens when it turns out that your alliance had more bots generating more ISK that the guys who you thought were the most evil, prolific bothers in the game? That would be a little humiliating, don't you think?
Wouldn't it be better if your alliance's little problem would just quietly go away?
|
fgft Athonille
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:10:00 -
[224] - Quote
unless you also get their mains and all their characters named, dont bother. nobody cares if there 4 month old tengu bot named hfp'hidfhfdhfd got shamed they would care if all their characters got shamed
|
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:14:00 -
[225] - Quote
WeRWatchingU wrote: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
You may want to get the management of those institutions to get in touch with CCP Games. I'm pretty sure the problem can be addressed. (Actually I think you are just a troll.) Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Mariner6
EVE University Ivy League
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:16:00 -
[226] - Quote
So many other important things to do in this game. I think your 3 strikes and your out program seems pretty damn good. Don't waste time with this. Get to fixing the bigger issues, like ship balancing and all the other list of to do's. |
Nirnias Stirrum
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:16:00 -
[227] - Quote
gfldex wrote:WeRWatchingU wrote: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 You may want to get the management of those institutions to get in touch with CCP Games. I'm pretty sure the problem can be addressed. (Actually I think you are just a troll.)
That and its against the EULA to share accounts.... |
Sky Liddell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:17:00 -
[228] - Quote
Two points
- Macro Mining - Botting
Macro mining is done for 2 reasons. One, it's an easy button. 2 Nobody wants to do it. Alot of that has changed with Hulks and Orca's, people will do it. Why isn't the issue, they will.
Botting on the other hand has far deeper implications for the game because it automates the combat and if you have ever had to fight a fleet that is automated you know what that entails. Soften the rules here and you suddenly see Bot PvP and that is the end of EVE as we know it. Enter a system and hit macro 4 letting the fit do the work.
You can address the Bots and that's a good thing but you need to address the volume of grind needed in EVE to get anything done too. Every nerf amplifies it, every time we log in it seems grind just gets worse. That isn't healthy either. |
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:19:00 -
[229] - Quote
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?"
It would help to build trust.
For recruiters it eliminated one unknown, for people looking to join a corp/alliance it helps to let them know what sort of people they are getting involved with.
Between alliances It could also be a source of drama, which is one of the main drivers of conflict.
|
Severian Carnifex
115
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:19:00 -
[230] - Quote
We would like to know which alliances encourages botting. We would see if their members have flags and we would know to do business with them or not. I just don't want to play this game with cheaters and groups that like cheaters. Please give us this info so that us moral people can play with moral people. |
|
Tam Althor
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:20:00 -
[231] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.
I like the -10 sec status, but to make it hit the 0.0 rat bots, add a 5 min logout timer to all flagged accounts. They can log but their ship will stay in space for 5 mins allowing players to find and kill, or at the very least compile a list of names they can report. |
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:25:00 -
[232] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote: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?
litigation. It's one thing to ban somebody from the game and another to harm his good name. In the end a judge will decide if CCP is allowed to have Scarlet Letters. You may want to ask one in beforehand. This is mostly a legal issue and that might very well be the reason why no there MMO company got the balls to name and shame.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Atedar Kerane
Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:28:00 -
[233] - Quote
I would normally say that rule violations should be a private matter between CCP and the offender. However, when it comes to botters in particular, I do see an advantage of having them marked.
Nobody uses a bot "by accident", and a mark would help the players keep an eye out, and report the bot again, should the behavior continue.
The mark shoud not be permanent. If the player don't get caught using bots for a year or so, it should be reset.
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:30:00 -
[234] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
I can tell you based on professional experience that the sense of anonymity you seem to be professing is really overblown and is the kind of thing that puts deliciously round "O" faces on people in handcuffs being escorted from their houses. I'm sure you're interested in more, but that's what the news is for.
PLEX just owns and it's a great tool against this problem :)
LOL, he called you a pedo |
Marcus Luso
Millenia Flux V O I D
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:33:00 -
[235] - Quote
I believe that the only point that counts is that CEOs should have the right to know if they are recruiting bots into their corp. But on the other hand I also believe that the mark should go away with time. 6month for first offence and 12months for the second offence.. if it happens again they get permabanned anyway so it doesn't matter. |
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:34:00 -
[236] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time?
IIRC at fanfest 1% false positives where stated. Big can of worms indeed.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Sin Pew
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:37:00 -
[237] - Quote
I skipped part of the thread, lot to read, but I don't think the in-game flagging of bots is a good idea. Flagging people engaging in criminal activities in-game, in-character, makes sense and is fine, but adding in-game content about out of game issue doesn't. The fact that a bot flew the ship that harvested the ore and hauled it in a station only differs from a real person doing, by an out-of-character action (using the botting program) if CCP has the possibility of negating the market impact of the botting, and should be dealt with out of game by CCP against the owner of the account. I'd like to remind you that public naming generally leads to more problems than letting authorities deal with issues, just look through most countries history.
While I totally understand the need to raise awareness of the botting issue so CCP reacts with botters-ganking, keeping an in-game tracker of previous guilt would hinder the possibility for the account holder to change and play the game. Why would they bother playing this toon if they'll get gank-raped at every gate or station? don't be ridiculous, there's enough occupations in Eve.
Side note: to make it incentive to those caught with their hands in the cookie jar, instead of a 3 times action, I think a formal agreement while they next log on, like "We caught you botting and suspended your account the past 2 weeks, if you get caught again, your account will be terminated", might be more appropriate, IMO. If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? |
Hellanna
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:41:00 -
[238] - Quote
Why do we even need this? Why wasn't the account permanently banned to begin with? |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1365
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:50:00 -
[239] - Quote
I say do it for a few reasons.
First off, if someone breaks the law there are consequences. You molest a child here in the United States, you are flagged as such for the rest of your life and everywhere you live people know about it.
Second. Knowing if someone has broken the rules or whether that person may or may not be a bad mark on your corp is useful to corp leaders. If I was leading a corp and found out someone was botting or breaking any EULA or ToS they would be instantly booted.
Third. Not only would this be an added deterrent to botting (every little bit helps, no matter how small of a deterrent it is) but personally I think that if given such a flag it should be treated like being a pirate. You broke the rules. You are now flagged as a botter and as such a criminal. You can now be openly attacked in Empire without the safety net of CONCORD to protect you. This would allow CCP to instead of banning bot accounts, put the control in the players hands. If you don't like bots. Go bot hunting. Of course this would also require heavier moderation by CCP and not rely on reports from players to prevent abuse. The identification and flagging of bots should only ever be done by CCP. On the other side of that there would obviously need to be a process for disputing the flag to prevent false positives and griefing of an innocent player. This would however enable players to actively hunt bots and kill them while allowing CCP to keep those accounts active and not lose income from banning them. Heck...put bounties on them too! EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
466
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:56:00 -
[240] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time? IIRC at fanfest 1% false positives where stated. Big can of worms indeed. You remember incorrectly.
It was 2, not 1%, not 2%... two people out of thousands banned.
We'd need to know the amount of people banned but it's closer to 0.001%
If not, less.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
442
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:02:00 -
[241] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote: There are ways CCP can tell if someone is a botter 100%, certainly with the simpler botting programs. The inputs they give are not the same as humans and detectable so its a risk they should take.
And what for the others?
And why just botters? Be consistent, at this point just flag all those who got banned in the past, for any reason.
knobber Jobbler wrote: Maybe you've never played the 0.0 Sov game but botting has ruined it and its a major cause for super cap proliferation. There are whole areas of EVE given over to cap and super cap production to sell on RMT sites. That needs the approval of the SOV holding alliance.
Do you realise that right now, you can go and buy any EVE product in an online shop and CCP has no way to detect that transaction happened? Why, because they do not have the ability to monitor contracts. Its an enormous hole thats exploited all day every day. The best way they have right now to combat that is to name and shame botters at the alliance level .
Do you believe a botting alliance actually would care to? I mean if a "professional" botter wants to join them, they will accept him with no issue. They are about botting anyway.
What you have is brewing up the perfect system to expose to the public retribution (but didn't they get punished by CCP already?) the "rookie bots", those who tried it etc. Not the real ones to eradicate, the RMT ones.
If anything, put a public mark on the botters who engaged in RMT (the professional ones, those that hurt). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Prince Kobol
355
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:05:00 -
[242] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time? IIRC at fanfest 1% false positives where stated. Big can of worms indeed. You remember incorrectly. It was 2, not 1%, not 2%... two people out of thousands banned. We'd need to know the amount of people banned but it's closer to 0.001% If not, less.
Whether its 1 out of a 1000 or 10,000 thousand it doesn't matter.
If you have a character with say 80mil SP (approx 4 years of investment) and are then suddenly accused and convicted of using a bot and are tagged as such for the entire community to see, only then to be told.. oops, we made a mistake, your reputation in game is finished.
4 years of time of money that you have invested in that character has been destroyed.
Would you be happy if you were that person?
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:08:00 -
[243] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Zagdul wrote:gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time? IIRC at fanfest 1% false positives where stated. Big can of worms indeed. You remember incorrectly. It was 2, not 1%, not 2%... two people out of thousands banned. We'd need to know the amount of people banned but it's closer to 0.001% If not, less. Whether its 1 out of a 1000 or 10,000 thousand it doesn't matter. If you have a character with say 80mil SP (approx 4 years of investment) and are then suddenly accused and convicted of using a bot and are tagged as such for the entire community to see, only then to be told.. oops, we made a mistake, your reputation in game is finished. 4 years of time of money that you have invested in that character has been destroyed. Would you be happy if you were that person?
Yes, read a few pages back.
If they implement a "Scarlet Letter", I will do my best to get one.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
468
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:09:00 -
[244] - Quote
I would go as far as reporting myself from my alt account.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
442
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:12:00 -
[245] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Here is something that could potentially benefit both CCP Games and those playing the market aspect of Eve Online. If I was going to purchase minerals from the market for my manufacturing jobs that I have pending in a station, I want to make sure that I am not contributing ISK to some botter who is looking to ruin the in-game economy, which they all do anyways.
Legit sells a billion Zydrine units for X Flagged guy sells a billion Zydrine units for X / 2
Tell me how many will follow your virtue path.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ganagati
Perkone Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:14:00 -
[246] - Quote
I think making it an alternative form of punishment would be the best bet. Rather than banning people for botting, paint a bullseye on them. Making them easier to scan down in sectors, make sure their name is easily identifiable as a botter. You wanna bot? Fine. But prepared that you are about to be a whole lot easier of a target. Proof Titans are rare (just another null battle): http://i.imgur.com/CY6x4.jpg-áBattles in EVE can look kinda silly sometimes, huh? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
442
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:21:00 -
[247] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time? IIRC at fanfest 1% false positives where stated. Big can of worms indeed.
This is why your idea about implementing legal litigation would then be sort of required. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:22:00 -
[248] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: You remember incorrectly.
Wasn't my fault. He didn't really open his mouth while talking.
Anyway, let's have BIG CAN OF WORMS TIME. I'm german so I'm really interested what could possibly go wrong.
Let's say the botted riches get removed from the game (I take it they don't do already). So two Nyxeseses, an IHub and 3 outpost in the drone regions magically disappear while downtime. Some CEO will go ballistic and frenetically petition away. As he learns that botting was the cause of magic he demands to get names named. So there is your Scarlet Letter if you want to have one or not. As the GMs refuse to give word HUGE FORUM DRAMA ENSUES. As it does it spills over to the interwebs and so called journalists from internet gaming outlets provide coverage.
In the end names are named because there is no other way you can protect the poor CEO from having more outposts to vanish under is nose. (That outpost thing is a even bigger can of worms hiding in our can of worms. A can of cans of worms. I love it!)
A few weeks later Hilmar is asked by a US judge (they don't care what you think about where legal actions should happen) to explain in detail how he determines what a botter is. As we know already there are false positives. False positives you don't know to exist are still false positives. You can't prove nonexistence (Teapot in orbit around Jupiter problem). The judge does not agree and bad things happen to Hilmar. You, dear CCP Sreegs, will stand to your CEO because you are basically a viking now. (You are drinking beer made from glacier water. So they are converting you from within and chances are that your grand-grand-grandma was shagged by a viking anyway. You might be related to Hilmar!)
What do you do with a Scarlet Letter victim that was a false positive and is exploded back to empire by his former internet spaceship friends? Will you give him his Nyxeseses back?
Anyway, if you really snaffle botted stuffz and ISKies folk will end up with negative wallets on their main. If I spot -30B ISK via API magic I would not recruit them anyway.
Boy, you got one interesting job that wont make you go boring any time soon.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Valkyria Caeli
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:36:00 -
[249] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote: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.
I agree with this suggestion. Perhaps make a separate record like a criminal history, somewhat like an employment history, that detailed what actions, like tempbans have been applied to the account. This seems like a reasonable thing for hiring corporations to know so it would only need to be made available though an API key. Also, as mentioned by others, it seems like a reasonable thing for someone to know when they buy a character. But only allow this information to be seen through an API key. We don't need witch hunts, just a way for people to be able to do the equivalent of a background check on the character. And for some the possibility of never being hired again or never being able to sell your character will be a deterrent. Not a huge one but it will be something and for the rest, permaban repeat offenders. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1366
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:39:00 -
[250] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Zagdul wrote:gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time? IIRC at fanfest 1% false positives where stated. Big can of worms indeed. You remember incorrectly. It was 2, not 1%, not 2%... two people out of thousands banned. We'd need to know the amount of people banned but it's closer to 0.001% If not, less. Whether its 1 out of a 1000 or 10,000 thousand it doesn't matter. If you have a character with say 80mil SP (approx 4 years of investment) and are then suddenly accused and convicted of using a bot and are tagged as such for the entire community to see, only then to be told.. oops, we made a mistake, your reputation in game is finished. 4 years of time of money that you have invested in that character has been destroyed. Would you be happy if you were that person? I am sure the flag would be removeable. This also happens in real life. People are sent to jail all the time for crimes they do not commit. It's not nice...it's not right...the point is, it is inevitable but a necessary evil for the greater good. In a perfect world prison or punishment wouldn't be needed at all. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
|
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:43:00 -
[251] - Quote
is it so hard to accept that some people just like to see information about things they care about? i love computers, and though i'l never have one i'l read benchmarks for high end graphics cards, high end cpu's and such.
i'l probably never be in 0.0 again but i still read about politics out there
this is the same thing, i care about eve so i would like to know where zee bots come from,
also could we get where by region/constellation? (this would allow us to kill them)
|
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:45:00 -
[252] - Quote
A massive deterrent. Name and shame the account of which the botting has taken place, let the players decide if they would allow such people into their corporation/make deals, etc. etc.
There is quite little as important as reputation in EVE. If you're marked a botter you will feel the consequences. quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:48:00 -
[253] - Quote
this scarlet letter may stop some of the small time botters but it wont' stop the major botters that play/bot just to sell their isk On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton. -áWhere the dripping patchouli was more than scent. -á It was a sun |
Prince Kobol
355
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:49:00 -
[254] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Zagdul wrote:gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Can we trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time? IIRC at fanfest 1% false positives where stated. Big can of worms indeed. You remember incorrectly. It was 2, not 1%, not 2%... two people out of thousands banned. We'd need to know the amount of people banned but it's closer to 0.001% If not, less. Whether its 1 out of a 1000 or 10,000 thousand it doesn't matter. If you have a character with say 80mil SP (approx 4 years of investment) and are then suddenly accused and convicted of using a bot and are tagged as such for the entire community to see, only then to be told.. oops, we made a mistake, your reputation in game is finished. 4 years of time of money that you have invested in that character has been destroyed. Would you be happy if you were that person? I am sure the flag would be removeable. This also happens in real life. People are sent to jail all the time for crimes they do not commit. It's not nice...it's not right...the point is, it is inevitable but a necessary evil for the greater good. In a perfect world prison or punishment wouldn't be needed at all.
Very true, and it follows them for life.
I friend of mine was doing some part time work as a taxi driver and decided it would be clever to have sex with one of his customers in his cab late one night.
She then accused him of ****.
A year later she fully admitted it wasn't **** and he was acquitted, but it doesn't matter as it has followed ever since.
This happened nearly 7 years ago.
Its all well and good saying its for the greater good when it doesn't happen to you, but when you are innocent and the spot light and accused of cheating, come back and lets see if you still think its for the greater good.
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
265
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:20:00 -
[255] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Henry Haphorn wrote:Here is something that could potentially benefit both CCP Games and those playing the market aspect of Eve Online. If I was going to purchase minerals from the market for my manufacturing jobs that I have pending in a station, I want to make sure that I am not contributing ISK to some botter who is looking to ruin the in-game economy, which they all do anyways. Legit sells a billion Zydrine units for X Flagged guy sells a billion Zydrine units for X / 2 Tell me how many will follow your virtue path
Pardon me for what appears to be my lack of understanding, but what are you saying here? I don't get it. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
265
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:26:00 -
[256] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:
Very true, and it follows them for life.
I friend of mine was doing some part time work as a taxi driver and decided it would be clever to have sex with one of his customers in his cab late one night.
She then accused him of ****.
A year later she fully admitted it wasn't **** and he was acquitted, but it doesn't matter as it has followed ever since.
This happened nearly 7 years ago.
Its all well and good saying its for the greater good when it doesn't happen to you, but when you are innocent and the spot light and accused of cheating, come back and lets see if you still think its for the greater good.
There's nothing you can do about it though. We live in an imperfect world after all. You are correct to assume that all is good until you are at the receiving end of a bad reputation. But that doesn't change the fact that there will never be a perfect system in this materialistic world we live in. We just have to make do with what we have and move on. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Prince Kobol
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:32:00 -
[257] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:
Very true, and it follows them for life.
I friend of mine was doing some part time work as a taxi driver and decided it would be clever to have sex with one of his customers in his cab late one night.
She then accused him of ****.
A year later she fully admitted it wasn't **** and he was acquitted, but it doesn't matter as it has followed ever since.
This happened nearly 7 years ago.
Its all well and good saying its for the greater good when it doesn't happen to you, but when you are innocent and the spot light and accused of cheating, come back and lets see if you still think its for the greater good.
There's nothing you can do about it though. We live in an imperfect world after all. You are correct to assume that all is good until you are at the receiving end of a bad reputation. But that doesn't change the fact that there will never be a perfect system in this materialistic world we live in. We just have to make do with what we have and move on.
That well maybe the case but I don't agree hurting the innocent to get the bad guy.
As others have said, their is also the issue of litigation.
I'm pretty sure in the world will live in today you would probably be able to take CCP to court if you were accused of breaking the EULA/TOS when in fact you hadn't.
We do live in crazy times.
|
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
223
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:35:00 -
[258] - Quote
Give us the right to choose whit who will we play the game. The criminals or legit players.
And one more thing, if I invest years and years in the game and in virtual friendship with criminal I would like to know that, and not one day wake up and see that all my friends are gone and were criminals. You know, this stuff matters. Time matters - if guy is botting while i mine for real, I dont want to be his friend - he is stealing my RL time and money. Trust matters - how to trust a person that dont give a damn about the game, only about ISK - that botters are. Game matters - EVE matters - I want to know who was killing EVE
Information is the most expensive thing in EVE and RL. Give it to us. I dont see how it would hurt the game.
In real world there are criminal records about all ppl that did something wrong. We want that. And semi-gods would have access to all of it.
|
Pawnee
hirr Against ALL Authorities
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:42:00 -
[259] - Quote
Let me first tell you, what my corp did in the last weeks in Droneland (botland). Just two examples:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=12787360
unstronted botter tower with bots in it. The bots did not move the whole time and we killed them after we killed the tower. Loot drop was appr. 1.3 bil. After that, we reinforced more towers of the "Dan Balan Fan Club". The day we came back and wanted to finish them, they were light blue. You can imagine, we were majorly pissed about this lame trick, that this very obvious botter corp got somehow blue standing and nobody talked to us. Because we had another case, where we got green light on an overnight-blue tower, which was red while RFing it, we thought, it would be ok to kill it still. We did. The next day we had in Corp chat a raging -A- diplomat, who threw around insane numbers of ISK. The botter corp had him paid 30 bil ISK for blue standing or we had them destroyed assets worth 30 bil ISK, it became more while the disput ... whatever... (on top of that we had also destroyed a red CSAA with a blue baby titan in it, because nobody told us) After that we let the "Dan Balan Fan Club" go, because in general we respect blue standings and apologized for our "**** ups" and even paid some compensation (for the baby titan).
Some days later this happened:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=12846336
I found an anchored tower with bots on it "saved up". Jackpot! In the heat of the moment we did not realise, these tengus most likely were nullified and sent in a sabre as first tackle. If these were no bots, they would have not sit on an anchored tower or they would have warped away, when local blobbed, or they would have warped away, when the sabre bubbled them. They were bots and the inevitable happened. In the same system were also light blue bots (Solar Citizen), which we did not touch after the past incidents. Obviously they had already finished the transfer from X.W.X (shadow of death) to the now save Solar Citizens. Damage done: 14 bil Loot: 1,8 bil. Remarkable also the names of the blue and red corps in that system: "The third branch of the psychiatric hospital" (red) vs "Polibudinvest" (blue) vs "Loggaplula" vs "Is paranoid-depressive psychosis" = it is all the same guy.
You find bots of these 2 groups all over the Dronelands. We found more little hints. I.e in the loot:
- ano-bots drop BMs in the corp hangar, which the salvager bot picks up then - the salvager bot drops the alloys, but does not stack them, so you find in the loot cans hundreds of little packs of alloys, until a real human comes and stacks them.
and more. We took some screens etc. You really need to be no genius to see, what is going on, IF you see it. It was a unique opportunity and who know, when the next time this will happen again. __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Question to CCP Sreegs:
How is it possible such big and so obvious botter groups can do, what they do for so long? (We watch them already since last year. Countless petitions have been filed.)
Obviously this (what you wrote in your blog) :
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=75910
did not stop them at all or just a few days. They seem to know exactly, there is nothing, what stops them. That is, why they have such a poor cover. They do not think, they need it. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now to the idea:
Needless to say, I DO want Scarlett letters for botters.
1) I want to see, if I file a petition or watch botters for months, that something happens to them at some point, any advance at least. That is the least you can do. You should not use the stupid 3 strike rule on them in the first place. Nothing is more frustrating for an honest player to see them doing their thing over months and months, sometimes years and nothing happens to them. If somebody has a weak character, he starts thinking of course about botting himself to even up, you know...
2) As you could read between the lines, my alliance and also Solar do not give a flying ****, whether their renters are botters or not. Also many players in my corp, which is in general anti-bot, are not interested, if somebody tells them, there are bots around them or the ISK/reimbursements, we get, are earned by bots in some percentage. They do not care much. This would certainly change, if suddenly lots of renters are marked as bots. Some of these careless, but honest, players would start to be more concerned about their image. -A- is offically anti-bot afaik. That is, how we recruit honest players, who like to PVP. But most do not take the time to check, what the renters do, we just check the bills, they pay. It would help to sort out bad apples.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1359
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:42:00 -
[260] - Quote
It's like this:
If you have a lagged out computer, and lose to somebody else because of it, it's easier to be bested because you know you were already at a disadvantage.
In a game such as this, with all the e-peenery involved, we should have a right to know when a force that seems like it has almost infinite resources of minerals and ISK has any botters in their ranks.
This is especially important when the "superior" force acts like they have the right to come to your house and take your mother and sister as payment for their "uberness".
When you see a force that has botters or people known to bot in it, you don't have so much of a "dipped in hot ****" feeling when dealing with such people, especially when they gloat about being better.
This means no quitting the game, because frankly as much as people will put up with, when "he who cheats wins" becomes the norm, then to hell with the game.
So we should know when we are dealing with known cheaters, for our own well-being, and to know beforehand how much credit to give them, and how much energy to spend on them. If someone wants to blow me out of space because they don't like my face, and does so, is it because they were actually better at the game than me or because they run bots 23/7?
In the former case I would have to be an adult and accept that I lose. In the latter case, especially if the opponent is going to be all about :"we so leet! phag! noob! Go back to WOW! Boom! SNIPERHEADSHOTYOULOOZE LOOZER!!!", then it becomes a cheaters game with really bad (and probably semi autistic) winners.
Dealing with such people is like babysitting somebody elses problem child and when they can cheat and not be known as cheaters and get away with it, EvE comes off the hard drive with a vengeance.
So the need to know who cheats is actually important and this is from my mostly solo player perspective. Imagine how large corporations and alliances who don't cheat feel when they lose a war of attrition against a alliance that bots? I would bet they have a much harder time at accepting it.
|
|
Sin Pew
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:54:00 -
[261] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:I say do it for a few reasons.
First off, if someone breaks the law there are consequences. You molest a child here in the United States, you are flagged as such for the rest of your life and everywhere you live people know about it. They don't have it tattooed it over their forehead! Botting is a EULA breaking, not a crime, don't go emo over it.
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Second. Knowing if someone has broken the rules or whether that person may or may not be a bad mark on your corp is useful to corp leaders. If I was leading a corp and found out someone was botting or breaking any EULA or ToS they would be instantly booted. They're booted and if you never knew them, you would never even notice it.
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Third. Not only would this be an added deterrent to botting (every little bit helps, no matter how small of a deterrent it is) but personally I think that if given such a flag it should be treated like being a pirate. You broke the rules. You are now flagged as a botter and as such a criminal. You can now be openly attacked in Empire without the safety net of CONCORD to protect you. This would allow CCP to instead of banning bot accounts, put the control in the players hands. If you don't like bots. Go bot hunting. Of course this would also require heavier moderation by CCP and not rely on reports from players to prevent abuse. The identification and flagging of bots should only ever be done by CCP. On the other side of that there would obviously need to be a process for disputing the flag to prevent false positives and griefing of an innocent player. This would however enable players to actively hunt bots and kill them while allowing CCP to keep those accounts active and not lose income from banning them. Heck...put bounties on them too! Again, Breaking the EULA is out-of-character action, and shouldn't be brought in-game. Besides, they'll simply close the account and create a pristine one, no one would be stupid fly with such a tag. If a person uses a bot and is caught by CCP, it's CCP's duty to deal with it, CONCORD doesn't exist in RL. If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
266
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:59:00 -
[262] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Henry Haphorn wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:
Very true, and it follows them for life.
I friend of mine was doing some part time work as a taxi driver and decided it would be clever to have sex with one of his customers in his cab late one night.
She then accused him of ****.
A year later she fully admitted it wasn't **** and he was acquitted, but it doesn't matter as it has followed ever since.
This happened nearly 7 years ago.
Its all well and good saying its for the greater good when it doesn't happen to you, but when you are innocent and the spot light and accused of cheating, come back and lets see if you still think its for the greater good.
There's nothing you can do about it though. We live in an imperfect world after all. You are correct to assume that all is good until you are at the receiving end of a bad reputation. But that doesn't change the fact that there will never be a perfect system in this materialistic world we live in. We just have to make do with what we have and move on. That well maybe the case but I don't agree hurting the innocent to get the bad guy. As others have said, their is also the issue of litigation. I'm pretty sure in the world will live in today you would probably be able to take CCP to court if you were accused of breaking the EULA/TOS when in fact you hadn't. We do live in crazy times.
If that was the case, CCP, Blizzard, etc. should've all gone out of business a long time ago. Those crazy times have started that long ago. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:03:00 -
[263] - Quote
I tried to read all of your responses to gauge the issue, too many player responses to go through though. This one stuck out to me.
Quote:This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense.
While I agree that CCP should "stay out of the sandbox" I think you're missing the point of how the sandbox is setup. For example, if you were setting up mechanics that specifically FORCED us to attack said players, that would be getting all up in our sandbox. What you are doing is, in my opinion, expanding the sandbox. You aren't forcing us to do anything to those players, either in a positive or negative way, some people won't care. You are however giving us the opportunity to identify them and deal with them in different ways. Some corps *cough* might seek out these players, under the assumption that they would increase profits at whatever cost. Some corps may hunt these players, or deny them access. You've created a mechanic that the players can deal with in whatever way they want.
I prefer to try to put everything possible into game mechanics. Don't bring real world "stuff" into the game if you can help it. Again, you've created a mechanic. Instead of CCP sticking some scarlet letter on an avatar or something create a skill and game mechanic for it. Players with the right skills and standings can bribe Concord agents to get information on characters, past violations for possession and use of illegal technology (hello isk sink). This would be a useful skill for at least one person in a corp to have, so they could check the names of applicants. It's not something that's visible to anyone, but neither is it restricted to only CEO's or directors or something. It's there for anyone to find that wants to put the effort in, and once they do they can use it as they see fit. It expands our sandbox.
I can see both sides of the argument really, but overall I'm in favor of anything that gives players more options and creates consequences for our actions. I think this does exactly that.
To answer your specific question, what would the benefit be to us, I think it would mostly be in the area of recruiting. However, the way I envision it there could (and probably would) be people that form "their game" around hunting botter accounts in the same way there's anti-pirate corps. The benefit is that our sandbox grows, there's more options for us.
Quote: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? If they don't want risk, then they shouldn't be botting, there's consequences in my Eve. Pirates run the risk of having neg sec status, a flashing skull, not being able to enter highsec, etc. They still do it though. In this example they can rat back up their sec status (curbing their action/good citizen). So maybe botters can have the same chance (1 year and concord seals your records or something has been suggested).
For me the question is less "should it be done?" and more "HOW should it be done?" |
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
199
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:03:00 -
[264] - Quote
I'd prefer the red letter was permanent.
I would never ever allow a player who enganged in cheating in my corp, period. |
Pyrus Octavius
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:03:00 -
[265] - Quote
I believe there is really no true benefit to knowing the character name of a botter that has been identified or punished by CCP.
What I think naming and shaming will be do is perpetrate negative behavior towards the individual who has been caught. Even though the true person will remain anonymous this will not deter some of the individuals in the the EvE community who thrive on griefing and harassing.
There is a large negative presence of hate in this game. This hate is fueled by "it's happened to me, so what do I care if I do it to someone else" mentality in this game. It may be a pipe dream, but I wish for shift in this type of negativity in this game. However, I just don't ever see it happening. Over the years, it has gotten worse. I only expect it to get worse. Naming and shaming will only fuel this.
So in closing there is no point to naming and shaming. Issue stricter punishments to the offenders. There should be no double jeopardy.
In closing the only thing I can see naming a character would do is protect a potential buyer that the character they are interested in has been identified as a botter by CCP. However, with CCP's new policy of freezing a character to an account, the need to name and shame is mitigated.
Just my .02.
|
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:15:00 -
[266] - Quote
hermot wrote:
Casual botters and professional botters alike shouldn't be welcome in the game. So running any type of botters out of the game is for the best i think.
You're looking at it from a principled perspective. Companies can't afford to be principled. They have rules and then they have rules. The first set of rules allows them to get rid of any customer for any reason with little fear of liability. However, if they applied all those rules to the letter they wouldn't have any customers. The second set of rules are so they can deal with troublemakers, the people affecting their business negatively. It allows the company to weigh their potential profits and losses and get rid of people based on that.
The CCP TOS and EULA are so broad as to be able to boot any customer for any reason. Yet if they applied enforcement of their rules in such a manner they would no longer be in business.
Look at it from the perspective of the MPAA and RIAA. Generally, they're only interested in those persons who distribute with a few exceptions. The people who illegally distribute copyrighted content are in direct competition with their constituent companies. These folks are mostly in it to make money off other people's works. The people who are only consumers are potential customers. Yet both are breaking the rules, the laws. One has a fair chance of being reformed. The other does not. But, go after your potential customers at your own risk. Companies do can then write off them and sympathizers as ever being paying customers.
The principle, here, is the same. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:16:00 -
[267] - Quote
Pyrus Octavius wrote:I believe there is really no true benefit to knowing the character name of a botter that has been identified or punished by CCP.
What I think naming and shaming will be do is perpetrate negative behavior towards the individual who has been caught. Even though the true person will remain anonymous this will not deter some of the individuals in the the EvE community who thrive on griefing and harassing.
There is a large negative presence of hate in this game. This hate is fueled by "it's happened to me, so what do I care if I do it to someone else" mentality in this game. It may be a pipe dream, but I wish for shift in this type of negativity in this game. However, I just don't ever see it happening. Over the years, it has gotten worse. I only expect it to get worse. Naming and shaming will only fuel this.
So in closing there is no point to naming and shaming. Issue stricter punishments to the offenders. There should be no double jeopardy.
In closing the only thing I can see naming a character would do is protect a potential buyer that the character they are interested in has been identified as a botter by CCP. However, with CCP's new policy of freezing a character to an account, the need to name and shame is mitigated.
Just my .02.
For the most part I agree.
First of all I don't think adding a mark will act as a deterrent, and will make EVE intolerable for people that stop botting and decide to continue playing the game. Where as the people that it should affect - botting rings, systematic botters etc. - will be relatively unaffected since they will likely keep botting and will have their accounts banned eventually.
Perhaps just a security status penalty and fine would be more appropriate.
ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:21:00 -
[268] - Quote
I think this basically would turn into CCP sponsered grief fest. There would have to be a method to be unflagged or they may as well just perma-ban the account to begin with. How they would get unflagged? I have no perfect solution.
One real benefit would be If there was a mechanism to track by corp and alliance the number of known botters. If Corp A is know to have 10 botters, I think it is pretty safe to say, you don't want them in your alliance unless you support botting. And, Alliances with known botters will probably have a few more war-dec, random hi-sec ganks, invading fleets in their area.
Also a way to track known botters on the Eve map might be interesting also? Hmm I see 10 known botters over there, I bet something is going on. But again, this would just lead to CCP endorsed griefing.
Possible Issue - will CCP be generating more work for themselves. You know that if someone is publicly marked for being a known botter, a certain percentage of players will just follow them for hours and if they see anything, and I mean anything, occur that THEY THINK is botting, they will submit a bot report. So basically, CCP will have a full time job just watching the accounts they have flagged. may as well just perma-ban them to begin with. Allocate resources to FiS |
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:37:00 -
[269] - Quote
To be slightly OT. How big of a ISK fountain is the botting operation anyway? What would be the (speculative) negative number in combined botter wallets?
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Im Super Gay
Hedion University Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:49:00 -
[270] - Quote
Is this naming and shaming just the botting char or all chars on all accounts associated with the botter? Having your main exposed as being associated with botting would be a huge deterent. Since most create bot alts to generate effortless isk or rmt, Now that you can't trade bot chars, and if someone wants to come clean, they'd likely have no use for a botting char anyway and unsub it. Naming and shaming will simply drive players to unsub their bot alts quicker. |
|
Jack Gauge
Dusk Till Dawn Mystic Dawn Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:59:00 -
[271] - Quote
At the beginning of this thread, I was all for marking cheaters, botters and RMTers. But after reading many different opinions, I admit it made me reconsider. It is becoming clearer that it is not that simple. I now believe there are several important considerations on this topic
1) Education. I do not feel that CCP has done enough to educate new players about botting and RMTing. Yes, it is mentioned in the EULA, but in fine text the first time you log in, and lets be real, who actually reads all that before starting a potentially awesome new game. They scroll down quickly and click accept without reading anything. Thats it. They might play for months before a new player realizes that these rules exist.
Solution: Add in a section at the beginning of the tutorials that focuses on these rules in enough detail that players are formally notified of the policy on cheating and the consequences of violating them
2) Player involvement in enforcement. The 'Report botter' button is a good tool, but not complete. It could work better. Educate the masses on steps to identify a suspected botter. If a player report is found to be a confirmed botter, reward the player in a meaningful way. If the player report is found to be obviously an abuse of the feature, punish them in an equally meaningful way. It would leave some grey area where a suspect is reported, found to be innocent, and no reward or punishment is given. The bottom line is CCP needs to be quicker to react and players need feedback to see their efforts are having an effect.
3) Punishment. If a possible botter is identified, CCP must act swiftly. If initial investigation confirms suspect behavior, an immediate 2 week ban should be imposed. IF the banned player contacts CCP to refute the suspicion, hear them out and complete the investigation. If the suspicion is confirmed or there is no challenge, apply the following actions
a) Confiscate all assets and ISK b) Remove from current Corp and place in NPC corp c) extend the ban another 2 week
A second confirmed report should result in a permanent deletion of the entire account and IP ban.
It is obvious that this is a serious issue and I share many peoples feelings of not wanting to play with cheaters. I feel that banning a repeat offender is justified. There must be oversight by CCP and a genuine showing of action to the public. But I also recognize the lack of information for new players about this issue. Many new players will play for months before they get in deep enough to read forums or attempt to seriously engage the community. We need to educate them from the start if we want to discourage future botters and RMTers. CCP showing a heavy handed justice will reinforce this and set an example. And it must be handled in public for all to see. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:03:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.
Andski wrote:I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting?
CCP Sreegs wrote:So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me. I believe that Andski was intending that the scarlet letter would be visible to CEOs and Directors for all corporate applicants. I would extend that to "applicants and current members".
MDD
|
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
163
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:04:00 -
[273] - Quote
Let's just say... It's okay to step into the kiddie sandbox when there's cat and dog **** all over it, to clean it up. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
443
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:06:00 -
[274] - Quote
I have 1 idea: add a corporation checkbox: "only allow never banned applicants".
A CEO checking that flag will have the ability to filter out unwanted people without any party having to disclose anything. This would leave in the corp possible previously banned players but hey, if they have not been kicked so far it's because they behaved correctly.
BeanBagKing wrote:If they don't want risk, then they shouldn't be botting, there's consequences in my Eve. Pirates run the risk of having neg sec status, a flashing skull, not being able to enter highsec, etc. They still do it though. In this example they can rat back up their sec status (curbing their action/good citizen). So maybe botters can have the same chance (1 year and concord seals your records or something has been suggested).
For me the question is less "should it be done?" and more "HOW should it be done?"
What you state would be totally alright if CCP only banned SURE 100% botters. Since they also ban using behavioral analysis, there's a chance of a false positive, which you will ingnore and consider irrelevant till it's you who get banned because of it.
Some of the other MMO companies both show the banned guy the logs / records that made him banned or give them a recourse procedure.
CCP has neither, so what you'll see is that you get banned out of the blues, cannot defend yourself, cannot counter-argument, cannot call witnesses nothing (there's lots of threads talking about these topics in the past).
Therefore if they want to go for extreme measures no other MMO company does, they have also to implement a player self defense mechanism and give him tangible tools to prove his innocence (if he is innocent of course!) like other MMO companies do.
Finally, about adding in game skills to detect who got banned: it's useless. Within the first 2 days of those skills being trained, you'd see EvENews sporting an huge list with every banned player name anyway. You can stay sure somebody would do this names gathering on mass scale. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ceratin
Dark-Rising
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:13:00 -
[275] - 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?"
Absolutely nothing, I guess it depends on your perspective and if your looking at it from a player or corp / alliiance point of view. From my own perspective, I honestly couldnt care less if someone was using a bot to rat in blah blah system for hours on end, ive played eve long enough that i can make far more isk sitting around doing bugger all than they would running a bot farm anyway, apart from this they are often quite fun to kill if your really bored
Ive known quite a few people who have used these tools, and none of them were this stereotype russian botter lord that whores all the npcs everywhere and makes a gazillion isk. Most were pvpers + honest mature players that simply didnt have enough time to rat for 8 hours a day while trying to work
So from my own pov no it wouldnt really benefit me, however corp and alliance.. yes maybe, I think in that case some kind of infraction api would be feasable. That way when dodgy guy #555 joins your corp and you api check him, you can see he's been given an infraction from ccp and decide whether or not you want this activity in your corp |
Just Alter
Futures Abstractions
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:14:00 -
[276] - Quote
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).
This ffs.
We are not talking about sending someone to the death row. There is no need to "reform" botters.
They know perfectly well what they're doing and will NEVER play the game legit.
Once you are SURE that someone is botting erase his\her account(s). No appeal, no mercy, no nothing. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
443
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:16:00 -
[277] - Quote
Another thing: the first BIG purple letter should be on CCP's forehead.
They allowed all the possible botting for MANY YEARS and then some.
They are not the only ones, there's a Bioware's subcompany who let some exploits run for 3 years to the point 99% of the playerbase just took them as basic game mechanics and all used them.
Therefore if they want to implement purple letters they should produce an HUGE splash screen for 2 weeks + a mandatory splash screen when a new player (re)subs, HUGE news (those you see at log on) and maybe an email to the subscribers about their new super tight anti-bot politics.
Only past that date they would start flagging people because they were warned. I have the suspicion that if they really started flagging all people who botted say 5 years ago, you'd see a purple blinking universe all around you. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Sin Pew
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:18:00 -
[278] - Quote
Sreeg, please, discuss it with CCP lawyers, flagging bots adds in-game content only accessible through breaking EULA. That would simply void the EULA part covering automation, thus endorsing and allowing botting. You don't want that, do you? Besides, I prefer CCP focuses on maintaining and debugging existing code, than adding useless pieces of code to further maintain and debug. If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
227
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:21:00 -
[279] - Quote
Not a fan of vanity item stuff like this.
Prefer it to be real bad to do this.
Real affects applied to deter
1st strike = slap wrists, make pod as dense as a titan and apply this to all ships they fly 2nd strike = apply warp speed nerf (Slower than a freighter) and even if unaggressed, takes ten mins to despawn 3rd strike = carry on with the bio mass
Drop them down own strike per 6/12 months of activity but not botting. Yah, you have to pay as well and log in rendering your other 2 unaffected accounts useless as well. You did the crime, you do the time.
This way, at least the good guys are thrown a bone as they are out there trying, but you're not helping them out one bit. ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Zuratul
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:23:00 -
[280] - Quote
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.
You stupid pubbie.
Enjoy that NPC corp, GET OUT OF MY AM0K. |
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
267
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:26:00 -
[281] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:Sreeg, please, discuss it with CCP lawyers, flagging bots adds in-game content only accessible through breaking EULA. That would simply void the EULA part covering automation, thus endorsing and allowing botting. You don't want that, do you? Besides, I prefer CCP focuses on maintaining and debugging existing code, than adding useless pieces of code to further maintain and debug.
That makes no sense at all. In real life, we have judges in the United States that force thieves to stand in public in front of a store and wear a sign that says "I stole from [insert store name here]". Perfectly legal and the lawyers were not able to overturn that decision because the majority of the people in those communities saw no problem with the "name and shame" policy. Good luck trying to convince a lawyer to have CCP litigated over a "name and shame" policy if the majority of the players here support it. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:39:00 -
[282] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
142
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:40:00 -
[283] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote: That makes no sense at all. In real life, we have judges in the United States that force thieves to stand in public in front of a store and wear a sign that says "I stole from [insert store name here]". Perfectly legal and the lawyers were not able to overturn that decision because the majority of the people in those communities saw no problem with the "name and shame" policy. Good luck trying to convince a lawyer to have CCP litigated over a "name and shame" policy if the majority of the players here support it.
Contrary to popular believes EVE is NOT the United States.
The only thing what would come from making public who got caught botting is a witchhunt.
Regardless we call ourselves a civilised world nowadays we are not. The pitchfork and torch mentality is everpresent (and specially in the EVE world) and it won't do any good for EVE as a game to encourage that.
The flag showing up for people who can accept recruits in a corporation would be sufficient. And only when people apply to a corporation. A corporation is entitled to know if someone who applies has been caught and punished before for breaking the EULA/ToS.
|
Bayushi Tamago
Tribuo Quod Victum The AirShip Pirates
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:41:00 -
[284] - Quote
Honestly, I'd like Bot IDing to be easier. I'm not about to go out and start bot hunting if it gets enabled, however, for those who actually still participate in Hulkageddon to solely explode bots, being able to see who is a bot by doing a showinfo on the char will make events like that less about just blowing up pubbies for tears and more about what it started as. |
zzzczyzoznzoz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:43:00 -
[285] - Quote
"What would you, the player, stand to benefit from being able to identify which characters had ever been caught botting"
simple can keep em out of corp also go out bot hunting to put a dent in there isk machine |
Sin Pew
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:47:00 -
[286] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Sin Pew wrote:Sreeg, please, discuss it with CCP lawyers, flagging bots adds in-game content only accessible through breaking EULA. That would simply void the EULA part covering automation, thus endorsing and allowing botting. You don't want that, do you? Besides, I prefer CCP focuses on maintaining and debugging existing code, than adding useless pieces of code to further maintain and debug. That makes no sense at all. In real life, we have judges in the United States that force thieves to stand in public in front of a store and wear a sign that says "I stole from [insert store name here]". Perfectly legal and the lawyers were not able to overturn that decision because the majority of the people in those communities saw no problem with the "name and shame" policy. Good luck trying to convince a lawyer to have CCP litigated over a "name and shame" policy if the majority of the players here support it.
EULA is a contract, not a law, breaking part of a contract voids the contract, you're the one making no sense at all.
Many people here suggest "flag them so we can shoot them down". Then we get 2 options: - never log in with that character again -> no bot-flagged shooting for players. - voluntary self-flagging, like pirates -> encourages players to get caught botting to obtain the flag, and don't say no one will have that kind of ideas and no corp would ever be built to gather bot-flagged players and find a way of having fun through it.
So you're saying we should encourage botting and force botters to log with a flagged account so you can pop their virtual spaceship?
I'd rather see the EULA strictly followed and bot accounts banned, than possibly attract more people in botting. Even if they maintain the EULA as-is, it will motivate some people to break the EULA for that purpose and goes against the whole idea of prohibiting botting.
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? |
Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:00:00 -
[287] - Quote
Name and shame is, in my opinion, based on the flawed principle that we, somehow, can control how another individual chooses to feel
By naming and shaming you are assuming the victim will choose to feel ashamed. How can we be sure they will?. They are already breaking the rules. Do inmates feel ashamed of their crimes?
Most of us are raised in a culture that conditions us to choose certain feelings based on actions from 3rd parties (parents making you feel guilty for getting bad grades, proud for good grades, you choose to feel angry when insulted, etc), but the bottom line is that no one can control how you choose to feel.
Live long and prosper
|
Sin Pew
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:05:00 -
[288] - Quote
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?" Make it an API key flag, for recruiters, I don't see any other option that wouldn't lead to more botting, emo-rage and whinning. If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
268
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:11:00 -
[289] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Henry Haphorn wrote: That makes no sense at all. In real life, we have judges in the United States that force thieves to stand in public in front of a store and wear a sign that says "I stole from [insert store name here]". Perfectly legal and the lawyers were not able to overturn that decision because the majority of the people in those communities saw no problem with the "name and shame" policy. Good luck trying to convince a lawyer to have CCP litigated over a "name and shame" policy if the majority of the players here support it.
Contrary to popular believes EVE is NOT the United States. The only thing what would come from making public who got caught botting is a witchhunt. Regardless we call ourselves a civilised world nowadays we are not. The pitchfork and torch mentality is everpresent (and specially in the EVE world) and it won't do any good for EVE as a game to encourage that. The flag showing up for people who can accept recruits in a corporation would be sufficient. And only when people apply to a corporation. A corporation is entitled to know if someone who applies has been caught and punished before for breaking the EULA/ToS.
That part should be a good start. If the bot persists after that, then the flag should be open for all to see.
But overall, a stealth mechanic should be put in place that I feel is the best option and it's something that will negatively impact the ISK-making machine of bot users without them realizing it:
Add a filter into the market options that all allow legitimate buyers and sellers to ignore all flagged bots as potential clients and vendors (those on the other side of the transaction). This will force them to use the contracts to sell or buy. But let's face it, most people don't trust those contracts and the fact that someone is trying to sell minerals through such a method might be a flag of its own kind of like how you would notice a contract claiming to have a Navy Issue Ibis. It makes it pretty obvious. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
271
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:09:00 -
[290] - Quote
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?
You'd be putting a bullseye on their ship / pod, and for every botter that was shot, you could say that a non-botter industrial player may have been spared the same fate :)
It's true, to a point, that they may have a harder time joining some corps / alliances, but I doubt it would affect anyone's non-botting gameplay because of alts.
To address your concern with regards to allowing some fashion for them to become non-botting eve citizens again, I understand that you'd prefer them to continue paying for their accounts and adapt to an acceptable play style vs. losing revenue. It makes sense.
Personally instead of temporary bans, I say you should allow them to continue playing, add a page to the bounty board that lists all known botters. When you catch someone botting, give them permanent GCC for a week, and put their names on the list ( to the right of their name will be a permanent locator showing people who might want to hunt this person, what system they are in ). You wouldn't need to provide a bounty, just their character name and location.
This lets them play, keeps them from botting for a week, and forces them to get a new character / account, or try to do something else. Perhaps they'll find the social interaction with all the people that are hunting them interesting enough that they'll become bored with botting and having noone to interact with...
just a thought.... and certainly it would provide some new pvp content as well ;)
Save the Miners! |
|
gfldex
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:23:00 -
[291] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:EULA is a contract, not a law, breaking part of a contract voids the contract, you're the one making no sense at all.
Not here in germany. It's treated as a statement of intend. If the judge takes the case it's a go.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:24:00 -
[292] - 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?"
The benefit to knowing people with an illicit (EULA-based) history would be knowing who could get your account in trouble should they try to, intentionally or not, get you involved in their activities. If you are running a salvage operation behind someone how is using a bot or you are running the Orca collecting dropped cans from the guy you GÇÿthoughtGÇÖ was at the keyboard you might want to know who you were dealing with.
IMO That is the answer to the question. Anything else is just rage against the player in the name of a GÇÿname and shameGÇÖ system. Some botters have reformed, some havenGÇÖt. The unreformed should be punished further, but should a GÇÿscarlet letterGÇÖ system be implemented I would make two recommendations: 1.Only apply it to accounts going forward, not retroactively. Give the player a chance to reform. Otherwise you turn the punishment in to a death sentence. 2.The GÇÿscarlet letterGÇÖ should be removable after a penalty is paid of 12 Plex equivalent market average cost based on highest buy orders in four major trade hubs, calculated randomly every 1-30 days) and a minimum of 30 days of display on the ACCOUNT. You create an isk sink as well as a potential for a chance to reform. You could also potentially put more PLEX in to the system to increase supply. (the penalty would be around 6 billion isk at this time, so a player could buy 12 Plex and sell them and then buy off his letter to CONCORD or whoever collects the tax (CCP)).
I don't always finish my commentary, but when I do |
Kallian Ardessa
Alkaline Arthropods
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:12:00 -
[293] - Quote
TL;DR: Scarlet letters are unnecessary and lower the value of gameplay for those who can be reformed, while not effectively disincentivising botters who cannot be reformed.
I've been doing some thinking about this. I admit that when I was relatively new to Eve I engaged in macro mining and some botting. I was 17 and more than a little thick-headed (I didn't know that the Eve economy was player driven). It didn't even occur to me that what I was doing was wrong. I never got caught, but once I wizened up a little, I understood why it was wrong, and I have never involved myself in any type of botting or macro-ing since. I am firmly opposed to botting, and believe that detecting and punishing botters is important. I also have the perspective, however, of a rehabilitated botter.
There are two types of botters: those who can be rehabilitated and those who cannot.
Those who cannot be rehabilitated will bot for as long as it's profitable, and they wouldn't care about a scarlet letter that only recruiters can see--they probably have all their botting accounts in a personal corp (they're clearly not playing Eve for the social aspect). They *would* care about a scarlet letter which everyone can see, because that makes them permanent gank targets, and unless they find an unpopulated system to mine in, that cuts into their profits severely. They cannot be rehabilitated, and a publicly visible scarlet letter would effectively kick these (bad) guys from the game.
However, all that means is that they would just make another account and start again. So effectively dealing with these guys still relies on improving detection, taking away ill-gained assets, and banning accounts.
Botters who *can* be rehabilitated really only need a slap on the wrist to set them straight. A temporary ban on the account and seizure of ill-gained assets is a pretty jarring slap on the wrist. Given Sreegs' data on recidivism rates, I'd say that this first offense "slap on the wrist" is an effective method of reforming botters.
If, however, I had been caught and branded a botter for all to see, I would have straight-up quit Eve. Being unable to go about my business without being ganked by every person at every opportunity would make the game unplayable. Perhaps I would eventually have made a new account, but it's possible that the experience would have soured the game for me.
If Sreegs and his team focus on increasing detection and banning multiple-offense botters, then corporations don't have much of anything to fear from a reformed botter joining--they're reformed. Some corps might not allow any branded person into the corp. For a reformed botter that lowers the satisfaction of playing the game, and doesn't do anything to deter future botting. After all, the less of a foothold they have in legitimate gaming, the less they have to lose by botting again. (plus being unresponsive in corp chat whilst your toon is obviously active is a pretty dead give-away that you're botting)
If a botter is reformed, let them play Eve without caveats or restrictions (other than locked character transfers--that's definitely a good mechanism to keep). If a botter isn't reformed, detect them, punish them--ban them. |
Public Relation
University of Caille Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:18:00 -
[294] - Quote
EVE is all about the community. Adding this would add more control over botting to the community. But it must be done wisely.
- First strike comes with a warning of a Skarlet letter - Second strike comes with a warning of a Ban
If you inform the botter that he is about to get "tagged", then it is up to him to avoid it.
So yes for a Scarlet letter but with a prior notice. If the notice does make the botter a better citizen then to bad for him. |
Zleon Leigh
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:21:00 -
[295] - Quote
Thought just hit me - surely this wasn't a honey pot thread.... Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
444
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:24:00 -
[296] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:
I have no idea what they use to ban, and neither do you, since CCP has repeatedly told us that they won't tell us what they use to detect botters as this would make it easier for botters to circumvent detection.
What they use is pretty much known. Just not the details about the patterns / algorythms per se.
BeanBagKing wrote: There's false positives in the real world all the time. Someone perfectly innocent may be convicted of a crime. It sucks, but it doesn't mean that we dismiss the idea of punishing crimes because someone innocent may be thrown in jail. We do the very best we can (I hope) to avoid this, make sure we have all the evidence, make sure there's a fair trial, and make repremands if a mistake is made. CCP is perfectly capable of doing the same.
I have yet to see *1* CCP reprimand or apology. If they state 1% are false positives then you'd expect *something* to be written / told / leaked to 3rd party websites, no?
BeanBagKing wrote: The initial ban only lasts a day, and of course you can open a petition about it.
They upped it to 14 days. Again, search the forums for more info. If you are an average Joe with 3 accounts you just lost $15 + $7.5 just because. If you had jobs running or a POS to refuel or to guard (low sec), you lose it all. Have yet to see a single proof that CCP refunds these losses.
BeanBagKing wrote: Oh trust me, I already considered this EXACT scenario (and I love it). Name gathering/publishing already happens in other ways (evewho.com lists players in a corp with a great deal of accuracy, aiding war deccers). This is a pretty good example of CCP not publishing the data themselves, but putting the tools into the hands of the players.
Yeah and 2 days late, an enemy alliance aligned website will disclose all those names... too bad they'll add a couple from their enemies.
10 seconds later some punk starts some 100 pages threadnought about how alliance XYZ who always claimed to be bot free were corrupted and whatever.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
c4 t
Push Pharmaceuticals Push Interstellar Network
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:32:00 -
[297] - Quote
First off, I would like to thank you for Sreegs for making this thread. I've enjoyed reading it so far.
Something that comes to my mind is how bots are used. Take highsec mining bots. I would say that a good percentage of these accounts exist simply to fund their "mains" with plexes, extra ships to explode, more capital for whatever enterprise they may be involved in. The people who have these bots may not even be associated with high sec at all.
Branding accounts such as this wouldn't really do anything to discourage people like this. And it would be time consuming and dangerous to label accounts "associated" with the botting account, as cheaters, or whatever. |
Blatant Forum Alt
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:18:00 -
[298] - Quote
On the subject of botting, has a certain drama queen who may or may not be called 'TheWis' been banned for having 22 botting alts yet? |
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:42:00 -
[299] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: If anything, put a public mark on the botters who engaged in RMT (the professional ones, those that hurt).
This I could get behind, but he's already stated those are instant permaban anyway...
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:45:00 -
[300] - Quote
Sreegs, are you 100 percent confident in the Bot identification process?
For example, recently a couple of Dominix pilots were accused of botting. When in the face of it, they were using sentry drones over a long (AFK) period. An in-game "automation" in my own opinion.
Just think of the scenario if you name an innocent player?
So, I will be saying no.
On the other hand, a repeat offender now banned? Oh yes. Particular if it seems related to several players of the same corp/alliance. Such infection needs to be cut out at the source. |
|
tolptila Parsons
Cadre Assault Force Initiative Mercenaries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:53:00 -
[301] - Quote
Name and shame its would benefit the eve community a lot and would stop botters in corps and stop whole corps botting |
Janos Saal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:55:00 -
[302] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.
Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.
In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency. I'm just quoting this because I don't read the fiction but the idea of player consequences and being true to eve needs to be a factor and I'm just going to namesearch what I quoted later. Make it so that every time somebody is caught botting they recieve CONCORD sanctions, and thereafter recieve reduced bounties for rats killed. Caught once: bounty rewards reduced by 33% for x amount of time as a punishment for tampering with AI. Caught twice: bounties reduced by 66%. Caught thrice: biomass. Fits with the fiction, doesn't stray into any public naming and shaming issues. EVE is dead |
Plus 1
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:55:00 -
[303] - Quote
I'd prefer not having them in the game at all. |
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:00:00 -
[304] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I have 1 idea: add a corporation checkbox: "only allow never banned applicants".
A CEO checking that flag will have the ability to filter out unwanted people without any party having to disclose anything. This would leave in the corp possible previously banned players but hey, if they have not been kicked so far it's because they behaved correctly.
I like this idea even more. It basically allows a 'name and shame' without revealing any information to anyone - only CCP and the flagged player knows.
The flagged player trying to apply at a corp like this, will get a popup instead that says they're not allowing applications from flagged players. Note I say player, since in this setup CCP can flag all related accounts without major concern that this player will be publicly ostracized.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Quantum Drummer
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:04:00 -
[305] - Quote
Hey DJ,
This is stupid. The only time another player should see if the account has been banned is when buying it. Then they should be able to know if it has bans on record. This will turn into Steam where a crack your friend downloads for a game gets you a VAC Ban Star and every time you play well; you're cheating.
EDIT: Also, most CEOs and FCs of major corps would be tagged. |
EnslaverOfMinmatar
BRAPELILLE MACRO BOT MINERS
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:16:00 -
[306] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: 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?"
You can release the character names of perma-banned botters without any consequences. You can even make a bot graveyard in-game and the RP lore will justify it by saying "These are the graves of capsuleers that have voluntarily implanted AI into their brains. They were terninated by CCP Sreegs to prevent Skynet 2.0 from ever becoming self-aware" LMAO Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07 or uninstall and DIAF |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
314
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 23:51:00 -
[307] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:) Haven't read the whole thread, so please forgive me if this has been stated before.
I would like to see botters named and the locations they were working id'd so that *I* as a player know where and what is going on.
When you ban botters are they mostly hi-sec? Jita Traders? Null-sec ratting/mining bots? Or lvl 4 mission runner bots?
Also - if they aren't in NPC corps - what kind of corps are they in? Small renter corps? One man Hi-sec corps? Or Null-Sec alliances?
Who tolerates botters w/in?
For NPC alts I could care less..... maybe it makes no difference, but, as with everything else in Eve, knowledge/information is power.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Estrogenia
Arctic Productions
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:17:00 -
[308] - Quote
First offense botter = warning from ccp, no scarlet letter. Second offense botter = permanent scarlet letter.
This gives the option of redemption for those willing, and gives the rest of us all the incentive we need to gank the tagged characters... after all, we would know they had their chance to redeem themselves :) |
FT Diomedes
Factio Paucorum
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:21:00 -
[309] - Quote
Assuming CCP is actually going with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" equivalent for standard of proof that someone is botting, this is how I feel it should occur:
1st strike - nothing public. This gives them a chance to reform without consequences.
2nd strike - For the first three months, the account gets an "active" scarlet letter in public on all characters in existence at the time of the offense. This serves the purpose of giving the community the chance to ostracize the offender for the crime he has committed against the community. If the player starts a new character on that account, it does not have a publicly displayed scarlet letter. Or, the cheater can simply go inactive for 3 months. All characters with "active" scarlet letters cannot be transferred to another account.
After 3 months, the scarlet letter is no longer publicly visible.
Additionally, for 12 months after the offense, the account gets a "passive" scarlet letter. It covers all characters (new, old, transferred, purchased, etc.) on that account. It is visible to the CEO/Recruiting Director when the player applies to a corporation. Now, when a corp does its normal security background check on a new applicant, one of the things they can look for is whether the character applying received a massive influx of ISK/goods/plex from a "scarlet letter" account. This helps corps that want to maintain a good reputation stay clean. The player can still recover from his cheating, but doesn't have to suffer public ridicule, death, and humiliation the entire time.
3rd strike - permanent ban |
Cord Binchiette
Kzinti Hegemony
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:43:00 -
[310] - Quote
I'm looking to join a corporation. Since I'm still fairly new, it's a little bewildering looking at all of them spamming the forum or in-game channels looking for recruits like me. It would be extremely helpful to see if the corp I'm looking at joining has any Scarlet Letter players.
That right there tells me the CEO couldn't care less who comes into the corp. It gives me a clue how I'll be treated as a player if I join. It would give me the ability to weed out any corp that wouldn't be a good match for me.
What would happen if I saw someone with a Scarlet Letter mining or missioning in one of my mission systems? I would stop training on my main, and train up an alt for a gank cruiser. Then I would hammer that f&@#*! into dust the next time I saw them. Even if I saw them chatting in local and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a live person at the keyboard. I would gank them. And every time they left the station, I would gank them. CCP might give them a second chance, but I would not.
Instead of making the Scarlet Letter visible to everyone, maybe make it visible to the CEO when he looks at his corp member list or applicants list. And it should at least be visible to current members and/or someone applying to a corp (ie. Corp has 8 members with Scarlet Letters - but no names). That way if I join a corp and three months later 19 people get nailed for botting, I can see it and decide to leave.
|
|
Badeo Beta
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:57:00 -
[311] - Quote
I wish to raise just one point-- please either flag someone or don't flag them, don't flag them for a year. I am currently in a NPC corp, and might choose to stay for a while. I would rather not have a recruiter wonder if I spent a year in a NPC corp due to flagging. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
83
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 00:59:00 -
[312] - Quote
Havent read through the entire thread but sitting here thinking about this.
I think there should be a name and shame though only for the "commercial" botters, ie those who are getting multiple accounts banned at the same time. Im not sure if this is possible but THESE to me are the biggest threats and need the player vigilantism against them. These are the groups and individuals that need to be harassed daily, hourly and every minute of the day they log in. As not only did they do it but they did it on a large enough scale that its mostly about RMT not just earning side isk or some other BS like that that most people justify it with. Players that are doing these activities on multiple accounts are already well aware of what they are doing anyway.
So yeah multiple accounts get the name and shame, single players have the ability to turn into good productive players. Strength isnt measured in numbers but in force of will. For if one motived willful individual stands many will fall around him that are weak.
http://tinyurl.com/YarrFace |
CowRocket Void
Angelus.Mortis
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:13:00 -
[313] - Quote
If I saw a "botter mark" I'd make a special attempt to gank them, over and over and over again. I say do it |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
269
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:15:00 -
[314] - Quote
Quantum Drummer wrote:Hey DJ,
This is stupid. The only time another player should see if the account has been banned is when buying it. Then they should be able to know if it has bans on record. This will turn into Steam where a crack your friend downloads for a game gets you a VAC Ban Star and every time you play well; you're cheating.
EDIT: Also, most CEOs and FCs of major corps would be tagged.
If you closely read one of CCP Sreegs' latest dev blogs regarding the recent ban-hammer move on botters, it is now official that all characters within said bot accounts and all non-bot accounts associated with said bot accounts are no longer able to put up their characters in the Character Bazaar.
In other words: Banned Accounts = No transferable character
EDIT: I forgot to add the following two words on the last line: "...for life." Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
269
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:19:00 -
[315] - Quote
CowRocket Void wrote:If I saw a "botter mark" I'd make a special attempt to gank them, over and over and over again. I say do it
I would keep ganking them until I see that the player is finally at the controls. Knowing myself, I would give that player a chance to redeem himself as I police him over time. Kind of like a probation officer looking after a convict. Only, in Eve, the probation system would actually work compared to what we Americans have in real life (which is crappy). Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Kogh Ayon
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:28:00 -
[316] - Quote
I don't care when I still see the 15+ CNR botters in Poinen and 15+ Tengu botters in Osmon running 20hours/day |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1100
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:29:00 -
[317] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:First off, if someone breaks the law there are consequences. You molest a child here in the United States, you are flagged as such for the rest of your life and everywhere you live people know about it.
If you are 20 and have sex with your 19 yo girlfriend in the wrong state, you get flagged as a sex offender for the rest of your life. As a result, despite the fact that you have been married to your girlfriend for 20 years, at age 40 you are going to have trouble getting jobs (and possibly have your house torched or car keyed) because you parked in the wrong lover's lane 20 years ago and have your name on the same register as people who kidnap children and use them in snuff **** movies.
Scarlet Letters do not work in real life. The desire for vengeance that drives the small-minded masses to lust after a 'name and shame' scheme is exactly the same motivation that drives lynch mobs.
Victor Hugo wrote about the hatred expressed by "normal" people towards carriers of "letters of release" given to ex-convicts. Jean Val Jean (admittedly a fictional character) could not even get paid the same wage for doing the same work, because he had the "yellow passport" which as an ex-convict he was required to show to any prospective employer.
The only outcome of scarlet letters is vilification and persecution. Scarlet letters will not help reform people who made unwise decisions.
Even in this thread there are people fawning over the possibility of having a visible sign that this target is someone to blame for the rent being too damned high. "Botters are to blame for my being broke" - no, you are broke because you don't know how to make more ISK than you spend, or spend less ISK than you earn. "Botters cause inflation" - no, high demand causes inflation, high supply of ISK can lead to inflation, low level of supply causes inflation: people who run incursions are just as guilty as the botter ratting in a tracking titan. Mining bots cause deflation. Ratting bots raise ISK supply (which can lead to inflation if their demand rises).
Stop looking for other people to blame for your problems. If you want to gank miners, just gank miners. Don't go looking for external validation of your ganking. You just go out and gank because that's what you enjoy doing. The justification for your ganking should be in terms of "removing competition", not "serving justice to those who deserve it".
Even more amusing is the number of people claiming that their enemy engages in botting while their own alliance doesn't. That's almost enough reason for me to want to support Scarlet Letters for anyone caught botting who is in a null sec sov-holding alliance. Won't that be an eye-opener when you log in one day to find your alliance has more convicted bot-users than your sworn enemy? Whose alliance was that big blue slice of the botting pie? Probably yours.
Sometimes the facts get in the way of prejudice, you know. You are better off believing that the enemy are the ones using vile techniques, rather than knowing that your side does it more. The Mittani claims that null sec war is fuelled by xenophobia and cultural hatred. In the real world, you extinguish such fear and hatred by getting people to learn more about each other. Using Scarlet Letters would achieve the same thing: thus Scarlet Letters would disarm the xenophobia and cultural hatred and lead to less conflict in null sec, and that is a bad thing.
|
Botleten
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:31:00 -
[318] - Quote
The primary problem with the scarlet letter is:
A) It assumes the person in question would care about being called out. Many botters wouldn't care and can easily be in some NPC corp while botting to their hearts content then transferring assets gained to their main character or corp. Its likely that the number of botters would also be too great for individual pilots to hunt down and harass a large enough number for it to be an issue.
B) Character trading has to be prohibited for any pilot caught botting for a length of time, or else its useless and the offender will just buy a new character, rinse and repeat.
I have no problem with this being instituted, just highly doubtful of its chances of any real success.
The best way to fight botters is quite simple: Seizure of assets and locking the character to the account for 6 months. If youre caught botting, first time offense has 50% of your total assets on hand along with 50% of everything transfered to another character in the last 30 days is seized. Second offense, 75% seized. Third offense is perma-ban. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1100
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:32:00 -
[319] - Quote
CowRocket Void wrote:If I saw a "botter mark" I'd make a special attempt to gank them, over and over and over again. I say do it
Why not just gank them regardless of having a bother mark or not? Do you seek external justification for your actions? Why can't you be more internally motivated (i.e.: grow some balls)?
Ganking someone because they got caught botting doesn't seem to be a nice way to encourage the ex-botter to keep playing the game. I would be more inclined to help them find ways to control their spending or make more ISK using legitimate (if not honest) means.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1100
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 01:35:00 -
[320] - Quote
Botleten wrote:The best way to fight botters is quite simple: Seizure of assets and locking the character to the account for 6 months. If youre caught botting, first time offense has 50% of your total assets on hand along with 50% of everything transfered to another character in the last 30 days is seized. Second offense, 75% seized. Third offense is perma-ban.
"The best way" supported by what literature?
The current method is: the first time you are caught, all illegitimate proceeds are seized (in ISK form, putting your wallet deep in the negative), and your account is forever flagged as not being able to transfer characters.
If this method is not optimal (in terms of reducing recidivism and encouraging continued subscription), please explain how your method is better.
|
|
Botleten
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 02:00:00 -
[321] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Botleten wrote:The best way to fight botters is quite simple: Seizure of assets and locking the character to the account for 6 months. If youre caught botting, first time offense has 50% of your total assets on hand along with 50% of everything transfered to another character in the last 30 days is seized. Second offense, 75% seized. Third offense is perma-ban. "The best way" supported by what literature? The current method is: the first time you are caught, all illegitimate proceeds are seized (in ISK form, putting your wallet deep in the negative), and your account is forever flagged as not being able to transfer characters. If this method is not optimal (in terms of reducing recidivism and encouraging continued subscription), please explain how your method is better.
Its obvious that youre someone who doesnt fully understand the mechanics of how botters operate, so I'll try to explain it in a way you understand through an example: Someone goes onto character bazaar, find lowest possible SP tengu pilot with good ratting skills and nothing else, buys it for a few billion isk. Sets up the new character on a seperate account, runs it for a few weeks. They take the isk earned, use it to buy assets then transfer assets to their main. Bot character gets caught a week or 2 later and isk is removed from their wallet. The botter still has all the ill-gotten gains and made back the isk used to buy the character within a day or two after getting it. The character that is caught, sitting there with a -15 billion isk balance, is biomassed. Rinse and repeat.
Why do people bot? To gain assets that they otherwise couldn't afford. How do you remove the incentive to bot? Remove, or severely lessen, the chance of gaining said assets. Simply going after isk in the wallet is insufficient. |
Zircon Dasher
92
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 02:16:00 -
[322] - Quote
Botleten wrote: Its obvious that youre someone who doesnt fully understand the mechanics of how botters operate, so I'll try to explain it in a way you understand through an example: Someone goes onto character bazaar, find lowest possible SP tengu pilot with good ratting skills and nothing else, buys it for a few billion isk. Sets up the new character on a seperate account, runs it for a few weeks. They take the isk earned, use it to buy assets then transfer assets to their main. Bot character gets caught a week or 2 later and isk is removed from their wallet. The botter still has all the ill-gotten gains and made back the isk used to buy the character within a day or two after getting it. The character that is caught, sitting there with a -15 billion isk balance, is biomassed. Rinse and repeat.
Why do people bot? To gain assets that they otherwise couldn't afford. How do you remove the incentive to bot? Remove, or severely lessen, the chance of gaining said assets. Simply going after isk in the wallet is insufficient.
Obligatory "You sure know a lot about botting...."
Edit: Wasn't there a thread about how people were getting thier non-botting accounts banned in conjunction with thier botting accounts? Will see if I can find it.... I thought it was on eve-o, but it might have been a different site. |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
130
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 02:26:00 -
[323] - Quote
I'll try to respond to your post, but just to keep this thread a bit cleaner, I'm not going to quote everything that you said
1) "pretty much known" is fancy forum speak for "I'm guessing this is how they do it, but I really don't know". You and me both know it. Neither of us are security experts, and honestly, despite the criticism, there's probably only a handful of people in Eve with the ability and experiance to do Screegs job, most are just forum warriors.
2) I don't think or expect that CCP would make a public apology if they did make a mistake. This is something I'd like to hear more about from Screegs. Have you guys ever found you've made a mistake? Have you been corrected by that player and/or his petition? What is done in the case that you do find yourselves in error?
On second thought I have heard of someone petitioning a macro ban and getting it reversed with an appology from the GM. https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs Now, there may have been some trouble involved in getting it reversed. I'll be honest and admit that after getting home at 10pm I don't feel like re-reading the entire page, but the first section contains the part I'm referencing.
3) You're correct about the time, my mistake. However, the amount of money lost has nothing to do with the "Scarlet letter" as those people lost the same amount regardless of the verdict here, same with the POS. As I've said before, they can be petitioned, and the above goes to show that CCP does admit when they make a mistake and proof can be offered (although I don't know if anything was, or even needed to be, refunded in that case).
4) You could argue the same (slandering enemies) about any player run service. Yet they still all exist because they've built a trustworthy subscriber base and haven't violated that trust. If they wanted to Eve-Kill could add a few extra capital ship losses to the IRC killboard, but they don't. Eve Boards could probably find a way to do bad things with the API's they've been entrusted with, but they don't. Eve News 24 could run articles about how terrible IRC is, but they... oh wait j/k You get the point. Saying that Eve players could do evil things with data that's given to them is a given, we're Eve players. Yet someone will build a trustworthy subscriber base by reporting only bots with some kind of citation or verification.
If a 100 page threadnought gets started about botting it won't be the first. The difference I see here is that players can take that data, go into this system, and verify the results for themselves. Then that alliance, if they truely are bot free, can take action themselves by kicking all the botters they can find. Or, if they were just trying to put on a good face, but don't truely care, the rest of eve can come in and evict them. Again, it's placing the power in the hands of the players, which I think is a good thing. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
83
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 03:50:00 -
[324] - Quote
hermot wrote:Would it be a better deterrent to not let bots use PLEX to pay for their accounts? Once caught, they are banned from using PLEX for (insert time here).
Also, having a Scarlett letter upon application to another corp is a good idea. I really like this idea. Strength isnt measured in numbers but in force of will. For if one motived willful individual stands many will fall around him that are weak.
http://tinyurl.com/YarrFace |
Digital Messiah
Claymore Inc
148
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 04:43:00 -
[325] - Quote
Well for one, we would know who to suicide gank if we thought they were botting again. Not that people who don't bot or look like it aren't anyways. I don't see the harm in this at all. Another is to protect corporations and alliances from unknowingly recruiting botters. This is important as it may prevent others from learning from this player. Or being tempted into this life style.
Just my two cents. Thank you for your time CCP Sreegs. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" Enter a Heroic Era Today |
Amsterdam Conversations
Cheesecake Starshine
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 04:46:00 -
[326] - Quote
I'd like name and shame simply as proof that the ones I'm reporting were actually confirmed botting & banned. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1100
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 04:58:00 -
[327] - Quote
Botleten wrote:Its obvious that youre someone who doesnt fully understand the mechanics of how botters operate, so I'll try to explain it in a way you understand through an example: Someone goes onto character bazaar, find lowest possible SP tengu pilot with good ratting skills and nothing else, buys it for a few billion isk. Sets up the new character on a seperate account, runs it for a few weeks. They take the isk earned, use it to buy assets then transfer assets to their main. Bot character gets caught a week or 2 later and isk is removed from their wallet. The botter still has all the ill-gotten gains and made back the isk used to buy the character within a day or two after getting it. The character that is caught, sitting there with a -15 billion isk balance, is biomassed. Rinse and repeat.
It's obvious that you're someone who doesn't fully understand how CCP goes about banning botters, so I'll try to explain it to you through an example:
1) Botter goes to character bazaar, buys tengu pilot 2) Botter starts ratting with a bot 3) CCP detects botting behaviour and bans EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT associated with that player 4) ALL ISK generated through botting is removed from the wallet(s) of those accounts, in some cases this will result in negative ISK balances 5) None of those accounts are allowed to trade characters anymore, so the player can no longer buy tengu pilots on those accounts
So all that ISK that was "transferred to the main" is gone too.
How do you buy a new tengu pilot when you don't have any ISK to buy it with?
Tie this in with the validation of identity coming up in the next couple of months and you'll start to realise that it is going to get a lot harder to maintain a botting operation. Sure, in the first instance the botters will just keep cycling through GMail accounts. Ultimately I expect CCP will take action on that front too: thanks to Google Analytics it's relatively easy to tell that "[email protected]" is also "[email protected]" and is also "[email protected]" because the guy behind those three accounts has at least once in the last four years forgotten to clear cache, history and cookies before logging in with another account from the same IP address.
|
Florestan Bronstein
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
485
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 07:04:00 -
[328] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: 3) CCP detects botting behaviour and bans EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT associated with that player
CCP does not always success at this as evidenced by many posts on botting forums. They often seem to leave some accounts alone for reasons that even the botters themselves don't understand. And of course serious botters try very hard to keep accounts separated.
once the isk has been converted into rl money the botter doesn't have to worry much about asset seizure anymore - as the post you replied to points out it is very much a race against the clock that CCP has to win. |
Sin Pew
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 07:16:00 -
[329] - Quote
Florestan Bronstein wrote:Mara Rinn wrote: 3) CCP detects botting behaviour and bans EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT associated with that player
CCP does not always success at this as evidenced by many posts on botting forums. They often seem to leave some accounts alone for reasons that even the botters themselves don't understand. And of course serious botters try very hard to keep accounts separated. once the isk has been converted into rl money the botter doesn't have to worry much about asset seizure anymore - as the post you replied to points out it is very much a race against the clock that CCP has to win. Yeah, it's clear the Inquisition and the Holocaust are great examples to follow to follow then. I'm sure Joan of Arc would love the idea. TL;DR
Mara Rinn wrote:Why not just gank them regardless of having a bother mark or not? Do you seek external justification for your actions? Why can't you be more internally motivated (i.e.: grow some balls)? If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? |
Stoogie
Cadre Assault Force Initiative Mercenaries
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 07:17:00 -
[330] - Quote
Name and shame, I don't want botters or their isk in my corp so I would like to be able to see them before I get them into corp. |
|
Ch3244
Azule Dragoons Sspectre
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 07:22:00 -
[331] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: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. The reality is it would become permanent, because someone would surely establish a database with everyone who was ever marked. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3181
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 07:38:00 -
[332] - 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.
Can't do the time?
Don't do the crime.
Are you talking about applying the "Scarlet letter" to the account or the character used to bot? "Casual" botters rarely bot with their mains - heck, they usually use a seperate account anyway so far as I am aware. Can you produce stats that would indicate that the concern you are raising is numerically significant?
I agree that a scarlet letter applied to a specific character - one which is now locked into that account - is likely to lead to the character being biomassed, but I'm not convinced that this would be "fatal" to the player involved. If someone has no more involvement with EVE than to bot, then good riddance to them. If the player is involved in actual gameplay, then they'll switch to some other method of generating income (hopefully an EULA-compliant one).
The main benefit to we the players of "scarlet letters" is to be able to unambiguously identify botters, and those organisations that tolerate or even cater to them. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Ceratin
Dark-Rising
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 08:09:00 -
[333] - Quote
WeRWatchingU wrote: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 of 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,
LOL shut up
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
965
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 08:45:00 -
[334] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Benilopax wrote: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. This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense.
That's the whole problem when you take position. You get in the sandbox like it or not once you flag the char, so either you guys smash it straight from the first attempt or you implement something telling yourselves "noes noes I can't see it" while eye balling on it.
You want to make it a good player? -smash his wallet, take him 50% SP, char stuck in account. 2nd attempt just biomass everything.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
446
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 08:57:00 -
[335] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:I'll try to respond to your post, but just to keep this thread a bit cleaner, I'm not going to quote everything that you said 1) "pretty much known" is fancy forum speak for "I'm guessing this is how they do it, but I really don't know". You and me both know it. Neither of us are security experts, and honestly, despite the criticism, there's probably only a handful of people in Eve with the ability and experiance to do Screegs job, most are just forum warriors.
Being a very "public face" on the MD forum, heavy investor / consultant and auditor (= super "investigator"), I had many opportunities to talk with hundreds and hundreds of players, hundreds of full API keys and much more, including hi sec, lo sec, WH and 0.0 individuals and alliances. I found out a number of botters and even RM Traders both before and after being caught. It's why I have a certain knowledge of what happens and how it goes. You maybe don't, but I do.
BeanBagKing wrote:2) I don't think or expect that CCP would make a public apology if they did make a mistake. This is something I'd like to hear more about from Screegs. Have you guys ever found you've made a mistake? Have you been corrected by that player and/or his petition? What is done in the case that you do find yourselves in error? On second thought I have heard of someone petitioning a macro ban and getting it reversed with an appology from the GM. https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/oldrigs Now, there may have been some trouble involved in getting it reversed. I'll be honest and admit that after getting home at 10pm I don't feel like re-reading the entire page, but the first section contains the part I'm referencing.
That was a very rare case of extreme multi-boxing NOT of botting. This is very important to say, because the former can prove he has the actual hardware at hands and show how he does it, the latter CANNOT EVER.
A guy who gets tracked for botting (i.e. because somebody reported him):
- Won't know an investigation has been started on him. All he will see is either nothing or a sudden interruption of gameplay. - Even if he had, he won't have any tool to gather evidence on his favor. - If he gets banned he's insta-forum banned, insta-ANYTHING EvE banned. Only way to contact CCP is a very ancient and obsolete general contact form, where he'll be in the same queue with spam, people asking CCP for info about the game, general contact information and so on. This means that by the time he gets the first reply (weeks) his ban has already been lifted, making the whole petitioning process pointless. - During these weeks he will lose his in space assets or at least have them sitting passively and with no shields etc. - Of those I talked with, no one EVER got reimbursed. No one EVER was given any tool to prove his innocence. No one EVER got the process reversed. No one EVER got shown the logs claiming his wrongdoing. It's a completely single-sided process where the accused party is completely excluded off any way to defend themselves. Can't produce proof, can't send logs (the few residing on the client). - They ban all the related accounts (I don't know how but seeking for same subscriber payment details could be the way) yet in case of behavioral ban, CCP don't track of non bottable contemporary activity played on the other accounts. I.e. in theory you can get banned because you were investigated on 2 open clients while actively chatting in corp with 10 other people on a third. Nor sending the chat log of such convo will be accepted as proof (can be tampered of course!)
Basically who gets accused is IMPOTENT, be him guilty or be him innocent. The handful who buy another subscription JUST to post in General Discussion about their innocence, get autobanned after a short while (I think next downtime but THIS is hard to find information), they also get manually banned sooner, because talking about a ban, and all of this usually only cause mass derision and disbelief by the angry mob.
I have no reason to believe or not believe that those who told me this were actually innocent or not (guess what? No evidence can be gathered by me either except for RMT) but if you extract only the procedures used to deal with them, the whole process sucks and I would not want anyone innocent to be hit by such a truck. Expecially in a game where you spend many years achieving something and where everybody else are out to remove you whatever the means involved.
BeanBagKing wrote: Again, it's placing the power in the hands of the players, which I think is a good thing.
No, it's placing power in the hands of a bunch of hateful idiots who can't wait to throw their frustrations over the designated Star Marked pariah. Just look at the other threads in the first page for abundant proof. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:00:00 -
[336] - Quote
First conviction for botting - no name and shame Second conviction for botting - name and shame |
Sturmwolke
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:14:00 -
[337] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: How do you buy a new tengu pilot when you don't have any ISK to buy it with?
- Assets, sell them. One that comes to mind are floating secure cans. If only CCP allows scanning them down ..... - ISK laundering operations. Seemingly legit schemes used as cover.
|
Doctor Eezee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:22:00 -
[338] - Quote
So I just skimmed over the thread, because I couldn't really be bothered to actually read 17 pages of the same bad arguments.
Somehow people actually think that people with the "Scarlet Letter" will actually continue to use that character. People will just quit the game. CCP will lose money and the players haven't actually gained anything, because 92% of first time offenders never do anything again. And the guys who actually should be banned, the "hardcore botters", will just buy another Tengu char, because 6b is not that much and people will always find ways to hide their isk somewhere.
I'm pretty sure that at most 1/10th of the guys in here have actually watched the presentation, otherwise they wouldn't make these suggestions. "My rule is: If you meet the weakest vessel, attack; if it is a vessel equal to yours, attack; and if it is stronger than yours, also attack..." - Admiral Stepan O. Makarov |
Headerman
Quovis CORE Alliance
773
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:28:00 -
[339] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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.
You know i once tried to stay on topic like you...
... But then i took an arrow in the knee. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Florestan Bronstein
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
486
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:30:00 -
[340] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:Florestan Bronstein wrote:Mara Rinn wrote: 3) CCP detects botting behaviour and bans EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT associated with that player
CCP does not always success at this as evidenced by many posts on botting forums. They often seem to leave some accounts alone for reasons that even the botters themselves don't understand. And of course serious botters try very hard to keep accounts separated. once the isk has been converted into rl money the botter doesn't have to worry much about asset seizure anymore - as the post you replied to points out it is very much a race against the clock that CCP has to win. Yeah, it's clear the Inquisition and the Holocaust are great examples to follow then. I'm sure Joan of Arc would love the idea. I have already posted my opinion two times in this thread, not going to post it a third time.
As to your post - I'm not a religious person but I have great respect for the catholic church and that institution's ability to transfer its doctrine through the times. In my opinion the relentless fight against heresy - prominently starting with the Arians in the 3rd century and the Nestorian Schism in the 5th was absolutely crucial to the survival and success of a recognizable Christian creed. The large number of protestant churches each with its own set of beliefs and more recently the pentecostal churches introduce an element of ambiguity and the notion of faith being based on personal preference (as opposed to one universal truth) which are highly dangerous to the role of Christianity as a common/uniting source of values and beliefs. If you think I have an issue with the Inquisition you are wrong.
(yes, the case of Joan of Arc was an unfortunate and politically motivated one - but a retrial happened very soon after her death and she was cleared of all accusations of heresy. But when dealing with people with "visions" I generally approve of the stance that Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor takes: it is sincerely regrettable but sometimes you have to do all the wrong things for the right reasons). |
|
Kell Tarhun
The Crooked Path BLACK-MARK
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:37:00 -
[341] - Quote
Dear CCP Sreegs
It my opinion you asking huge population of 0.0 players "Do you wan't your profits to be minimalized". By marking bot player you simply give us players option to see which player is involved in RMT and botting. Many of us wait for such move for years.... Many of my friends left this game considering no real actions against boting in 0.0 and in game. Personally i see those bots i reported still running and making isk.
1 single botting corporation is capable to ruin enjoyment of thousand players as those who know whats going on see no sense fighting vs endless isk in botters wallet. Giving us option to actually see involved chars in botting is great idea.
Benefits: - players will see that CCP team started to do sth against RMT and botting as atm there is more public relation manouvers than real fight vs bots as i see in 0.0 - high sec players might move to 0.0 as there will be more space for real players as botters leave (alliances need to make profit, if bots gone players will generate it)
Losses: - well those who gain isk using bots will propably flood you of ideas against making their interest public
|
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 09:51:00 -
[342] - Quote
By all means mark the person as a cheater, all their accounts. But put a time limit on it, if they dont re-offended in 12-18 month then clean the slate. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
449
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 10:00:00 -
[343] - Quote
Kell Tarhun wrote:
Benefits: - players will see that CCP team started to do sth against RMT and botting as atm there is more public relation manouvers than real fight vs bots as i see in 0.0 - high sec players might move to 0.0 as there will be more space for real players as botters leave (alliances need to make profit, if bots gone players will generate it)
CCP has started to do more than "sth" against RMT.
- They hired CCP Sreegs and a team just to tackle the issue. - They are changing loot and bounties over the months to make certain obvious bot friendly activities harder (i.e. ratting nerf). - They have invented PLEX and now more or less controlling their price as a direct competition against RMTers (in multiple dimensions). - They introduced client side detection.
All these things are not so blatant but are statistically relevant.
Sadly it'a a game of police and thieves, therefore the RMTers will always try and find new ways to counter CCP's policing. 0.0 is particularly hard, because 0.0 is the perfect bot paradise. The RMTers will go in rarely if ever frequented out of hand places. Few guys to report them compared to hi sec (where every ice mining system and missioning system has dozens in local all the time, all eyes who can see and click report). Often times, those who could report them are blue to them. Their bots are not the stupid hi sec mining bots: their bots detect who enters in local, can warp around, can warp to POS. I would not be surprised if they also mimicked some human behavior or could reply to easy questions.
Basically CCP are doing great with the statistic detection systems but don't have the ability to put a squadron of employees watching over the players shoulders in hundreds of 0.0 systems. The statistic detection system might be partially or totally automated, while the "I report 0.0 bot => CCP employee checks it out over days => action taken" process could take a lot of time. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kell Tarhun
The Crooked Path BLACK-MARK
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 10:31:00 -
[344] - Quote
[quote=Vaerah Vahrokha]
CCP has started to do more than "sth" against RMT.
- They hired CCP Sreegs and a team just to tackle the issue. - They are changing loot and bounties over the months to make certain obvious bot friendly activities harder (i.e. ratting nerf). - They have invented PLEX and now more or less controlling their price as a direct competition against RMTers (in multiple dimensions). - They introduced client side detection.
/quote]
1) Hiring dev that made this idea is very good idea 2) loot and bounties hurts real players not bots......real players will make isk harder - bots will make their standard ammount just by increasing their numbers 3) plex is finall way of buying isk. Before boter even decide to buy isk he will "Wash" it using so many other possibilites this game got to offer that ccp investigation of isk made by bots might be impossible to track. Imagine you making isk of bot. You buy salvage for example, you make rig, you sell rig, you buy blueprint, you make ship, you sell ship.....you buy plex of isk made by selling ship... Thats one of many ways ccp can be easily tricked and if they check source...they will see profit of ship sold.... 4) client side detection can do nothing against Virtual Machines that bots using. You can make Eve client on them and use 1 pc with multuply ammount of them. Makes no real diffrent to botters....
SO yes i agree to you just with point 1) That ccp Sreegs made this post and good idea that got chance to give us info about those RMT guys |
quickshot89
No trouble in the midst STR8NGE BREW
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 10:32:00 -
[345] - Quote
A big yes from me, name and shame the player, we have no need for cheats in game, better to get rid of them by taking away the thing they do best, which is hiding away un-noticed |
ed jeni
SKULLDOGS RED.OverLord
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 13:19:00 -
[346] - Quote
as a corp CEO i would like to see if any applications to corp had been flagged as botting in say 12months prior to their application. then i can at least make an informed decision as to whether they should be allowed in or not.
i would suggest that this flag is only viewable to CEO and maybe directors.
of course there will no doubt be a bit of naming and shaming but consequences of prior bad behavior sometimes come back to haunt those responsible.
if allowed, then at least within corp we can keep an eye out to make sure that the practice has ceased and if not we can quickly remove them from corp.
whether this flag should remain after a char sale cycle is complete is not an easy one to answer though.
its not an answer to the botting issue but it does reduce the laundering of botting accounts.
Ed |
bornaa
GRiD.
138
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 15:32:00 -
[347] - Quote
If its problem "what if they do turn good again".
Even if i think that once a criminal all ways a criminal. Do you erase criminals police file so that you encourage him to become good??? Criminal must be marked forever.
But, lets get back to idea for CCPs calmer mind, but crime flag on all first time banned accounts for a time of like 18 months. (18 payed months of gametime!!!!!!) That months must be connected to the time account is active. so that time passes out only if owner is PAYING that account for next 18 months. Player will be paying if its important char for him and if its alt you know that its not important to him and he would kill it anyway. -> locking of chars to account must be permanent from first strike.
And for second offence flag it forever!!!
And yea, we all must see the flags!!!!! CEOs are persons like everybody else and we all need to know if we do business with ex criminal. |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
238
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 15:37:00 -
[348] - Quote
khm, khm...
Of course that goons are against this
@ CCP: Make world better for little, non criminal, people. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
449
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 15:49:00 -
[349] - Quote
Kell Tarhun wrote:
2) loot and bounties hurts real players not bots......real players will make isk harder - bots will make their standard ammount just by increasing their numbers
No, because real players went to do hi sec incursions anyway and rats are capped in the amount that can be killed per day per system.
Kell Tarhun wrote: 3) plex is finall way of buying isk. Before boter even decide to buy isk he will "Wash" it using so many other possibilites this game got to offer that ccp investigation of isk made by bots might be impossible to track.
PLEX is a CCP control on ISK value and a legit alternative to buying money. RMTers have been damaged by PLEX introduction much more than by the anti-botting campaigns.
Kell Tarhun wrote: Imagine you making isk of bot. You buy salvage for example, you make rig, you sell rig, you buy blueprint, you make ship, you sell ship.....you buy plex of isk made by selling ship... Thats one of many ways ccp can be easily tricked and if they check source...they will see profit of ship sold....
There are quicker and easier (and safer) ways to wash money than this.
Kell Tarhun wrote: 4) client side detection can do nothing against Virtual Machines that bots using. You can make Eve client on them and use 1 pc with multuply ammount of them. Makes no real diffrent to botters....
Client side detection fingerprints the account used, CCP bans all the related accounts, VM or not. Without it, all the illicit 3rd party software use could not be proved / detected and CCP would be still at 2005 situation of having to manually check every suspicious player by hand.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
449
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 15:53:00 -
[350] - Quote
bornaa wrote:If its problem "what if they do turn good again".
Even if i think that once a criminal all ways a criminal. Do you erase criminals police file so that you encourage him to become good??? Criminal must be marked forever.
I would hate to live in your country.
There are plenty of "criminals" who had to steal stuff because they were in a contingency (lost job, a family disgrace, long hospital cures). You mark and ruin the life of people who were slammed in a corner, beaten down and then made an example for the stupid mob to burn on a stake. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Mirima Thurander
Total Annihilation. G00DFELLAS
271
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:11:00 -
[351] - Quote
you can also look at it from this point.
there not botting in there alliance that they like but they can have alt accounts that bot, your giving warnings to ALL the accounts botter's own give that they could get flag as a botter and removed from there main alliance because of it.
lets give an example.
BoB has 5 accounts.
bob has 3 of thos accounts botting away in a anonymous corp in high sec.
bob plays 2 of these accounts in his corp hes a part of out in null. playing like normal.
well his bots get found and ALL 5 accounts are flaged.
now his playing accounts are flagged as botters and he is shamed for it and could possibly be kicked from his corp that hes part of on his none botting accounts.
now you have it where if they bot they had best hope there corp/alliance doesn't care about bots. or there botting could mes up there none botting accounts.
lets go ahead and add one more layer on to this and go ahead and say even IF they biomass there players all new players on that account come out flaged.
in the end its still just 1 more way to discourage it.
discouraging botting is JUST as important as stopping the botters we have now.
I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
449
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 16:53:00 -
[352] - Quote
It's already like this. All the accounts get banned and nothing points at CCP not putting purple letters on all of them afterwards. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
adam smash
University of Caille Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 17:13:00 -
[353] - Quote
If CCP wants to reform the botter, the first strike needs to be a light one... as it is now...
After that sure... mark them. Either everyone here was a perfect kid and never did any wrong or... I mean come on.
< used to shoplift as a kid... was caught... never did it again.
Part of being caught the first time was, no record of it. Putting this into eve...
At this point IMO it is more worth not doing it again than once you been named... once you were named what do you have to lose?
If CCP names the bots (the first time) your marked... odds are that chars eve life is pretty much over... might as well bot it up... maybe even bot it up to RMT now because again... chars life is over. If CCP does not name the bot (the first time) that char if they were going to reform, well... the char can go play eve as normal with no blacklash...
The reaction in the thread here for those who say mark... kinda proves the point... once you get a mark you are done IMO you might as well bot it up... or just biomass the char.
No mark gives you the chance to turn around, ONE chance.
And yes people are gona say well if you don't want to be marked don't start... very true I go back to the "I guess you were a perfect kid" doing no wrong (gov laws or parrents laws) and the fact CCP said they want to reform the bots not just remove them. |
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 20:10:00 -
[354] - Quote
Paging CCP Sreegs....
We're pretty much running in circles about this for now. Waiting to see what his reactions to current discussion is.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
BrainDrain
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 20:48:00 -
[355] - Quote
I can't see anything useful coming out of naming and shaming players.
However, I could see some sort of background checking service (paid for in whatever the monocle currency is or ISK) provided by CCP being useful to corp CEOs to help them vet new members.
It could start with infractions levied by CCP (botting and other instances of being naughty) and it could easily become an extremely comprehensive profile of the player in question. Of course, the more comprehensive the report, the more it will cost.
This feature could be limited to only corp CEOs and directors, but it could be open to all players and compliment their corp applications. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1101
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:13:00 -
[356] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:You are however giving us the opportunity to identify them and deal with them in different ways. Some corps *cough* might seek out these players, under the assumption that they would increase profits at whatever cost. Some corps may hunt these players, or deny them access. You've created a mechanic that the players can deal with in whatever way they want.
How will chasing scarlet lettered capsuleers increase profits?
They have been caught botting, they have had their illegitimately gained production confiscated, so they are now stuck playing the game legitimately with no assets. What are you going to gain by hunting these people, besides satisfying your own bloodlust?
BeanBagKing wrote:To answer your specific question, what would the benefit be to us, I think it would mostly be in the area of recruiting. However, the way I envision it there could (and probably would) be people that form "their game" around hunting botter accounts in the same way there's anti-pirate corps. The benefit is that our sandbox grows, there's more options for us.
Do you realise that most "bot hunters" will just blow up anyone who doesn't answer chat requests within 30 seconds? They head out to mining fleets and start bumping people. If you don't react to the bumping in some way within a minute, they decide that you must be a botter and therefore a legitimate target. They don't care whether you're actually botting or not, they're just looking to rationalise their ganking. I guess for some reason ganking legitimate miners is somehow "bad" whereas ganking botting miners is somehow "good", but there is no moral weight applied to making an incorrect judgement that someone is a bother. I don't know why they bother: just gank and be done with it.
BeanBagKing wrote:Edit: For another isk sink/game mechanic, tie the removal of the botting "tag" to bribing concord. You straight up pay isk to have it removed.
So next time someone wants to accuse me of botting, they check my CONCORD record, see that I have no "marks" against me, so they figure, "ah, so this evil botter just paid off CONCORD! That makes my ganking them doubly justified and I don't have to feel guilty about depriving this miner of their Hulk!"
BeanBagKing wrote:For me the question is less "should it be done?" and more "HOW should it be done?"
You're just rationalising your shaky morality. All of these scarlet letter supporters are only interested in an excuse to gank someone. Grow a spine, take responsibility for your own actions and acknowledge that you just like cheap kills. Scarlet letters will not make your ganking morally justifiable, except to the lynch mob mindset.
Remember that by the time the scarlet letter is applied, the botter had already been punished by CCP. Vilification by the players is not going to help that player stick to the straight and narrow.
|
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
137
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:28:00 -
[357] - Quote
Quote:How will chasing scarlet... In that instance I meant seeking them out to recruit them (bringing their profits into the corp). Others would hunt them. Sorry.
Quote:Do you realise that most "bot... Right now there is no real way to tell if someone is or has been a botter (not for the players), so yea, they gank anyone that they feel even might be. If you gave players a way to tell the difference yes, some might still just gank anyone they see (some will always do that). I'd bet a lot of ISK though that there would be a certain group that would only hunt those that had been "tagged", much like the anti-pirate corps that exist in game now. Only a trial would tell though.
Quote:So next time someone wants to... That's an awful big leap in logic. Most people don't bot, the general assumption would be if you don't have the tag, you're probably one of those. If you start making leaps in logic like that I could assume almost anything I wanted to about you. You don't have a negative sec status. You're probably some griefing pirate that just ratted away his neg status! I mean comon... If people want to justify something they'll always find a way to do it. This doesn't give them any more or less of a way than they do now.
Quote:You're just rationalising... I'm rationalizing stuff? You just had an argument that went along the lines of "He doesn't have a tag, therefor he must be a botter". People will rationalize anything. Also, look at my history. I live in 0.0 and participate almost exclusively in fleet fights. I don't need or want a reason to gank anyone. Grow a spine? My ganking? My actions? My cheap kills? Talk about rationalizing stuff again... You make the assumption that just because I'm for something I must be an evil pirate killing hulks off the jita undock or something.
If people want an excuse to gank someone they'll make one. Or hell, it's Eve, they'll make none at all and just gank anyway. They've free to do that. They don't need a reason, therefor this doesn't give them any more or less of a reason than they have before.
The botter may be punished by CCP, but that doesn't mean that this punishment cannot be extended to the players. A pirate is "punished" by CCP by not allowing him to enter certain sec status systems, or a faction warfare player into certain other regions. However, those players may still be attacked or helped by other players as they see fit. Again, let the players decide, put the power in their hands.
If you think they need help getting reformed, sticking to the straight and narrow, start an organization designed to HELP people with those tags. I have no problem with that. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1101
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:33:00 -
[358] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The main benefit to we the players of "scarlet letters" is to be able to unambiguously identify botters, and those organisations that tolerate or even cater to them.
The benefit of "scarlet letters" is to be able to unambiguously identify accounts which have been caught botting and punished by CCP.
Go read Les Miserables. Just have a think about the implication of the yellow ticket ("release papers" for paroled criminals).
In real life, we have the opportunity to perform police checks on potential employees. This is an expensive service, and requires the consent of the party being examined.
I'd be happy with this kind of system:
- Mara Rinn applies to Corporation X, authorises a CONCORD crime check
- Corporation X recruiter can request a CONCORD crime check for some tens of millions of ISK
- CONCORD will issue the recruiter a confidential report of the number of Mara Rinn's security status losses, and any convictions for botting, and killmails for all own-corp kills
- Due to (new) rules in the EULA, any attempt to share this information outside Corporation X recruitment will result in a permaban for all accounts of the recruiter, all CEO/Director level characters in the corporation, and anyone caught in possession of the information.
This allows recruiters to protect their corporations from lazy people without resorting to "scarlet letters". The penalties of ISK up front and the potential for permabanning if misused should reduce the abuse of this system. Of course, this will simply result in shady corporations using disposable accounts for recruitment corps within an alliance.
How long until we have a prominent null sec alliance leader on stage at the Alliance Panel talking about how they managed to game this system, laughing at how this care bear they recruited in Corporation X has never had a security hit for anything, but wants to go play in null sec. LOL!
|
Pawnee
hirr Against ALL Authorities
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:46:00 -
[359] - Quote
Awesome, I got not one answer on my post and instead people discuss about justice, false positives and what not. As if there were many laws in this game. Somebody has to mention of course the holocaust, Godwin's finest.
Meanwhile the botters, I named, had another 2 days of undisturbed business. Under this circumstance we do not need Scarlett letters.
Happy botting. |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
253
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 21:49:00 -
[360] - Quote
If character did show up w/a scarlet letter it shoudl show up pn the contracts or market page...
Also would be nice to ID alliances that support it. Not to black list but maybe where to focus some operations that bots tend to be vulnerable to.
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
|
Volster
Diabolus Ex Machina
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 22:05:00 -
[361] - Quote
I must confess to only reading the first 5 pages (and this one) before getting bored, but for what it's worth here's my 2c.
While im officially a nobody in eve, I've been involved in running various small corps over the years, both as a director & ceo, as-well as being rank & file in a few larger ones. In terms of spotting botters, I think this is a problem which largely only effects larger organizations where you're not able to get to know each and every person in the corp, as for smaller groups it very quickly becomes obvious if someoneGÇÖs online & undocked but constantly unresponsive.
That said, from a leadership point of view, IGÇÖd be in favour of some kind of scarlet letter, even if it is hard to justify the benefit beyond GÇ£it'd nice to know if your letting scum in the doorGÇ¥.
This was suggested early in the thread, but personally I thought it was a great idea so im gonna spell it out again.
1. after the first offence, a flag should show up on the application should the player try to move corps, we don't want to ruin peoples in game reputation forever should they decide to go straight, so It should only show on new applications and only be for a period of time before clearing again (say 3 months) 2. on the 2nd offence, the flag should be doubled from whatever the first period of time was (in this example 6 months), also a mail should be sent to the ceo of their current corp informing them. While I appreciate this isn't perfect, the player is effectively in the last chance saloon, and it would seem only fair to warn the corp's leadership at this point that any assets / trust given to them might be about to go up in smoke.
(this might have been covered already, im reading back and will edit it into oblivion if it's already been asked)
this is probably outside the scope of the discussion, but just out of curiosity has a plan for dealing with a rise in people ebaying whole accounts once they're unable to recycle their bots been put in place? I know the rules were changed to outlaw it long ago and such things should never be condoned, but there's no shortage of fools on the internet
|
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 22:51:00 -
[362] - Quote
I don't consider botting any worse than Moon Goo collection. A lot of the grind needs automated. Most of what follows regards mining bots, the most hated
But, What is a terrible crime today will be A-OK tomorrow. Look at how morals change with time. America's war on drugs is a terrible example.
Currently the anti-botting crusade,in my opinion, exists for only one real reason. It provides a guilt free, riskless ganking mechanism for beginner PVP
AS such, I think it worth consideration to legalize botting. In addition to legalizing botting, for an interim(able :)) time period, Concord protection should be shut off by the implementation of a flag just like global criminal flag, perhaps it could indeed be named the scarlet letter
CCP would cease banning people and instead design a skill/module based botting mechanic. Said mechanic, legally implemented would result in a temporary scarlet letter visible in the overview. Botting would not be illegal in the CCP sense but would be the same heinous crime on our sides of the server
A problem exists that people running third party botting software would not be set automatically but could instead be set by turning in with the current botting reporting function. CCP could give a chance, encouragement and brief explanation of how to go legal or set permanent scarlet letter
Players should do all policing as a fun pvp activity. Scarlet letter counts should be available to be seen on the map view. Flagged players should have a delayed local so that they need live unflagged players to see a threat coming. This also could help with the logofski stuff but it might need to be an overview penalty of not being able to see different ship types while flagged. This should further increase the need for alt accounts for unflagged scouts making CCP more money
Mining ships will probably need increased harvesting rates or bigger cargoes to balance profits. This could balance the loss of minerals from the drone regions. but mining must be profitable, we need it
I have no opinion on ratting bots, I think they are a separate problem but being able to get flags set on them might be a beginning so they show up on map view. ARe they mostly in NULL? Player targeting would be nice but might be unrealistic to get to in the big null blocs... but then again. :
So there. I said the unsay-able. Legalize botting, implement it and boost it and flag it and map it, so that new pvp players have some soft targets and mining companies have a reason to implement a defense in addition to their huge multi-box setups that requires live players for an actual defense
BY delaying local and publicizing locations my admittedly radical suggestion would increase paid accounts and CCP would make more money. By putting all the police work onto the players lap, my suggestions would decrease overhead to the point of merely setting a flag on ever decreasing numbers of third party botters. and finally by increasing easy targets EVE becomes more fun for new players especially and creates the need for us to develop new tactics in null and large mining operations overall increasing the perceived value and depth of EVE to many of its account holders. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
450
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 23:10:00 -
[363] - Quote
Pawnee wrote:Awesome, I got not one answer on my post and instead people discuss about justice, false positives and what not. As if there were many laws in this game. Somebody has to mention of course the holocaust, Godwin's finest.
Meanwhile the botters, I named, had another 2 days of undisturbed business. Under this circumstance we do not need Scarlett letters.
Happy botting.
Purple letters are useless. You'd have noobie casuals who tried some old macro well flagged in hi sec mining for 7M per hour while whole organizations which can't care the less about purple letters host legions of high profit bots in 0.0. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 23:58:00 -
[364] - Quote
An option to flag them as reported and then mapping them could provide all the targeting info needed. False reporting could be problem and increase CCP workload. maybe three flags. suspected bot, reported bot and verified bot, visible on map |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 00:07:00 -
[365] - Quote
why are you protecting bots in any way? many other MMOs deal with bots and RMTs much more effectivly then in eve it seems.
in ace online you cheat or hack a GM forces you to spawn and be insta killed for a few hours then perma bans you and your IP address usually letting everyone in the cheat know(lol)
silk road online makes huge "hey you got banned" lists on their forums
if you cheat in any way(botting is cheating) you should no longer be protected by the EULA or terms of use in any way.
also as i might have said before, i like knowing about stuff in the games i care about if most bots are from russia, or asia, or england, or w/e and most are from X alliance i like to know just to know. |
Mariner6
EVE University Ivy League
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 00:09:00 -
[366] - Quote
CCP has just made it very clear that the issue of banning and such "disciplining" of accounts is supposed to be private and not discussed with the gaming community as a whole. The exception has been this Mittani business.
CCP's words: CCP's banning of the Mittani
So if CCP wants to follow their own EULA, then by putting a "scarlet letter" on people would be a fairly automatic tag saying "look at some point this guy was banned for botting." Not a good idea CCP. What's next a scarlet letter for suicide gankers? A scarlet letter on the Mittani? I mean, where does it stop. So CCP wants to grief players now also?
You all already have a system to id and ban bots with 3 strikes and your out. Good to go.
Now get to fixing my drone boats! |
Oxylan
1 Caldaryjski Pluton Uderzeniowy
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 02:37:00 -
[367] - Quote
I dont understand whole idea (named and shame but still not baned) so you want give to booters chance for play withaut ban and by this way allow boots to mining ore - ice and interfere isk to market? i dont understand ... This sound like we allow booters to delivery ore and minerals to market by booting way ... oh come on i cant understand.
I dont think boots care about name and shame... Ban them at last some warings, if they ignore warnings, prema bans. |
cyennajewelz
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 03:01:00 -
[368] - Quote
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). +1 10characters |
NurofenMiner
Raven's Flight Vanguard.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 03:04:00 -
[369] - Quote
I would love to see Name, shame, and permanent account ban. If you have absolute evidence that the person is using a botting program. or Macro deemed outside of the EULA.
Reason : To verify that CCP is taking an aggressive stance against such behavior. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
453
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 07:14:00 -
[370] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:why are you protecting bots in any way? many other MMOs deal with bots and RMTs much more effectivly then in eve it seems.
in ace online you cheat or hack a GM forces you to spawn and be insta killed for a few hours then perma bans you and your IP address usually letting everyone in the cheat know(lol)
silk road online makes huge "hey you got banned" lists on their forums
if you cheat in any way(botting is cheating) you should no longer be protected by the EULA or terms of use in any way.
also as i might have said before, i like knowing about stuff in the games i care about if most bots are from russia, or asia, or england, or w/e and most are from X alliance i like to know just to know.
Bots in other games are much technologically easier to detect. Evidence is evidence. Depending on game, the bots must use one or more of: certain APIs, the game is much more dynamic so OCR reading is almost impossible, must use DLL injection, many players are constantly around (no secluded 0.0 pockets), the "NAPS" don't exist beyond maybe guild level, the "style" of hotkeys usage may be profiled much easier, some games implement Punkbuster or house made similar software. Last but not least, the other games usually come with heavily customizable UI, it's incredibly difficult to make a bot adapting to that variety. Only professional RMTers will accept to keep the bland default UI, this helps weeding out the "casuals" (the kind CCP would want to "rescue") from the professionals.
EvE is extremely vulnerable as it's the opposite of many factors above, CCP have to resort using heuristics and manual investigation in less than super blatant cases. This makes the process less reliable, expecially detecting who is the university student botting for his PLEX vs the RMT lords.
Therefore CCP - who want to deal in a fair way - takes the prudent path. In a costs - benefits analysis, it's smarter to leave a couple bots uncatched or mildly banning some innocents vs immediate and direct public execution on a stake of whoever triggers a suspicious behavior.
Just look at the last days threads. They are hysteria and vengeance and hate induced, when all what was needed were calls for EULA enforcing / bringing up a case. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Avila Cracko
286
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 13:59:00 -
[371] - Quote
@ CCP Sreegs
We would like your thoughts on all this. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Nephilius
Grey Legionaires
332
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:10:00 -
[372] - 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.
I can't say it better than this fine gentleman here, so I'm gonna quote him.
Do it CCP. To stand before a man at an inquisition, knowing that he will rejoice when we die, knowing that he will commit us to the stake and its horrors without a moment's hesitation or remorse if we do not satisfy him, is not an experience much less cruel because our inquisitor does not whip us or rack us or shout at us. |
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient Electus Matari
170
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:10:00 -
[373] - Quote
Probably been mentioned already, but as NRDS the ability to set them red without having to duplicate the intel effort would be nice. |
Wodensun
ZeroSec
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:18:00 -
[374] - Quote
While some of the ideas put forward are really good you have to keep in mind the botting scene and how it works.
These Scarlet letters will only force them to create bots that are much harder to detect which will turn this into a arms race, see Vxers VS the anti virus industry. As long as people do RMT there will be a incentive for these guys to continue and since it involves real mony you can bet your ass they will respond by evolving their tactics to counter what CCP is doing and these guys are /VERY/ creative coders.
|
Darod Zyree
Zyree Holding
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:28:00 -
[375] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.
I don't mean that CEOs should be able to pop open someone's info and see their strikes. I mean that when a player puts in their application to a corporation, the server checks for strikes, and if strikes exist, they are mentioned as a warning in the application management interface for the corp CEO/Directors. The only time that a marked player would be standing on the gallows in the rain like Hester Prynne is when they put in their application to a specific corporation. I'm not familiar with the current API, but I don't believe any fancy API apps currently allow you to see strikes against an account, so I assume that information is not publicly available. If you you get what I'm saying. Edit: CCP Sreegs wrote: So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me.
Yeah, that's exactly the idea. Yeah this now makes a buttload (sorry for the foul language) more sense. BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS
Hello, if it has not been mentioned already: - Being able to see if someone was flagged for botting at some point in time during an application to ones corporation is important, but i would also like to see if anyone currently in my corporation has been flagged while being in my corporation.
People going on a leave for a few weeks is no exception. "Yeah I'll be on vacation for a month or so but will be back after that" (read: person has gotten 1st or 2nd strike banning term) |
Padme Amidala Naberrie
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:58:00 -
[376] - Quote
I would like to add my approval to naming and shaming botters.
RMT, as we are seeing from what is happening with PL today, is a curse on this game and botting is one of the major ways this is implemented.
So name them, shame them and let us gank them! :)
PAN
EDIT: It would be great if we could tie in the named and shamed botters to Hulkageddon by prioritising macro miners for ganking. |
bornaa
GRiD.
164
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 15:51:00 -
[377] - Quote
We want names... We want to know with who we are dealing with. |
Heredom
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:06:00 -
[378] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
Done, signature edited with perfection!... |
Sirion Fujiwara
Aliastra Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:09:00 -
[379] - Quote
Make them 'Flashy Scarlet' on my overview and in Local channel. Increase their signature radius by 1000% for a year. Make Concord look the other way when I pod them.
Possibly add bounties. At least then the phenomenon of botting ends up benefitting more people.... |
Heredom
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:17:00 -
[380] - Quote
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?"
DISCUSS!
:)
Flag them, and give the sandbox capabilities of healing itself like an organic entity.
1st strike- Botter get flagged and Concord puts bounty (isk AND LPs) on toon, relaying intel of its whereabouts. Players hunt botter, receive ISK and LPs. Botter gets its Skills reset to the same level of a new playes, account Assets are taken by Concord, toon remains flagged for 6 months and part of a "Concord Penal Recovery Services" NPC for the same period. If during that time nothing happens, toon is released to become a normal player.
2nd strike- Same as first with escalation to direct associates (toons that received isk/asset transfer, including via bounties placed by botting toon and direct associate), group SP reset, 1 year in "Concord Penal Recovery Services".
3rd strike- Biomass Done, signature edited with perfection!... |
|
Hroya
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:26:00 -
[381] - Quote
I dont believe in redemption for botters. Burn them to hell and let them rot in the **** they dug themselves in.
It is up to CCP to change the gameplay that lets people able to bot their way through it. Those people knowingly and willfully decided to not play the game as it was intended to.
If you want to redeem yourself then change your ways in your next game. GTFO, i (and maybe others aswell) dont want your kind here. Botting should be a zero tolerance policy, not a source of endless resources thrown against it in order to hopefully keep that precious accaunt active. All the resources put into this endevour would be better spend on actuall gameplay/content/fixes.
You go your corridor but. |
Padme Amidala Naberrie
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:31:00 -
[382] - Quote
Hroya wrote:I dont believe in redemption for botters. Burn them to hell and let them rot in the **** they dug themselves in.
It is up to CCP to change the gameplay that lets people able to bot their way through it. Those people knowingly and willfully decided to not play the game as it was intended to.
If you want to redeem yourself then change your ways in your next game. GTFO, i (and maybe others aswell) dont want your kind here. Botting should be a zero tolerance policy, not a source of endless resources thrown against it in order to hopefully keep that precious accaunt active. All the resources put into this endevour would be better spend on actuall gameplay/content/fixes.
True but it would also be great fun for those of us that want to to be able to make the life of botters - be they macro miners, ratters or other botters - non-viable because they would be ganked every time they undocked.
PAN
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
463
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:42:00 -
[383] - Quote
Darod Zyree wrote:People going on a leave for a few weeks is no exception. "Yeah I'll be on vacation for a month or so but will be back after that" (read: person has gotten 1st or 2nd strike banning term)
How can they tell you they'll take 1 month vacation? It's not like CCP sends them a perfumed letter with a "tomorrow we ban you" message
Heredom wrote: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?"
DISCUSS!
:)
Flag them, and give the sandbox capabilities of healing itself like an organic entity. 1st strike- Botter get flagged and Concord puts bounty (isk AND LPs) on toon, relaying intel of its whereabouts. Players hunt botter, receive ISK and LPs. Botter gets its Skills reset to the same level of a new playes, account Assets are taken by Concord, toon remains flagged for 6 months and part of a "Concord Penal Recovery Services" NPC for the same period. If during that time nothing happens, toon is released to become a normal player. 2nd strike- Same as first with escalation to direct associates (toons that received isk/asset transfer, including via bounties placed by botting toon and direct associate), group SP reset, 1 year in "Concord Penal Recovery Services". 3rd strike- Biomass
Your and many other suggestions are just contrary of CCP banning politic.
With your approach, nobody would ever care to keep playing those super-mega hammered-made-useless characters.
You may as well setup a "1 strike => perma ban" and be done with it.
In that case, I'll be there laughing hard when you'll get randomly picked by an heuristics algorithm and you'll taste your own medicine. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
197
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:58:00 -
[384] - Quote
It would be nice to see an account associated with bot use also unable to do any form of character trade on the bazaar or privately period. If someone gets caught they should never be able to just sell said character and start with a fresh one. After these characters are banned from traditional transfer it would also be prudent to say take a snapshot of the system hardware they are on like a MAC address.
This is so that if said offender decides to take an RMT route to getting rid of the marked character you would have a way to do a perma-ban on both the character and have a way to keep both the RMT seller and buyer out of EVE online itself. The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.
One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear. |
Vestor
Magma Planetary Investigation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:48:00 -
[385] - Quote
I agree with what earlier people mentioned: because of the possibility of meta-harvesting (e.g. copying bot flags to a third-party database), any explicit individual-level bot flag will effectively be permanent, even if CCP's records clear it after a while.
Given the current statistics about offenders cleaning up their act, I think that the bot flag should not be traceable to an individual character. A permanent flag will hinder rehabilitation too much (Offtopic: quoted statistics on recidivism that I found are incomplete. Of the players/characters that stop botting, how many quit outright? Is retention worth the trouble?). For indivuduals, the three-strikes punishment (or any more effective variation as decided in the future by CCP) is sufficient.
It seems that for most players the reason they want information is because they want to prevent association with botters. For me, that works two ways: I don't want botters to join my organisation and I don't want to join an organisation rife with bots. This already means that (CEO) screening of individials, even if the meta-harvesting is ignored, would not be sufficient.
On the whole, I think organisations need a lot less protection than individuals. In the current reports, more details should be included. Through the multitude of fansites surrounding Eve, all kinds of rumours will be created anyway, and these rumours are far more likely to damage innocent reputations than factual reports from CCP. Casual players deserve to be able to be informed just as much as those who have alts in every major alliance and subscribe to the entire Twitterverse. Currently, casual players are more likely to encounter the FUD than the facts.
Please provide naming and shaming statistics on a meaningful, aggregated organisation level. This could be done just by naming corps and alliances (please also mention if directors were implicated as well) in regular blogs or something.
To prevent any insinuations about biased reporting (is that just meta or meta-meta?) the reports could also be automated. One way to achieve this could be the creation of invisible flags that are only reported in aggregated form: something like 'Average percentage of corp members with recent botting history in the past three months'. You'd still need to be careful about preventing individual details being distilled from this (e.g. if the percentage rises from 0% to 1% when the 100th member joins, that might give something away...). Location-based is also an option: I'd love to see a universe-map of botters on the EVE website (you have that thing there now anyways, and the info will then not enter the sandbox directly).
If you're going this way, you will also want to give organisations a tool to prevent unwitting association with botters. I suggest letting corps set a flag 'Do not allow botters to apply unless their crime is X days old' in their recruiting settings. When a botter wants to join, the botter is notified and the application never reaches the corp. This way, the refusal can be enforced by CCP on behalf of the corp, without leaking information. |
Myohmywoot
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:49:00 -
[386] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Darod Zyree wrote:People going on a leave for a few weeks is no exception. "Yeah I'll be on vacation for a month or so but will be back after that" (read: person has gotten 1st or 2nd strike banning term) How can they tell you they'll take 1 month vacation? It's not like CCP sends them a perfumed letter with a "tomorrow we ban you" message Heredom wrote: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?"
DISCUSS!
:)
Flag them, and give the sandbox capabilities of healing itself like an organic entity. 1st strike- Botter get flagged and Concord puts bounty (isk AND LPs) on toon, relaying intel of its whereabouts. Players hunt botter, receive ISK and LPs. Botter gets its Skills reset to the same level of a new playes, account Assets are taken by Concord, toon remains flagged for 6 months and part of a "Concord Penal Recovery Services" NPC for the same period. If during that time nothing happens, toon is released to become a normal player. 2nd strike- Same as first with escalation to direct associates (toons that received isk/asset transfer, including via bounties placed by botting toon and direct associate), group SP reset, 1 year in "Concord Penal Recovery Services". 3rd strike- Biomass Your and many other suggestions are just contrary of CCP banning politic. With your approach, nobody would ever care to keep playing those super-mega hammered-made-useless characters. You may as well setup a "1 strike => perma ban" and be done with it. In that case, I'll be there laughing hard when you'll get randomly picked by an heuristics algorithm and you'll taste your own medicine.
Sooo stay laughing, at least he tried to contribute with a, imho, excellent idea... |
Verocity
8 Virtues
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 19:11:00 -
[387] - Quote
I think it's reasonable to assume that botting and RMTing can be linked. Let's face it, you have to make a very conscious decision to do either.
With the recent bans and negative wallets being thrown around, I think it's imperative that these people be flagged as such so others can avoid any transactions with them. It doesn't seem right to risk your own assets by dealing with someone doing these activities and you have no way to see it or protect yourself from it.
my $.02 |
Hroya
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 05:29:00 -
[388] - Quote
Sreegs, i want to ask you this hypothetical question.
Say i am a miner, i like to mine. Even have no problems mining ice for hours on end because .. well someone has too. I like to organise mining ops, sort out the refining, freightering and dealing with the payouts in an "everyone is equall" way. I even have lots of fun and good chats while doing all that.
Now there is also a herd of none responsive associates in the belts/system. And they are there every single day for weeks, months on end. Every time doing the same thing, same icerock, same warping back and forth eventhough they appear to have lost their ship along the way and oddly enough try to mine the ice in their pods.
Obviously such funny behaviour would be asked to look at by the great wizards of bantown.
Time passes and formeantioned none responsive associates appear to be able to continue their ways for quite a long time still.
Doing my refines and handeling the payouts it is heartbreaking to get people motivated for such, in public opinion, tedious gameplay and only offer them a less the stellar payout compared to wacking some scripted repetative agent assignments. But we try. It has to be done, it's part of the game.
7-8 hours mining on a saterday and you're toast. You scrape the proceeds together and commend everyone for a job well done dispite the lousy mineral prices.
So it has been for years.
But o grand light in the sky, the thunder has struck the ill willed and they faced the wrath of the gods and are sentenced to exile .. for 2 weeks .. and redeem themselves that way.
The years of ruining an aspect of the game that was implemented by the overlords as a choice to laber for, to accomplish great things through teamwork and dedication. It only got them a slap on the wrist. Juistice is served. We, the ones that actually played that aspect of your game,do not feel in any way cheated out of a big chunk of accomplishement at all. No really we dont .. ..
So my question to you is:
Do you REALLY think botters and the like should be handeled with care and compashion ? Is the offender entiteled to more care and guidance then his victims ? You go your corridor but. |
Senarian Tyme
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 05:54:00 -
[389] - Quote
Botters should be 3 strikes and out.
-Pre Strike- Suspected Botter - No action yet but close observation. (reported by players but not CCP confirmed)
-strike 1 - the current temporary ban, and then give them a "white letter" that no one can see. At the same time allow corporations to put a filter into place that blocks the white letter. The person attempts to submit the application and its just flat out autorejected. No one can see it and the corp doesn't get told the person tried to apply. The flagged person can then make up whatever excuse they want yet. - Increase mining cycle time by 10%, and reduce bounty/reward payments by 10%.
-Strike 2- Longer Temporary Ban- Upon Return - Publicy Seen Red Letter- Also Penalize bounty/reward paymentsby 33% and increase mining cycles by 33%.
-Strike 3- Banhammer strikes. Also all other accounts paying with same credit card should also automatically be pushed up to strike 1 white letter status. |
Hecatonis
Ascension Manufacturing
77
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 06:34:00 -
[390] - Quote
i really cant write down what i think i should say to convince you that naming and shaming is a good idea, so i will just say this
Let the players protect the universe we live in, take way their money, and let us destroy the character. Loosing something you gained illegally and being temp banned just costs you what you shouldn't have had to begin with and some time, and that is not a deterrent to many. But there is one thing that you have a hard time getting back in this game, its your credibility, and to many that is worth everything.
case in point, an old toon of mine was in a small corp trying to work it's way into nul, the CEO let someone into the corp and he took out a very larger mining operation and a larger amount of our hanger, costing our corp billions and us players our ships.
the 3 year old toon who's only goal in eve was to "watch us poor carebears cry" thought he couldn't be touched but a friend and i spent 6 months informing every corp he joined that he could not be trusted and produced the killmails and the like. he was never in a corp for more then 2 days, and after sent me a " i am sorry mail" and biomassed his toon. the player lost 3 years of history because of his actions.
that is eve, its a cold and heartless universe where only your actions prove your worth, and those that brake those rules and hurt our game should answer to us. |
|
Ildryn
X Inc.
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 11:07:00 -
[391] - Quote
Release patch. Deactivate all accounts until they have read and taken a short quiz about botting and rmt.
First time 2 week ban and Permanent Scarlet Letter. Second time GTFO.
Being so easy on botters is why there are so many. Stop being stupid. Make them go away. |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
1236
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 15:33:00 -
[392] - Quote
On the one hand, it could be seen as a deterrent to a certain category of people who would think twice about having their alliance/corp/friends scorning them for being a "bad guy" and tainting their image.
On the other hand, it would negatively affect people who had nothing to do with it.
Regardless, it would have the effect of people talking about the fact that you *do* hunt botters/RMTers, particularly among a population who may not be well connected but rather just casual buyers, as it were.
It would also provide information to RMTers as to which type of transaction is easily tracked and which not.
I see it as having a positive impact, for a bit, and then either decreasing in effectiveness due to apathy.
I'm not happy about the downsides, but it may be worth a shot, I'm ambivalent. If you do this however you may want to release those only quarterly for maximized impact.
But to answer your exact question: *I* wouldn't stand to gain anything personally, except as far as collective knowledge and booing would cause others to be less likely to take part in those activities. Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1385
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 15:47:00 -
[393] - Quote
How about a compromise:
"anonymous flagging".
When a corporation has botters in it, the number of botters will appear in their corporation statistics. They don't get a name and a face, just a number of botters. It will be up to the CEO to determine who the botter is. For example, a CEO has 10 people in the corp known to bot, based on the information he can see. But he is not told exactly who it is. EVERYBODY who pulls up stats can see that too.
So a CEO who just lets anybody in without proper vetting might see his organization becoming full of known botters, and that might even cause it to be targeted. Those who do not bot, and don't want to be associated, might want to leave, or demand something is done about it.
The only way to really know, is to recruit somebody and then check the stats. If you recruited "Joe" and the next day you see that your corp has a known botter in it, then you know it's "Joe" and you can boot him or handle it per the sandbox "rules" (your own way).
If you recruit say 100 people, because your a big corp and you have a war coming perhaps, and the next day you see you have 20 known botters in your corp, you now have a problem to deal with. The CEO is going to have to use detective work to see who was the botter and if they are doing it again.
Now, since there is no way to flag corp thieves except to see if they got named and shamed in the C&P forum, the "who's the botter" issue becomes an issue that takes some interactive game play, something that is often promoted in this game. It would make recruitment more interesting, make corp-hopping more difficult as mass recruitment becomes more risky for larger corps.
It's also good for competition: if I am getting OMGWTFPWNED in a war of attrition by a corp that has no known botters in it, meaning that they can maintain their wartime infrastructure while under attack - hence they have skills, good logistics and internal support, I have to man up and accept that I am bested. But if I am getting completely routed and see that the corporation doing it is full of botters, then I have something to say when they go into CAOD or in their own forums how "fail" I am. Sure, they are "winning", but they have botters, meaning any victory and e-peen/leet status they might have is thrown out the window. This is something that both sides of a conflict can consider. A CEO who prides himself on corp success in a war would know that it's all of nothing if everybody can see that he has botters. Some poor winners, who want to talk smack about being "so leet", would have to STFU when you can point out that they have botters and hence from that unlimited ISK and resources. War, which this game is all about, is all about resources and anybody who metagames resources through botting is cheating. Losing to a cheater is expected, but we have to know if we are dealing with cheaters.
So in this way, there is no permanent scarlet letter on an individual, but some record follows them, and they will have to stay in an NPC corp forever (and hence be a target anyway) or find a way to convince CEO that they have changed their ways. Meanwhile, corps that have a penchant for botting and/or don't care, will be publicly known to be full of botters, and therefore more "targetable" in anti-botting/suicide gank drives and that would be the price to pay for potentially gaining an edge over your competition through the use of bots. I would even expect that a lot of people not inclined to suicide gank will do so against members of corps that are full of people who got caught for botting, and that would be good for the game.
I hope this could be considered as a compromise that most players could live with. |
Hroya
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:06:00 -
[394] - Quote
It's like seeing a rapist getting lots of care and guidance to get back into society. The lenght at wich you go to "therapise" the purp is rediculous.
If you **** up in eve and do something stupid, lost all your assets because you fell for a well known scam, you get the advice to live and learn and start over again.
Now if you bot you get a coloured tissue and 2 weeks to reconcider your actions and then you're back in action full swing. imo quite pathetic. You did a no-no, now start over.
Looks like the eve punishment system doesnt follow their game doctrine of harsh and brutal. Or is ccp trying to smooth out the fact that they need(ed) those bots to keep their awesome gameplay intact ? i.e. all the fuell that was ever needed to fuell all those thousants of pos's in the early sov mechanic ? Figured you couldnt get enough reall people to mine that action packed mining aspect together ?
So they just say sorry, appologise to their ceo, fly around with a flag not everyone can see, and are there again to flip you the finger.
If any way i would like to punish here is being able to fly into ccp space and detonate a nuclear bomb the size that makes the Tsarbomba look like a firecracker.
Yes i hate bots with a passion and wouldnt concider any other punishment then perma ban the accaunts if proven guitly.
You go your corridor but. |
Panda Name
Republic University Minmatar Republic
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:44:00 -
[395] - Quote
i support this 100%, and i also agree that the mark of shame should be permanent. it would be cool if every other month or so, a dev blog was released listing all the names of those who have been shamed, to add to their shame. also, a player that has been branded should have their entire corporation be notified via eve-mail, kind of like a war-dec notification.
what i would gain from these implementations is the joy in knowing a botting account will forever be branded as such, and i honestly think that the social stigma will reduce "casual botting" dramatically as a lot of these casual botters care about their self-image - they aren't all chinese isk farmers, after all.
thanks for all the good work. the tears on the forums of "other eve websites" is too good to be true. i need a bigger receptacle to contain it all. |
Kaitlin smithson
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:50:00 -
[396] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
CCP Sreegs,
that would be a great idea to publicly display all botting characters. I say you do it like the iskbank incident. People will be weary of all members of those corp/alliances and wonder, hmm, who else in that corp /alliance is a botter? Give them their 15 minutes of fame. Oh, and another idea, if you do allow these botters to be sold, I say you let the seller get that punishment from the guilty character he/she is trying to get rid of. Don't let the poor individual buying the character get the punishment. |
Maccian
Tradesman Connection Centrum of Trade Taurus Quantum Dynamics
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:50:00 -
[397] - Quote
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?"
I would find and gank those botters. |
Madlof Chev
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:56:00 -
[398] - Quote
It would be good if the ~scarlet letter~ only showed up on API queries. That way, it only becomes an issue in corp applications / other API uses. |
Krevnos
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:03:00 -
[399] - Quote
I would say that corps or alliances where excessive botting has been identified should be named, rather than individuals.
Where it has become the ethos of the corp/alliance to perform botting in order to fuel their escapades, I think the public can benefit from knowing where the strength of this body was drawn, particularly in null sec where space is being fought over.
The obvious follow-through for individuals being identified would be a witch hunt, which is hardly beneficial to anyone. |
Max Bane
The Black Gryphon Company
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:09:00 -
[400] - Quote
CONCORD should flag individual botters or botter corps/alliances for extermination after an official warning to cease their illegal activities.. That way the player base would make their in-game life unbearable hunting down every single one of them.
Let us all have a little fun with them :) |
|
TheSprite
Capital Supplies Care Factor
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:10:00 -
[401] - 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?"
Well it would make it easier for players to kill the Bots that's for sure.
But maybe CCP could have a word with CONCORD to make killing "Confirmed Bots/Macros" in all sectors Legal (This also would include Podding as a well trained Character with Implants to mining can mine far more) so they can be killed anywhere high or Low-sec for a Bounty. The Bounty Range depending on the Security Status of the system they were killed in. The lower the Sec containing highest priced OREs put a higher bounty on the Bot/Macro encouraging people to actively seek them out as well. This of course means having something solid in place which stops innocent people being flagged as a Bot/Macro just for the fun of it.
This would allow the players to become more involved and make removing Bots/Macros less costly to the player themselves when having to Gank a bot in a Concord Protected system Losing Isk and Standing. |
OreForge
Solar Nexus.
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:16:00 -
[402] - Quote
I made it through the first 8 pages before I skipped to the end and ddid not see my reason listed up to that point
For me personally, I would like the name listed so I could compare it with character names in other games as well. I think its probable that people tend to use their character names in many games and not just EVE.
As an example, i use this name in 7 other online games. It would stand to reason that if you caught a botter names "something ABC" that I could go to DDO or Everquest 2 or a dozen other MMOs and find him located there ddoing the same thing.
The scarlet letter could essentially lead to a much larger strike against the botting community that reaches well beyond this game.
I think the offense should be listed as an API selection. When they apply to a corp, or a toon is being sold, the full API key would show their flagged status.
Also, if a flagged botter had a distinguishing mark on their "show info" then people that see them botting could report it and those offenders would move up on the CCP investigation list, thus taking some of the load off CCP |
Celebris Nexterra
Lowsec Static
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:19:00 -
[403] - Quote
This thread is long as ****, and I most definitely have not read all of it.
But I wholly support the Scarlet Letter idea, it will be an additional deterrent. I know this is just echoing what most people are saying in the thread, but I agree with all of it. Less botters mucking up such an awesome game is better for everybody.
All of the most obvious and best effects of the branding have been stated on the first page, so I shan't repeat them.
IMPLEMENT THIS ASAP. |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:22:00 -
[404] - Quote
I'm against having scarlet letters for botters unless they eventually fall completely off of your public record because I think it will not decrease the instances of botting and it will create an environment which discourages botters from mending their ways. Hear me out-
After a botter is caught the first time, one a of two things will happen:
- The botter will learn that they can't get away with botting and stop botting
- The botter will not learn, feel that it was a fluke, or that they might get away with botting using a different program, and will be caught again.
In the second example, botters will be caught again by CCP and I expect they'll be perma banned rather quickly. In this case the scalet B does nothing as the character who would have worn it isn't allowed to play the game anyway.
In the first example, a scarlet B would subject the now reformed player to harassment for the rest of their tenure in the game. I've heard no mention of time limits or even dates to record how long it's been since the Botter tag was "earned". I'm all for harassment of people who actively bot, but people who actively bot will be perma-banned in short order so the botter tag is wasted effort where they are concerned.
People who do one stupid thing but subsequently learn their lesson need to be able become productive members of the EVE community. A permanent botter tag would make that difficult which would in turn make the game more difficult and encourage them to risk a return to botting. You might as well just perma ban them at that point
Obviously CCP should keep internal records indefinitely so that people can't wait out a timer and then try botting again, but any public record must eventually disappear in game so that reformed players can become good citizens. It's easy to sympathize with corp HR people who want to be able to avoid hiring someone who's just going to be banned for botting, but with no expiration on the tag former botters will never be able to change their ways because player corps won't give them a chance no matter how long it's been since they broke the rules.
If your goal is to reduce crime, then you should do what is effective at reducing crime, and NOT do things which merely satisfy your desire for retribution--especially if that retribution encourages further crime.
There's a great book written on this very phenomenon in the real world When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime And Less Punishment by Mark Kleinman. I highly recommend you read it and internalize the psychology before implementing systems that will clearly encourage players to simply quit the game altogether instead of becoming good rule-abiding players
in b4 morons accuse me of botting because they want revenge more than they want to stop botting. |
Astrid Stjerna
Teraa Matar
655
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:26:00 -
[405] - Quote
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:On the one hand, it could be seen as a deterrent to a certain category of people who would think twice about having their alliance/corp/friends scorning them for being a "bad guy" and tainting their image.
On the other hand, it would negatively affect people who had nothing to do with it.
Regardless, it would have the effect of people talking about the fact that you *do* hunt botters/RMTers, particularly among a population who may not be well connected but rather just casual buyers, as it were.
It would also provide information to RMTers as to which type of transaction is easily tracked and which not.
I see it as having a positive impact, for a bit, and then either decreasing in effectiveness due to apathy.
I'm not happy about the downsides, but it may be worth a shot, I'm ambivalent. If you do this however you may want to release those only quarterly for maximized impact.
But to answer your exact question: *I* wouldn't stand to gain anything personally, except as far as collective knowledge and booing would cause others to be less likely to take part in those activities.
I'm with Meissa on this. The reason that so many botters pop up is because they feel invincible; they don't see any visible action being taken, so they make the (unwise) assumption that none is happening at all, or that they won't get caught.
Basically, there's no sense of scale. Quietly ban one botter, and they think they were just unlucky and got caught. Show them how many botters get caught on a daily basis (via 'scarlet letters'), and they'll scurry like rats in a trap. I can't get rid of my darn signature!-á Oh, wait.... |
Shinnyo
aWc Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:31:00 -
[406] - Quote
Why aren't you just banning botters? No reason to give them scarlet letters if they're not allowed to log in anymore... |
Cesium Shadowstrike
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:32:00 -
[407] - Quote
While it would be nice to know who the was caught botting so that I don't have to associate with them. While it may have been said earlier as I didn't read the entire thread. What would be even better is if the Flag made them lose Concord protection. Make them free to kill any place, any time. It would give an on-going in game deterrant to botting to the point where they can't leave the station to bot. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Intrepid Crossing
235
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:32:00 -
[408] - Quote
Few ideas, mostly covered already but I think the are important to support this idea.
- Some corps would likely want to know this information for recruitment. Ie mining corps.
- Random players would like to know this before helping out some random person. Imagine three unconnected miners, two normal and one bot. One normal sees both needing help like hauling, killing rats, etc. who would you rather help?
- Selling accounts - great incentive not to bot
- It would be great to see this in contracts (highlight in red?) so you can ignore them for business.
One final thing I think this idea is good for is to turn the question back on CCP. While you have stats to see why it's good for you, your image would be visibly improved with the players who may not see the efforts you are taking with botting and may not believe you are being effective in your efforts. Giving botters a mark in game would be a welcome sight to many. Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1385
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:34:00 -
[409] - Quote
TheSprite wrote: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?" Well it would make it easier for players to kill the Bots that's for sure. But maybe CCP could have a word with CONCORD to make killing "Confirmed Bots/Macros" in all sectors Legal (This also would include Podding as a well trained Character with Implants to mining can mine far more) so they can be killed anywhere high or Low-sec for a Bounty. The Bounty Range depending on the Security Status of the system they were killed in. The lower the Sec containing highest priced OREs put a higher bounty on the Bot/Macro encouraging people to actively seek them out as well. This of course means having something solid in place which stops innocent people being flagged as a Bot/Macro just for the fun of it. This would allow the players to become more involved and make removing Bots/Macros less costly to the player themselves when having to Gank a bot in a Concord Protected system Losing Isk and Standing.
THAT would be fun. |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:35:00 -
[410] - Quote
Astrid Stjerna wrote: I'm with Meissa on this. The reason that so many botters pop up is because they feel invincible; they don't see any visible action being taken, so they make the (unwise) assumption that none is happening at all, or that they won't get caught.
Basically, there's no sense of scale. Quietly ban one botter, and they think they were just unlucky and got caught. Show them how many botters get caught on a daily basis (via 'scarlet letters'), and they'll scurry like rats in a trap.
I agree that a sense of scale would be a good deterrent, but that can be better done through dev-blogs or other public places where aggregate data is shown. Letters on individual accounts aren't visible in aggregate, and won't contribute to the sense that one can't get away with botting. |
|
xo3e
The Deliberate Forces HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:39:00 -
[411] - Quote
Name and shame. Signature removed. Navigator |
Tester128
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:39:00 -
[412] - Quote
at the very least this will give people who report bots some kind of feedback. |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
85
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:44:00 -
[413] - Quote
I'm all for name and shame, however I'm less sure about your bot detecting capabilities.
What if you name and shame someone who really was innocent?
And before you say that isn't possible, I have a pretty little hate letter from CCP last year accusing an account I had just purchased in the character bazaar of RMT'ing. The letter was about the rudest, nastiest thing I've ever seen from any company. It basically stated that I was busted for RMT, there were several punishments in the works, and that I had no recourse in the matter. You'd think i'd just broken international law. It took me several emails and a nasty forum post to get CCP to realize that the character had been transferred.
So, unless there is absolute proof, I would have to say no. Besides, based on the average moral character of this game, I'm thinking it would have very little effect.
Looking to stamp out apiphobia in my lifetime..... |
Kane Plekkel
The Necronomicons
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:44:00 -
[414] - Quote
I'm really digging the "let the people sort it out" approach. All that would need to be finalized is the terms. I also agree with a graduated approach. Allow me to explain
Step 0) CCP receives multiple notices of a character (let's call him "Joe") who is displaying the typical bot behavior (warping to/from same stations and belt repeatedly, not responding to conversations/targeting/etc. [maybe we need more ways of verifying activity?]
Step 1) CCP, through their own methods, confirm that Joe is a bot. The character is given a modest bounty, in line with how much time has been spent and/or how much mineral/ISK has been earned as a direct result of these activities, and flagged as KOS to all EVE members. This bounty is made public, either through the current bounty system or a new one that is set up specifically for this purpose. ISK payout comes from CONCORD. Once the character's ship has been killed (should podding be allowed in this instance?) once (or more, this is expandable, but I wouldn't want it to overpower step 2), the flag is changed to yellow as a warning to prospective recruiters, etc.
Flags last for 3 months each (i.e., the red flag lasts for 3 months or until the character's ship is destroyed, after which the yellow flag lasts for an additional 3 months). While yellow-flagged, if the character is reported to have been botting again (same criteria as the original step), the character's status is graduated to step 2. If all flags expire without a repeat offense, flags are cleared and the process would start over. This gives the character sufficient time to recant on their ways, and at the same time, doesn't permanently scar the character
Until the character survives the entire process and gets "reset" back to a safe character, this character is non-transferable, until the time period passes. In addition, even if the character makes it the requisite time period, the character should still be white-flagged, notifying potential buyers that the account has participated in bot activity in the past, but has been cleared
Step 2) The way to get to step 2 is to commit a second botting offense while either flag from step 1 are still in effect. The penalties for step 2 are increased to the following
1 month KOS, no matter how many ships are destroyed. - If the character performs additional illegal activities during this time period, a week is added, up to 3 months total time, after which step 3 takes place 3-6 months of yellow fla - Same conditions as step
GLOBAL PENALTIES Trade/Contract abilities remove - Can't have them trading away their gains, or receiving new assets ISK sending abilities remove - I specifically limit sending because we don't want the character to be able to transfer whatever ISK they gain to someone else, but they still should be able to receive ISK. For those who argue that it will just be put to use for continued botting activity, remember that we as players can continue to blow them up, thereby wasting someone else's ISK Clone purchase abilities remove - If they keep getting destroyed and podded, this will severely limit their capabilities as character
Basically, send them back to trial status, without the skill limitations
Step 3) I'm torn here. My viable options are the no-holds barred permanent KOS, reclamation of any illegally gained ISK and assets, removed from current corp and placed in a special CONCORD-run corp that is, fundamentally, at war with everyone. I as a player want to be able to destroy and loot and salvage repeat botters until they quit or biomass. Step 3 proves they're beyond the point of reclamation as a character (and indeed, as an account, though I'm not sure what account-wide penalties to enact)
The other option is a forced biomass of the character. While that would definitely remove the scourge of the botter, it removes our player-run justice system
So that's my idea. Feedback and criticism are most welcome. |
Sered Woollahra
No Fixed Abode LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:48:00 -
[415] - Quote
In the Netherlands, you have to provide a 'certificate of good behaviour' to your prospective employer, when applying for certain jobs (e.g. in education, health care et cetera). You can't get such a certificate (for a while, or forever) if you have been convicted of a crime/felony.
Something like that could be implemented in Eve as well. A recruitment officer or CEO could request a 'certificate of good behaviour' from Concord, for someone who applied to the corp. Concord could either give the certificate, or deny it without providing further reasons or clarifications. After x months or a year of good behaviour, Concord would again give a cert. Conceivably, Concord could inform the recruitment officer/CEO that 'the applicant is eligible for a certificate of good behaviour in x days' as to give an idea of how recent the applicant was convicted.
So this function would only be usable to recruitment officers and CEOs, and only when there's an active application of the user to their own corp. Perhaps that would limit the possiblities for API exploitation a bit. It would be very useful to have this mechanism play a role in character sale as well, but I haven't thought that through.. could be difficult to implement, if API abuse is a concern :)
*edit: I am a recruitment officer, this is stuff I'd like to know, but I don't need/want it to be 'in your face' visible to everyone. |
Yasuhiro Shoe
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:49:00 -
[416] - Quote
Long thread, ugh.
Accessible through an account's API, there should be a permanent record of all ISK removed from the account due to botting and due to RMTing. Corps that require API from applicants can check the character's wallet and see when and how much he has been involved with illegal practices, and make an informed decision based on that, and on the player's explanation and current attitude
- you can tell small time crooks and one-time mistakes apart from unrepentant felons - players can choose not to disclose their API and keep their privacy (but by doing so they won't be accepted in many corps) - (most important) the flag is not on the botting character, but on a character funded by botting
Only retards bot on their main, the botting accounts are disposable, we need to know where the money goes.
Please make it so.
|
Poseidon Spyker
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:50:00 -
[417] - Quote
I am noticing from a lot of responses that people seem to want to use the scarlet letters to hunt down the botters and kill them thesmelves.
I want everyone to realize that these characters, once found botting, will already be watched by CCP anyway. Why need to kill them? If CCP knows, and has or can ban them instantly and freeze their funds, why do we even need to worry about it?
I disagree with scarlet letters. |
Roeth Whitestar
Gemstone Mining
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:54:00 -
[418] - Quote
Just like your employment history follows you, the same principle, create a criminal tab on the character sheet and mark their crime.
For those worried about the griefers feelings, maybe after a period of months they can pay a lot of ISK to have the shame removed? Sounds better than the joke of a bounty system that's in now. Maybe not perfected but a good start.
|
Daedalus II
The Oasis Group Combat Mining and Logistics
108
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:00:00 -
[419] - Quote
I must say that I can't really see what use anyone will have of a list of what? 5000 names? It's not like CEOs are going to sift through it every time they hire someone. And it's not like the "bot hunters" are going to compare everyone in local against it. If a part of it is shown at the login screen once in a while, what difference will that make? no one knows who they are anyway and most of them will probably be closed accounts.
Sure, name and shame sounds fun, but has anyone though of what it's really useful for?
And now I don't know, but let's assume most botters are new players that don't know about the strict botting practices in EVE, then they most likely don't know about the botting list either so it's not even a deterrent. And even if they knew, what kind of deterrent is a list of 5000 random names? |
stoicfaux
910
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:08:00 -
[420] - Quote
What, if any, is the legal, social, and/or public opinion impact of publicly "branding" a minor (an under-age player) as an out-of-game "criminal?"
/haven't_read_all_20+_pages_before_commenting
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:17:00 -
[421] - Quote
Even if the players aren't globally "flagged," perhaps after a second strike it is permanently attached to the character and only displays itself on an application to a corp?
In addition, I'd like some sort of notification as an Alliance head which members of what corps have been caught botting. Its fine if the information isn't public, but it'd be nice to have some of method for "higher ups" to be able to keep track of the backgrounds of the people in their employ. We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Anshio Tamark
Avitus Lugus
120
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:17:00 -
[422] - Quote
Shepard Book wrote: I am not sure if you watched the wardec video from Fanfest and that prompted you to ask this or not but I invite you to see what is be proposed there. Basically its a branding system of people dropping corps to avoid wardecs. During the Q/A portion it was asked why would you brand a corp jumper but not a botter. It sounded to me like a good suggestion for both cheaters. How about a full-fledged branding-system? Anyone who is undesirable should be branded as such. Bot-miners, Bot-missioners, Corp Jumpers, Corp Thieves and Corp Gankers are all examples of undesirable people. Let CEOs know what kind of people are applying to join them. I honestly don't think CEOs are very interested in hiring a pilot, who then turns out to be a Corp Thief, or even worse, a Corp Ganker. Of course, there should be some kind of measure in place to prevent players from abusing this just to grief someone they don't like. |
Tork Norand
Mechanical Eagles Inc. The Ancients.
107
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:19:00 -
[423] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.
Since when does CCP follow what other MMOs do or don't do? No other MMOs are combining a computer game with a console game...does that mean CCP shouldn't?
I liked the idea of treating it like a DUI. I also think the mention of it tying into New Eden's history is ideal.
Concord, once notified, can put someone under surveillance. Concord has a drone (similar to a scanner probe) tailing the accused and monitoring what they are doing. If Concord observes a problem, they tell Scotty to prevent that pilot from undocking.
If a pilot is under Concord surveillance and they continue to do what they were, then they become a "suspect" by the new system... After all, that pilot is suspected of doing something illegal (using drones to do their work), then that should be reason to earn a Suspect flag.
Some of this only matters in high sec....but null sec should be policing their own. Preventing undocking should still work there though.
Only when someone has a POS would it make a difference...so that will still need addressing. Loss of skills to fly stuff (i.e. a Brain Clamp) would work....even if they are in it, they forget how to use it.
--Tork. CEO and Herder of Cats. |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:20:00 -
[424] - Quote
Anshio Tamark wrote:Shepard Book wrote: I am not sure if you watched the wardec video from Fanfest and that prompted you to ask this or not but I invite you to see what is be proposed there. Basically its a branding system of people dropping corps to avoid wardecs. During the Q/A portion it was asked why would you brand a corp jumper but not a botter. It sounded to me like a good suggestion for both cheaters. How about a full-fledged branding-system? Anyone who is undesirable should be branded as such. Bot-miners, Bot-missioners, Corp Jumpers, Corp Thieves and Corp Gankers are all examples of undesirable people. Let CEOs know what kind of people are applying to join them. I honestly don't think CEOs are very interested in hiring a pilot, who then turns out to be a Corp Thief, or even worse, a Corp Ganker. Of course, there should be some kind of measure in place to prevent players from abusing this just to grief someone they don't like.
While I don't approve of flagging someone for doing legal-in-game things... perhaps it could be turned into a huge ISK sink to flag someone as such a character and another to run the background.
(Talking about the thief/ganking/hopper, etc) We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Cpt Syrinx
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:20:00 -
[425] - Quote
I havent read the entire thread, just skimmed the bits up to Sreegs' last post, call me lazy - I actually really don't have the time. So, I may be rambling about something already discussed, but this is something I feel so strongly about to at least take the effort to bring it across. Even though I'm about to take an eve vacation for the period this discussion matters most, since the latest news about this subject makes me expectant that the RMT issue will be a lot less profound by the time I have time for hobbies again.
To get to the point...
There SHOULD be some indication that action has been taken against a character's account on grounds of game-destructive behaviour such as botting, and it SHOULD be visible to all.
Why? Not for reasons of revenge. Not for reasons of inciting shame. Not in a feeble attempt to change the perpetrator's behaviour for the better. I do not care about these people.
I care about me. Also, to a lesser extent (this is EVE after all), about the other people that are not risking damage to this game for their own betterment.
I feel that we 'normal' players have a justifiable entitlement to the information required to shield ourselves from these people: I want the ability to avoid business with them, I want the ability to avoid conflict with them. I want the information required to utterly and completely avoid ALL INTERACTION with these people. If I were crazy enough to feel tainted by their very presence in the same system as myself, I would still be entitled to the information required to decide to get the hell out.
If we do not know, if we befriend these people and, for instance, loan them isk or assets, we get involved involuntarily!
The effect that these people can have on those they interact with can potentially be so profound, we need to know. Deceit is integral to EVE, but the deceit must remain contained within EVE and the meta game. A drastic permanent mark on these people would not be interfering with the meta game, as RMT has no place there either. You can not remove these people from our game experience entirely - you can reason that, due to the sandbox, we are also entitled to our chances to play with fire.
But RMTers have crossed the boundary of the sandbox, we should be able to know, all of us.
As with all drastic policy changes: Announce widely, then apply the mark to those that transgress despite the policy change only. While the reasons I stated above are valid for 'old cases', there is one major problem with retroactive marks on RMTers: People have already been involved with them involuntarily, either directly or by affiliation. That does **** with the metagame while still in the sandbox. Can't have that. |
Andrev Nox
SOMER Blink Cognitive Development
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:26:00 -
[426] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
Firstly - I applaud the change of confiscating botted ISK along with the RMT stuff. It is excellent (even necessary) for game health and I am fully behind it.
Speaking as a part of a player run gambling service, however - the inability for us to know who the "risky" players are means we risk allowing them to use dirty isk to gamble on our service, pay out prizes to them, then have their dirty isk confiscated. Without some type of flag showing that a character has been punished for engaging in this type of behavior, we have no way of pre-emptively preventing them from using our service - and thus no way to protect ourselves from being used as a method for them to trade dirty isk for clean ships, with us taking the bullet from the dirty isk deduction.
We go to lengths to make the service unattractive to this type of player - isk and prizes are ONLY paid to the character who won them, no balance transfers out of game, or alt depositing. If this information were made public (ideally in the public API for a character as well as in game), we could go one step further to prevent these types of players from joining our service. Somer Blink - The original microlottery site. |
Shar Tegral
139
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:28:00 -
[427] - Quote
This thread is going to get very long so I doubt if you, Sreegs, will get to read this however here goes:
I have interacted with all kinds in Eve. From saints to sinners, from miners to pirates. However in every case, no matter how venal or virtuous the in game actions of the player each one maintained the minimum level of ethics. The minimum level of ethics, the barrier between good player and bad player is the EULA. Now, I do not doubt that mixed in that motley crew of misbegotten individuals there might have been a malefactor or three. However if I had any inkling there of I would have immediately and brutally ended any relationship I had with them.
In fact, during my time as Editor at Eve Guardian we in fact did find out that one of our reporters was purchasing ISK via RMT. He was summarily dismissed and I contacted CCP directly about our obligations as far as reporting "known" RMT activity. Fortunately there were no financial or any other in game connections to be had with this player but what if it had? This is why Name and Shame serves to the player base. Not as a deterrent, though it is a good one, but as protection from unsuspecting innocent bystanders... errr... victims depending on circumstances.
I would say, in the most strongest terms, you owe me the names so that I may protect myself. Far better than me having to plead with you that I really wasn't involved, that I wasn't connected, and please oh please can I have stuff/account back. By not naming and shaming: You put me, my efforts, and my investment in your product totally at risk. |
Mathis Athins
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:31:00 -
[428] - Quote
I previously played another game that became heavily bot infested. As part of a legit community we fought for quite along time against the botters, basically taking and holding control over a server for a couple of years. We eventually gave up as the game just simply became to much of a grind to legibly do and just left for greener pastures. (To make it clear here the Company that ran the game didn't really seem to care about botters, and eventually the entire game became botters.)
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that there are groups who would like to be able to identify those who are botters and prevent them from joining their communities (Corp/Alliance). |
Freelancer117
Obsidian Tigers
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:31:00 -
[429] - Quote
Scarlett Letters ?
Yes Plz Ma'aM
keeping your corporations clean of spies and thiefs is hard enough,
anything that helps to not have RMT or Botter in there because of a flag helps alot.
Flag should be active at 2nd warning imho, 1st warning you said alot didn't go back to their evil ways |
Mer Flenaly
Wrecking Shots Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:36:00 -
[430] - Quote
I think its a great idea... mark the targets.. let the eve community force additional social pressures on these fools. |
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:37:00 -
[431] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
Identifying a character nailed for botting basically puts a giant bullseye on them in local. If I see them in a belt, mining (for instance), I would be far more likely to flip their can and cause them trouble (as it would be more likely that they were still botting and thus an easy target for stuff like that). If they have reformed, and no longer bot, they would respond rationally like a human, and not fall for tricks that would fool a bot. At which point, I would continue on my way happy for their souls.
|
Sjet Anasazi
The Green Cross Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:38:00 -
[432] - Quote
1) Remove CONCORD protection 2) Mark them ingame so we know who they are 3) Make locator agents keep a real time list of their locations 4) Let us the players sort them out |
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team
412
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:43:00 -
[433] - Quote
There's another game I play every so often (All Points Bulletin: Reloaded) and they do naming and shaming for different types of "botting." What people seem to do, in that game (which is sort of also a sandbox), is they'll gather on the forums, when names are released and they'll create a massive thread in order to make fun of each person who they recognize. And then, of course, whenever the ban is lifted on any of those accounts, they're made fun of whenever someone recognizes them ingame.
Although, the APB community is slightly different compared to the EVE community.
Fly Safe, Die Hard
|
Proud Blackman
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:08:00 -
[434] - Quote
Maybe I'm a terrible person, but I don't really see the whole point of the scarlet letter concept. It just sounds like something for whiny people to use against other whiny people. There really is no valid reason for it. |
Te Tumatauenga
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:08:00 -
[435] - Quote
I for one can't wait to get my scarlet letter. They're the new monocle, except instead of proving you've more isk than sense it proves you're a bonafide no honore cheater. What would be the minimum I'd have to RMT to acquire such wonderful bling? |
Dendrin Koljn
NecTech
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:19:00 -
[436] - Quote
/error |
Angel HUNG
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:24:00 -
[437] - Quote
I want them. If you don't want a red letter, biomass, and start over.
"You made your bed." |
Blade M Howser
0........0 -Silicon Heaven-
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:26:00 -
[438] - Quote
I vote YES to making isk buyers and sellers names public ..if your running a corp that doesn't want scammers in it we need to know who plays illegally in rl more than likely they will also play a shady character in game. here is a solution to making more players stay legit .
ccp needs to provide a solution for players that buy isk to buy it legally at a cheaper price. lower the price of plex here's a example -my monthly sub fee is $14.95 month the price to buy a plex (30 days game time) is $19.95 us/ i would never buy isk with real money but people who wish to fatten their wallet don't want to pay extra $4.00 for the option of selling a month sub for 490 million isk. that's the reason idiots buy isk illegally to save them a few extra dollars put a flat rate of $14.95 for 1 plex
ban the hell out of isk farmers ,make the one who bought their isk illegally suffer in game, reward the ones who play by the rules |
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:27:00 -
[439] - Quote
Personally I would not send letterrs with the names. Most of the large alliances honestly don't care about members botting.
What would be interesting is, if they receive some kind of ingame punishment. For example concord stops protecting these players for a time in highsec.
Or in 0.0 when a botter logs off while being in space, his ship stays were it is, without despawn. |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
453
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:29:00 -
[440] - Quote
instead of the killing of assets, make player event where we the players are officially at war with the bots that are "banned"
do it in a random highsec system and announce it any way you see fit force spawn the bots in all their assets players then have a turkey shoot, make it so they can't fire, but we can
its highsec so shooting nonbots = concord bots lose assets players get lols news worthy events about bots getting killed repeatedly. all the bots isk itself can be taken later. |
|
Dierdra Vaal
Veto. Veto Corp
164
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:31:00 -
[441] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.
This is true, but there are plenty of larger corps too. A solution would be for anyone with the role 'personell officer' (or whichever role is the one that allows you to accept applications) would be able to see Scarlet Letters of applicants. Since CEOs also have this role (since a CEO has all roles), it doesnt change anything for tiny corps, but it means you don't make the life of CEOs of mid-large size corps a living hell.
I think, especially in the light that assets do get seized, it is important that corporations can see if the people they recruit haven't been caught botting in the past. This is the main reason for somehow making that scarlet letter visible.
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
Ibeau Renoir
Colonial Fleet Services Independent Faction
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:37:00 -
[442] - 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. That's why making the scarlet letter go away after some period of good behaviour is the right thing to do (assuming the scarlet letter is a good idea in the first place, which I'm not convinced of). For a RL example, see the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: if you apply for a job and the employer asks if you have convictions, you have to disclose them all, except ones that are "spent" because they happened a long time ago.
CCP Sreegs wrote:Benilopax wrote:You do something bad there are consequences, as long as it's made clear to people beforehand I say do it. This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense. I understand what you mean. To put it in other terms:
Corp jumping is something that happens entirely within the sandbox. Linking war and employment history to show corp jumping is changing the nature of the sandbox, and that's what CCP devs do.
Botting is a form of metagaming, and it and RMT inherently straddle the boundary between the sandbox and RL. CCP flagging accounts as botters in some way that's visible to other players is CCP putting its hand in and stirring the sandbox about a bit without changing its nature, only its content. And CCP's philosophy is to refrain from doing that as far as possible. Ceci n'est pas un sig. |
Obadiah Snooks
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:39:00 -
[443] - Quote
Deviana Sevidon wrote:Personally I would not send letterrs with the names. Most of the large alliances honestly don't care about members botting. What would be interesting is, if they receive some kind of ingame punishment. For example concord stops protecting these players for a time in highsec. Or in 0.0 when a botter logs off while being in space, his ship stays were it is, without despawn. Before our directors just basically said don't do it. Some people were pretty blatant about it, but with 8000+ members, it's almost impossible for the directors to do their jobs and babysit/police all the discussions going on.
Quote:Greetings,
I come to announce a change in GSF policy. Effective immediately any discussion in jabber or on the forums that encourages players to violate the EVE Online EULA or TOS is forbidden. For clarity, some of the things this would include are: - Real Money Trading (RMT) which includes any real currently for ISK transaction as well as the buying and selling of characters or in-game assets for real currency. - Botting, macros and other systems that automate repetitive tasks within EVE that have not been explicitly permitted by CCP.
Things that are NOT included in this are: - The buying and selling of PLEX, GTCs and Accounts for ISK so long as they are done within CCP's guidelines. - The use of any application or tool that has been sanctioned by CCP or relies on sanctioned methods of data retrieval (EVEMon, GTS, etc)
These lists are obviously not exhaustive. Violations may result in anything ranging from the revocation of your posting abilities to your removal and banning from the GSF. Our team finally built the necessary filters to search for this stuff. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:50:00 -
[444] - Quote
Cpt Syrinx wrote:There SHOULD be some indication that action has been taken against a character's account on grounds of game-destructive behavior such as botting, and it SHOULD be visible to all.
Why? Not for reasons of revenge. Not for reasons of inciting shame. Not in a feeble attempt to change the perpetrator's behavior for the better. I do not care about these people.
I care about me. Also, to a lesser extent (this is EVE after all), about the other people that are not risking damage to this game for their own betterment.
I feel that we 'normal' players have a justifiable entitlement to the information required to shield ourselves from these people: I want the ability to avoid business with them, I want the ability to avoid conflict with them. I want the information required to utterly and completely avoid ALL INTERACTION with these people. If I were crazy enough to feel tainted by their very presence in the same system as myself, I would still be entitled to the information required to decide to get the hell out.
I highly disagree. The motivating factor for everyone I've talked to, (real life non-goon friends), is to name and shame people. Basically they want to hold it over people's heads. They want tears. They want to use it as leverage in forums arguments.
You are playing CCP's game. You aren't really entitled to more information than they feel like giving.
CCP knows who is destroying the game, and they in turn are destroying those people without mercy. When I say without mercy, I mean they are hitting everybody. I found out a guy that loaned me isk (I repaid), is actually a dirty RMT/Isk seller. (I've only been playing 5months) Do I get a scarlet letter for transacting him? I hope not.
CCP Sreegs is doing an excellent job to break habits by going after ISK and Assets. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:03:00 -
[445] - Quote
An interesting idea might be to add a botting corp to their corp history. That way, it's easy to spot, hopefully easy to implement from your perspective. Also easy to figure out how long that transfer ban lasts.
I will also point out that people come and leave eve frequently, I think it's a bad idea to say 'never' on any of this ****. Just because people's lives and minds change, give them a reason to get back involved in the game. You want to punish them on a more permanent way rather than a permaban? SP loss is awesome for that. No way they can recover that. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:06:00 -
[446] - Quote
i personally belive its a good idea to have them flagged as botters. It helps other players identify this people for possible future infrigments aswell as it puts pressure on the botter to maintain a straight game sence. Also it creates drama that can lead into conflict because of it. Not to mention all the funny comments to all those botters that will be passed on. It should have similar text like in a bounty but say "Botter" or pehaps a small "broken heart" image on it , that way people will always ask him where did he get the broken heart in his avatar from! |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1451
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:08:00 -
[447] - Quote
Not a half bad idea. Instead of banning bots, place all bots in a single corp that they are unable to leave. Allow players to wardec said corp and handle it themselves.
I still like the idea of putting bounties on bots ships so they act like rats when it comes to income. Lets go bot hunting and make some isk! Whooo! EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:18:00 -
[448] - Quote
rofl! put the botters in a corp they cant leave! omg that would be helarious.....I can see that corp been wardecked 365 days a year just for pure laughs Best idea, but you got to put a "broken heart" logo on their avatar picture in the corner, so that everybody asks them about it! XDDDD |
shi no tenshi
Deaths By Angels
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:18:00 -
[449] - Quote
Sorry for being a noob. But whats a Bot? ie what am i looking for to know what a bot is?. Sorry for off topic but had to know |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:21:00 -
[450] - Quote
shi no tenshi wrote:Sorry for being a noob. But whats a Bot? ie what am i looking for to know what a bot is?. Sorry for off topic but had to know people use third party hacks to cheat in game. It automatically mines or rats or market/trade hack. |
|
Wille Sanara
Felador night Corp
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:27:00 -
[451] - Quote
Ban them all, we want our sandbox without botters and RMT! Thats pretty much what I wanted to say... |
Katja Faith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:27:00 -
[452] - Quote
I personally see zero point in doing so, much in the same way that banning the disgraced lawyer was: he has multiple toons across multiple accounts, so he just continues his game. Same with botters. Irrevocably deleting the entire account (not just barring the single toon) has more of an effect, albeit a minor one. But will that stop someone in the Drone Regions?
Hardly. |
Bibosikus
Inside out. The G0dfathers
96
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:32:00 -
[453] - Quote
Botting is against the EULA.
Ban the accounts. FFS, they've had enough warnings by now both in-game and out.
Then name them so we can at least take them off the "possible war targets" contact lists..
EDIT: Or - Putting then in a corp of their own is a nice idea - as long as they can't use cloaks... The box said "Requires Windows-á2000 or better", so I installed Linux. |
Dangus Kahn
EdgeGamers Dark Taboo
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:53:00 -
[454] - Quote
Why not just give kill rights with the scarlet letter? So anybody can pop bots without repercussion. It may lighten the work load for CCP because the player in question would have to end his subscription and nobody would buy his toon. |
Bluestream3
the Goose Flock
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 21:56:00 -
[455] - Quote
To me, that would look very unprofessional. If you find out someone is botting, ban him, and be done with it. The only reason there is for you (CCP) to let them keep playing is because they pay you money, if there are other reasons, please enlighten me. Assume there are two sides here, players just want them gone, but I bet in some ways CCP doesn't. Otherwise they wouldn't get second chances and they wouldn't still be here, would they? I think it's really bad to try to please both sides, or whatever you'd try to accomplish by this.
Why make a problem of what to do with the bots when the real problem is detecting them? |
Grikath
T.E.L.O.G.S.
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:07:00 -
[456] - Quote
I don't think the scarlet letter is needed..
As far as I can see RMT-ers and botters end up with permabans or utterly unplayable accounts. This essentially removes those accounts from the game altogether, so added measures are really superfluous.
|
Moolti
Skadi's Call
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:08:00 -
[457] - Quote
I'm torn on this.
I really do like the idea of scarlet letters. Putting the offenders up on a stackode, and throwing tomatoes. I'd like to know someone is a known offender to not invite them to a corp.
However, I'm fearful that people may assume the lack of a scarlet letter is some sort of positive or clearance that they are above board. Also if it is true the recidivism rate is as low as portrayed, it should only be for a 2nd or 3rd offense. *edited to add: and if someone offends 3 times they should be perma banned instead of a scarlet letter |
Conventia Underking
Underking Family
144
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:14:00 -
[458] - Quote
I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if this idea has been brought up or not. So, here goes:
What if botters got a flag that was only visible through their API? That way, it's not public, but if for any reason they try to join a corp or get audited by someone where there is an existing expectation of providing API access, then this would act as a deterrent without preventing someone from turning into a good guy. It may also make sense to have it be available for corp directors so they could see if their members were botters.
It would be important to include a timestamp of the last instance of botting, which would allow people to benefit from "remaining clean".
This way, the only disincentive to "turning good" is that you can't join a corp or get public funding without people knowing you botted, but at the same time, they could continue playing alone or with people who ultimately, don't care about botting. For God; Salvation is Imperative, but not at the cost of our Humanity!
The Vitoc Problem - Conventia Underking |
ParagonFree
RGSU Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:18:00 -
[459] - Quote
yes |
Bawsk
Celestial Mayhem PROJECT MAYH3M
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:27:00 -
[460] - Quote
I would allow char's with scarlet letters into my corp......... So I could awox them at the first possible chance
I am for the naming and shaming on the first offense with some additional turns. Make the scarlet letter (visable on character portrait) last for only 6 months Unless (and this makes the assumption that most botters plex up their accounts) They update their account to a minimum 3 month paid subscription by creditcard, then the scarlet letter goes away.
-The ones that can be turned into goodguys will start paying for their subscription like the average player. The hardcore botters will not, and continue to plex up.
-CCP gets more money to fight botters (hopefully you can direct this cash towards your department )
-Creditcard info becomes attached to the account, possibly allowing you to see if they have any other accounts, and possibly track them better should they "relapse"
2nd offense: scarlet letter for a year, attachment to their api details, and no way to remove it.
on another note
The interdiction nullifier on the botting Tengu seems to be the bane of the bott hunter lately. Anyone have a way of catching these bastards?
and p.s. Make a twiter account CCP Sreegs, so we can follow you :) |
|
InstinctE17
Avant-Garde Monastery G00DFELLAS
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:36:00 -
[461] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote: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.
Edit: Being an oldbee I am very rusted in my ways. Since not long ago character transfers of flagged people isn't possible anymore so that reason has no validation anymore. However the rest in my post stays as it is.
This is one of the reasons i have said many times that when we buy a char, we should have the option to change the name and wipe the corp history. since a new buyer has no ties to the name or history of said char thier is no reason to pay for his mis steps over and over. of course the potential for abuse is great here. however i stand by my point in this matter.
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:44:00 -
[462] - Quote
InstinctE17 wrote:
This is one of the reasons i have said many times that when we buy a char, we should have the option to change the name and wipe the corp history. since a new buyer has no ties to the name or history of said char thier is no reason to pay for his mis steps over and over. of course the potential for abuse is great here. however i stand by my point in this matter.
i disagree cos if i was an offender i can do a ficticious buy of character just to clean it. The potential for abuse its even higher. This is without even concidering thievery and the many other reasons why would sanatise it. |
wettowelreactor
WettCorp
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 22:47:00 -
[463] - Quote
Instead of making things public have the NPC's deal with it. Charge known botters more for insurance, clones, station servies, ect... A cheaters tax if you will. This acts as a deterrent without the consequences of a public tagging. After a period of good behavior these fees coud be removed. |
Verite Rendition
F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
109
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 23:06:00 -
[464] - 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?"
In short, covering my butt by not doing business with them. Since people who do business with RMTers are at risk of having their assets seized for supporting the RMTers, I'd like to stay as far away from them as possible.
I expect the recidivism rate to be quite high here. |
G0hme
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 23:10:00 -
[465] - Quote
I vuv you CCP Sreegs !!!! Buying a plex in your honor! |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
176
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 23:25:00 -
[466] - Quote
Because as a player that has mined im tired of being seen alongside botters.
Because it gives anti botters the chance to gank someone thats botted for sure, rather then someone they are guessing is botting.
Because mining corps dont want botters in their corp risking their stuff.
Because botting punishments should go beyond fair, and be extremely harsh.
Because becoming a "good guy" for a bot is as simply as logging in their mains.
Because training a L3 will do mining alt is too easy, making bots replaceable.
Because almost every Eve player in the game wants it.
Because mission tengu bots are also fairly quick to replace, and will become easier soonTM with tree changes.
Because botting pisses most players off, why can't toss alittle fire back? |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
254
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 23:45:00 -
[467] - Quote
I am also of the zero tolerance family, disgruntled that my hard earned isk is becoming less valuable while people are botting left and right. However, I want to stay out of this debate except to say that I applaud that CCP is willing to discuss this openly. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
ICU Andshutup
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 00:01:00 -
[468] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Benilopax wrote: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. This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense.
TBH botters go in knowing with forethought that they are in contravention of the EULA and make a conscious decision not to care. Assigning a scarlet letter then for ALL those caught is more than justified, as long as the investigation is fair and guilt can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If, at a later date, the player amends his/her ways and sufficient time has passed, a pardon could be applied for (much like convicted felons can do today).
|
Cpt Syrinx
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 00:17:00 -
[469] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:Cpt Syrinx wrote:There SHOULD be some indication that action has been taken against a character's account on grounds of game-destructive behavior such as botting, and it SHOULD be visible to all.
Why? Not for reasons of revenge. Not for reasons of inciting shame. Not in a feeble attempt to change the perpetrator's behavior for the better. I do not care about these people.
I care about me. Also, to a lesser extent (this is EVE after all), about the other people that are not risking damage to this game for their own betterment.
I feel that we 'normal' players have a justifiable entitlement to the information required to shield ourselves from these people: I want the ability to avoid business with them, I want the ability to avoid conflict with them. I want the information required to utterly and completely avoid ALL INTERACTION with these people. If I were crazy enough to feel tainted by their very presence in the same system as myself, I would still be entitled to the information required to decide to get the hell out.
I highly disagree. The motivating factor for everyone I've talked to, (real life non-goon friends), is to name and shame people. Basically they want to hold it over people's heads. They want tears. They want to use it as leverage in forums arguments. You are playing CCP's game. You aren't really entitled to more information than they feel like giving. CCP knows who is destroying the game, and they in turn are destroying those people without mercy. When I say without mercy, I mean they are hitting everybody. I found out a guy that loaned me isk (I repaid), is actually a dirty RMT/Isk seller. (I've only been playing 5months) Do I get a scarlet letter for transacting him? I hope not. CCP Sreegs is doing an excellent job to break habits by going after ISK and Assets.
I think my reasoning didnt come across, since it is mostly in line with the last bit you mention here.
I argue that we need the information to protect ourselves, to avoid inadvertent involvement in their activities, either directly or by affiliation. This goes from whole alliances getting reputations of condoning botting, to single players getting negative wallets due to dirty isk involvement.
The word 'entitled', I have chosen on purpose. While its meaning in a forum is diluted by its use to shun badposters (often rightly so tbh), in this case its intended to address the causal relation that our exposure to these people merits information to know them for what they are in our own defence. That people want to know for basic motivations of naming and shaming does not invalidate my argument, I feel. The need to know remains regardless, monkey motivations or not.
Cpt Syrinx wrote:If we do not know, if we befriend these people and, for instance, loan them isk or assets, we get involved involuntarily!
^^ key point left out of the above quote |
McDarila
Lost Society Get Off My Lawn
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 00:24:00 -
[470] - Quote
The real effect is allowing a corp/alliance to see that a person is abotter before they are allowed in. This is critical in 0.0 space as this could cause the loss of captial ships, large corp assets and ability of the player to direct the payments of corp/alliance bills. Example A alliance executor corp's ceo is ban for boting for 30 days. All the sov bills dont get paid. It have the effect of what happen to BoB when goon's took them out.
I personaly dont want a botter near our corp/alliance. |
|
Hroya
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 00:28:00 -
[471] - Quote
The protection you seek with the scarlet letter so you dont do bussiness with such people can be avoided by just banning them right away.
You are perma banned if you stole from ccp, but when someone steals from your eve experience you are offered the option to be their vengefull agent. Like you dont have other things to do in the game.
I dont need to know their names, know what alliance they were part off or what country they came from. Just toss em out of the airlock.
CCP is a bussiness and wants to make money, promoting their plexes and battle the rmt. rightfully so. Now show the same tenacity in your actions against people that willfully stole from your customers.
You go your corridor but. |
engjin
The Konvergent League Sanctuary Pact
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 00:35:00 -
[472] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.Are you talking about applying the "Scarlet letter" to the account or the character used to bot? "Casual" botters rarely bot with their mains - heck, they usually use a seperate account anyway so far as I am aware. Can you produce stats that would indicate that the concern you are raising is numerically significant? I agree that a scarlet letter applied to a specific character - one which is now locked into that account - is likely to lead to the character being biomassed, but I'm not convinced that this would be "fatal" to the player involved. If someone has no more involvement with EVE than to bot, then good riddance to them. If the player is involved in actual gameplay, then they'll switch to some other method of generating income (hopefully an EULA-compliant one). The main benefit to we the players of "scarlet letters" is to be able to unambiguously identify botters, and those organisations that tolerate or even cater to them.
Sreegs, when I saw your presentation at fanfest I was imagining what this forum thread would look like and it looks completely opposite of what I expected. From what you said at the presentation and your body language there I think you would agree.
I'm very surprised at how much slack people are giving to dirtbags that cheat. How they are coming up with reasons why it won't work or try to come up with alternatives to sidestep it altogether. I think the real resistance comes from the point that Malcanis makes. That that flagged toons in corps and alliances will be out there for everyone to see. Pointing out who actually allows it to happen, tolerate it and perhaps practice what they preach in the endless discussions about this that have occurred over the years in the forums. Trying to avoid that guilt by association? In Eve epic ganks, sabotage, scamming, cheating people out of supers are all labels of honor and rep for players, corps and alliances that perpetuate them. However associate the dirty words 'botter' or 'RMTer' to them and eHonor is doomed. Maybe there is something to the idea...
|
Thabiso
Merchants of the Golden Goose
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 01:01:00 -
[473] - Quote
@Sreegs: Any chance of you publishing white papers on the technology/algorithms you use for detection?
Had a nice sit down with Dr. Christian Thurau from Gameanalytics the other day, he has done a lot of work on human detection - got me a bit "turned on" the subject :-)
Also, if one happened to stop by Iceland at some point, does CCP (you ;-) ) give guided tours with free alcohol? |
Kallen Brack
Smokedancers
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 02:00:00 -
[474] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
DISCUSS!
:)
Sreegs,
I'd like to reframe the "scarlet letter" idea in this way:
Do you want CCP to be the sole enforcer of botting rules, or do you want the community to be part of that enforcement?
If you want CCP to be the sole enforcer, then the scarlet letter makes no sense.
If you want the community to participate in the enforcement of the botting rules, then the community needs transparency as to who is botting, and the scarlet letter is probably the best tool for providing that transparency.
--Kallen |
Eno Lacigol
Roomwraiths
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 02:24:00 -
[475] - Quote
I was banned for botting in the recent wave of bannings, despite never using a bot. It's really messed up that because of a GM who is to incompetent to tell the difference between an afk domi with drones out and a bot, that I'm out 15 days on my two accounts and a mark against me I did not earn. |
Aluchem
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 02:38:00 -
[476] - Quote
Speaking as a recruiter, it would be a big help to avoid getting these people in my corp. |
Im Super Gay
Hedion University Amarr Empire
38
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 02:49:00 -
[477] - Quote
Eno Lacigol wrote:I was banned for botting in the recent wave of bannings, despite never using a bot. It's really messed up that because of a GM who is to incompetent to tell the difference between an afk domi with drones out and a bot, that I'm out 15 days on my two accounts and a mark against me I did not earn. I smell a liar trying to play the false positive card. |
Malkev
GRUMPS RESEARCH TEAM
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 02:55:00 -
[478] - Quote
I would just prefer they get permabanned after their second violation, then we wouldn't have to worry about this silly Scarlet letter business.
There's an old saying in Tennessee...I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me......you can't get fooled again. |
Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 02:58:00 -
[479] - Quote
Seems to me a Scarlet Letter of Botterhood would open niches for organizations that want to recruit botters.
(a) In the Real World, Alcoholics Anonymous recruits only alcoholics, for the purpose of helping them get and stay sober.
(b) In the Real World, some criminal gangs accept only members who have been convicted of violent crimes.
Do CCP want to do that?
If the SLoB were visible only to Corp recruiters, and a third-party site undertook to collect SLoB reports from Corp recruiters, and publish them, would there be a problem of false SLoB reporting to the third-party site?
|
Eno Lacigol
Roomwraiths
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 03:05:00 -
[480] - Quote
Im Super Gay wrote:Eno Lacigol wrote:I was banned for botting in the recent wave of bannings, despite never using a bot. It's really messed up that because of a GM who is to incompetent to tell the difference between an afk domi with drones out and a bot, that I'm out 15 days on my two accounts and a mark against me I did not earn. I smell a liar trying to play the false positive card. There is nothing I can do or say to prove my innocence to you. If I was in your situation and you were in mine, I'd say the same thing. I know I'm innocent though, and I pisses me off that CCP won't give my case more than 2 generic copy paste reply s more or less telling me to **** off. If repping sentry drones that are set to aggressive while sitting in an area were rats spawn ins against the TOS they need to communicate this. Otherwise they need to reimburse me for the time lost from the ban. |
|
Machater
Regina's Wolves
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 03:12:00 -
[481] - Quote
So the purpose of a "Scarlet Letter" is to essentially make the game unplayable for those who earn it. Sure they can play, but we all want to know who they are so we can keep them from really playing Eve.
So why not just ban those people? If we are going to make the game nearly impossible to enjoy those players will just stick around to cause more trouble.
Ban them, or if that is too extreme for this stage, delete their character. They can still play the game but they lose that SP. |
Sri Nova
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 03:25:00 -
[482] - Quote
Lets make removing bots a player activity of eve.
since you can already detect the bots build in a system that allows the players to enforce the no bottling policy.
implement a system that strips bots of their concord protection .
implement a system that enable players to search a list of known boters through out the eve universe. (ala agents maybe)
this would make bot hunting a viable profession in eve and provide more pew pew.
after a set amount of time the bot is banned per normal.
|
Vetorept Fera
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 03:30:00 -
[483] - Quote
I think it would give a lot of insight into null sec alliances. In pace requiescat |
Eezee Gonozal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 03:38:00 -
[484] - Quote
Im Super Gay wrote:Eno Lacigol wrote:I was banned for botting in the recent wave of bannings, despite never using a bot. It's really messed up that because of a GM who is to incompetent to tell the difference between an afk domi with drones out and a bot, that I'm out 15 days on my two accounts and a mark against me I did not earn. I smell a liar trying to play the false positive card.
There is more than one occurrence where people with Ishtars get banned, even though they don't had any bot running. |
Eezee Gonozal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 03:48:00 -
[485] - Quote
Doctor Eezee wrote:So I just skimmed over the thread, because I couldn't really be bothered to actually read 17 pages of the same bad arguments.
Somehow people actually think that people with the "Scarlet Letter" will actually continue to use that character. People will just quit the game. CCP will lose money and the players haven't actually gained anything, because 92% of first time offenders never do anything again. And the guys who actually should be banned, the "hardcore botters", will just buy another Tengu char, because 6b is not that much and people will always find ways to hide their isk somewhere.
I'm pretty sure that at most 1/10th of the guys in here have actually watched the presentation, otherwise they wouldn't make these suggestions.
Also I want to quote this totally random dude I have no relation with. The only answer this totally random post got was: "Of course goons are against it". Despite what people might think we are not a giant alliance of Botters *gasp*. I'm sure we have some botters in our alliance, but with that many accounts that is kinda unavoidable.
Either Permaban on the first offense or leave it like it is now. |
Brittany Harpoon
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 04:27:00 -
[486] - Quote
Im Super Gay wrote:Eno Lacigol wrote:I was banned for botting in the recent wave of bannings, despite never using a bot. It's really messed up that because of a GM who is to incompetent to tell the difference between an afk domi with drones out and a bot, that I'm out 15 days on my two accounts and a mark against me I did not earn. I smell a liar trying to play the false positive card. Actually sitting afk in an anom letting drones kill NPC's is a banable offence. a few weeks ago someone was complaining about it
So its not a false positive its working as intended.
I do know someone who was a false positive during the RMT bannings, he logged in to find himself negative a bill or so.
Next logged on his wallet was back to normal and an apology from CCP and a plex |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
515
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 05:53:00 -
[487] - Quote
CCP Stillman / Sreggs
Hi and thank you for your continued work. Much appreciated.
How about a check box I can tick in my recruitment section that automagically denies anyone who's been temp banned.
This way, you don't need to put a scarlet letter on anyone, you just kinda disallow them from joining my corp in the first place.
This way, they're not chased with torches and pitchforks across new eden and I still get to keep that element out of my corp.
It's not rocket surgery. |
Lord Orefinger
Real Life Super Heros Inc. Caped Vigilantes
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 06:07:00 -
[488] - Quote
Hello OP. I'm the guy who asked you to let CEO's protect themselves and their corps at the fan-fest.
My thoughts on this still stand; CCP is a small company with a small number of people able to or willing to look into this full time.. let the community self police and let it be known that a CEO, his directors, and his trusted HR people all have the power to keep people with RMT in their blood out of the best corps and social circles in eve due to the fear of CCP spanking everybody they are affiliated with will bring. Or just let us protect ourselves and keep eve, eve-like.
Or just make anybody with the RMT scarlet letter always -10 sec status so anybody who wants to can shoot them.
|
quiet beauty
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 07:06:00 -
[489] - Quote
Why is everyone worried about others seeing that scarlet letter? If you arent botting, you won't have it, so you have nothing to worry about...If you do have dirty plans and history what you did or were doing then you have something to worry...So if you are regular honest player not braking rules that wont effect you at all...And here we are agin...Why wouldn't you put that in game mehanic, if you dont want botters in game anyway? To me it seems quite a good idea and i would just make that letter permament. Keep up the good work CCP |
Suicidal Squirrel
Epic Odyssey Lizard Kings
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 07:19:00 -
[490] - Quote
Hello all I've spent the last 90 minutes of my day reading the first half of the blog- then jumped to the last page just to make sure I wasn't posting completely blindly. If I missed something, then oh well, flame on..
Based on my general observation of what has been posted, I'm reading that we the players need some way to protect ourselves, as individuals, corporations, and alliances from the effects of removing a botter's impact from the economy. Because of the manner that CCP has chosen to penalize botters, I feel that they have the OBLIGATION to the players to ensure that we can protect ourselves
Obviously we want to kick the botters to the curb and biomass the RMT accounts. General consensus is that casual botters generally will stop after an initial warning and that career botters won't stop after any amount of botting. Based on this, I think that CCP should change their suspension policy. I'm suggesting that offenders get banned after two confirmed violations. There is no sense for a third opportunity- if you've been warned once by CCP for botting and get caught again, then toodles, you are not welcome here
A real concern here though is what happens in game to everyone else when the punishment is applied. Flagging a botter to players at any level is wanted, but it would adversely affect the in-game interactions with that person permanently, and in a way feel I feel is appropriate only between CCP and the account holder. I too would love to go on galaxy-wide bot hunting parties, but at the end of the day it only makes ALL players a little more paranoid than they need to be in the EvE universe. On the other hand should someone, be it a market buyer, contract seller, or CEO of a corp or alliance, be penalized by this person's actions if they do not know that CCP considers the player to be a botter
I think what might be a better way to deal with botting is on first strike to make the person's characters ineffective for 15-30 days. The player can log in, but they don't train skills, their shots always cause 0 damage, they can't buy or sell stuff. This is in addition to reducing their wallet by the worth of the isk they gained while botting or RMT. This reduction of ISK could be offset, at CCP's discretion, buy removing the in-game possessions the player directly acquired using those illegal activities. The person is then effectively only good for collecting wrecks and even then can only give them to fleetmates. This would give the player a level of humiliation among his/her immediate peers, but would not carry a permanent, publicly visible flag that they messed up. The player would also have the option to sit out of game for the duration of their suspension. Second time and they're gone anyway. As for external lists, they would not be reliable, as CCP would have provided no verifiable data that the person has been penalized, so it would be hearsay. If it was a botting corp or alliance, they would obviously be hurting if a huge chunk of their members suddenly became unable to do anything for a couple weeks, or the supercaps they bought from RTM suppliers vanished (in addition to their toons becoming nerfed)
The main advantage to this is that mobs, to the extent discouraged by CONCORD, will not go around directly punishing casual botters for any amount of time. It may cause the botter to get tossed from this corp or cause an alliance to split up because of poor decisions by a CEO, but hopefully someone not in any significant position would potentially be able to take their lumps like an adult and learn from it. And as I have said before, if they don't learn they get turned to biomass the second time
If you DO want to have fun, allow botters to login in once after their second 'ban' and make them fair game to everyone in addition to nerfing them, and don't allow them to dock. Also cause any new accounts opened by that client to immediately suffer the same fate. That would be fun
SS
|
|
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
577
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 07:40:00 -
[491] - Quote
Having been a corp director and a recruiter and diplomat/negotiator/trader for several corps I can only agree with the points made that a "Scarlet B (for botter)" is something that can aid in recruiting immensely. Providing that the aim of said corp is to recruit upstanding individuals or even deals in values and "e-honour" or what not.
When large sums of money change hands for all kinds of stuff from supers to minerals nobody knows where that money comes from. If people who deal with botting are marked you can at least avoid them since you can be the victim of repercussions be they accusations of implicitly taking money from botters or even ISK and items that may vanish.
If the person who is rehabilitated does not re-offend the "scarlet B" can fade away (for us) but still be visible by CCP off course in the permanent record.
Another option is to make "the scarlet B" only visible if the player gives out his full API when applying so corps can check for a "mark" but it wouldn't be seen by everyone. That means CEO and directors can exercise some discretion but at least be aware of the problem. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:00:00 -
[492] - Quote
Personally, given the other effects already in place, I think the only effect of a "name and shame" would be to effectively brand the individual. Assuming some form of searchable database were compiled (either by the community or, ideally, in game) they would certainly be blacklisted from my corp and I'm sure from many others. Of course there is the possibility of people with similar names to a banned character being caught in the backlash unless it's linked to other attributes (their portrait, employment history...etc.).
A compromise situation might be to list the regions that those banned for botting were operating in at the time of the ban - it would allow the "that's 'x' Alliance space! I knew they harboured bots!" and "Yeah, that crew who've been raping belts next door are 'x' percent of this region's bans, and I reported them." without, as suugested, a "disincentive to becoming a good guy".
Increasing awareness of things like the character transfer block and its permanency is probably more important, the number of speculations I've seen regarding (for example) the number of mining characters available in the character bazaar and its relation to recent ban-waves highlights that there is room for improvement in that regard. And making it broader than the forums and the dev blogs is essential.
|
Sedilis
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:05:00 -
[493] - Quote
As a CEO and Alliance leader I would like to have the option to see if applicants or members have received a ban (maybe just in the last year). Its not to say I would exclude everyone who had but they would be questioned thoroughly to try and ensure they had mended their ways and be watched more closely . I do not want people cheating in my alliance - there is just no need for it unless you are terrible at Eve in which case GTFO. |
Zalifer Esepula
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:14:00 -
[494] - Quote
I didnt bother reading the whole thread, so this may have been suggested. I don't have the CCP dev skill of forum skimming.
Botting is a three strikes operation.
make it as such.
1st Offence : A warning, and removal of ISK and Assets.
2nd Offence : As above + Scarlet Letter
3rd Offence : As above + banned.
This deals with people who didn't know properly about botting (I recently stopped a friend from getting into it, he didn't know it was wrong), and only removes the gains from it. The scarlet letter on the second offence is made clear to people on their first offence, and they then know the risk. Might help drive down that 8% re-offender number that was quoted.
Perhaps the scarlet letter can be implemented so that corps can set it to auto - kick people with it, and Alliances can be set to auto kick corps that don't have that option set, and then end up with someone with the scarlet letter. Then again, perhaps that is too far, but these people by the time they get the scarlet letter have shown a willingness to ignore the rules, even after a warning and having assets removed,
Finally, if you wanted to make the scarlet letter time based, so that perhaps it dissapears, or becomes less visible (only in detailed looks at a players profile, instead of on their portrait or whatever). |
DeBingJos
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
204
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:54:00 -
[495] - Quote
I'll give you a very simple reason to include some kind of very visible marker to a botter/RMT'er.
You want to take back all the isk/assets related to the botter?
Fine, but then I want a tool to see if the stuff/isk I'm trading with someone is likely to be taken away by CCP.
Fix FW ! |
Stragak
Mangi Consilii S E D I T I O N
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 08:57:00 -
[496] - Quote
I personally liked the idea of at least the corp the person is in to let it be publicly known so we can police ourselves a little and keep tabs on them. So if they do bot a corp mate knows that they do have a history of it and can kick them or my personal favorite blow them up then kick them for doing it again and making a bad name for the corp. Nobody cares about your plans to be dirty hippies. goon (n)-áthefreedictionary A thug hired to intimidate or harm opponents A stupid or oafish person.
|
Aunt Tom
Dark Voodoo Cult Red Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:13:00 -
[497] - Quote
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?" :) Yes. Moreover i want to be able to identify that character is permabanned for botting (just to not waste time for locating the moved bot-farm if it ts moved to hell) |
Shadowsword
The Scope Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:22:00 -
[498] - Quote
I'm in favor of doing it, for several reasons:
- Cheating should have lasting consequences, and stoppping after being caught once or twice doesn't have any really signifiant one.
- If someone bought isks, and by doing so implicitely supported bots and account hackers, I do not want him in my game. I do not want to relate with him in any way, shape or form, regardless of how long ago it was.
- There are currently a lot of accusations being flung around, with basically every major alliance being repeatedly accused of harboring major RMT operations. So much mud flying that it's becoming hard to determine where there's reaosonnnable supsicion and where's there's only slander. A public list would ease up a lot on the false mud-throwing, and put strong pressure on the real RMT-friendly individuals. |
Eno Lacigol
Roomwraiths
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:37:00 -
[499] - Quote
Brittany Harpoon wrote:Im Super Gay wrote:Eno Lacigol wrote:I was banned for botting in the recent wave of bannings, despite never using a bot. It's really messed up that because of a GM who is to incompetent to tell the difference between an afk domi with drones out and a bot, that I'm out 15 days on my two accounts and a mark against me I did not earn. I smell a liar trying to play the false positive card. Actually sitting afk in an anom letting drones kill NPC's is a banable offence. a few weeks ago someone was complaining about it So its not a false positive its working as intended. I do know someone who was a false positive during the RMT bannings, he logged in to find himself negative a bill or so. Next logged on his wallet was back to normal and an apology from CCP and a plex Sense when has this been a bannable offense? After getting banned for doing this, my friend petitioned EVE and asked a GM and they said that what I described is perfectly acceptably behavior.
|
Net Malone
MegaTech Enterprises Inver Brass
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:47:00 -
[500] - Quote
Mr. CCP Sreegs of St. CCP Game Development
Realy you are in bigger mess then you see..
[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?"[/quote
It is completly uninteresting ! Only for making jokes of that character... Would be more usefull if you clearly mark scammers to prevent other players from being cheated and deceived. Why you are not interested in preventing scamming ?? You do not see that EVE community is pile of mess ? Local in Jita is ONE BIG SCAMM!! You like this **** ? Actually that ****** individuals was created by allowing them to deceive others. And next, logical step is botting, rmt, exploiting and what you do not like... You ACTIVELY DEVELOPED community where SOCIOPATHY IS community STANDARD !
Fight with THIS ! Fight roots not fruits ! You realy need long term plan for ingame-relationship management and community development ! Actual status is like beteen thiefs in RL: "I can trust you that you will steal from me if you have a chance" - end of relationship chain... Developed by CCP
And one more thing: pirating - your Universe is actually BASED ON THIS ! Militia do not patrol to kill pirates but fight other militia. And actually militians are pirates too. What a idiotic system ! Provi like guard thing is what you should implement into game - by implementing revards do their job and building community. I am aware, that conflict is what makes Eve interesting but you can do something smarter than what actually is... That random misions developed 10 years ago is sad... Create few more regions with mobs powerfull and unbeatable and TA DA ! Real quests requiring thinking ? Thousands and milions ideas can be introduced ! Including RL things like micro-payments..
Once again: marking othere players as botters is less usefull then marking scammers. It is common developers mistake to think all that technical details or what is interesting for share holders is esentially important for players :) Like with the "The Launcher" - it is minnor quirk for players, such details should get off the way of plain gammers. Eg. pleas even DO NOT MENTION anything WWW related until it will include mini-game_client-like-functionality...
Sorry for bying such angry on you but CCP have potential :) and seeing it is wasted is pity
And I personally like dev-full-technical-details-blogs, it is good thing. But not crucial for what ingame is..
N.M.
|
|
Prince Kobol
505
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:49:00 -
[501] - Quote
I would only agree to a scarlet letter if it was given out on the 2nd offence.
For me giving out a scarlet letter on the first offence will effectively make that character unplayable as they will be spammed to hell and back and become a target for all gankers. They will be driven out of the game. You might as well just perma ban them and be done with it.
I understand CCP's position from a business perspective that people do make mistakes and it is a chance to turn a cheat into a paying customer.
|
2D34DLY4U
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:13:00 -
[502] - Quote
Players that get SL'd can do one of two things:
(1) continue cheating, in which case they will quit or sell the char
(2) stop cheating, in which case being SL'd will only exlude them from 99% of group activities
Therefore, SL is useless from both a punishing and a rehabilitation perspective.
The issues related to alternative and not so obvious mechanisms such as using a hidden flag to prevent search results are moot since someone will inevitably assemble a webpage somewhere with a convenient search function no matter how this is implemented.
The issues related to the players self regulating are awesome, but we already have this when people report a player for cheating/botting/rmt so don't see where a SL would further support this unless someone wants to run a corp following and harassing these people around - the few that haven't quit/sold char and are still trying to play...
The best and probably most useful SL is the internal hidden one that prevents a player caught cheating from selling characters.
Everything else is best left hidden, first because there is a huge deterrent effect to undercover operations, second because efforts spent on implementing this are less resources employed catching cheaters, third because in a sense we are gamifying cheating and shouldn't do that since it is not part of the game, last because pointing fingers has historically achieved no other purpose than creating subjugated minorities and this doesn't work when you can opt out of the account/game. |
Zora'e
Nasty Pope
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:55:00 -
[503] - Quote
Zalifer Esepula wrote:I didnt bother reading the whole thread, so this may have been suggested. I don't have the CCP dev skill of forum skimming.
Botting is a three strikes operation.
make it as such.
1st Offence : A warning, and removal of ISK and Assets.
2nd Offence : As above + Scarlet Letter
3rd Offence : As above + banned.
This deals with people who didn't know properly about botting (I recently stopped a friend from getting into it, he didn't know it was wrong), and only removes the gains from it. The scarlet letter on the second offence is made clear to people on their first offence, and they then know the risk. Might help drive down that 8% re-offender number that was quoted.
Perhaps the scarlet letter can be implemented so that corps can set it to auto - kick people with it, and Alliances can be set to auto kick corps that don't have that option set, and then end up with someone with the scarlet letter. Then again, perhaps that is too far, but these people by the time they get the scarlet letter have shown a willingness to ignore the rules, even after a warning and having assets removed,
Finally, if you wanted to make the scarlet letter time based, so that perhaps it dissapears, or becomes less visible (only in detailed looks at a players profile, instead of on their portrait or whatever).
I started writing much the same as your post quoted above. I was a little harsher though. 1st offense 30 day ban + isk and asset removal, wallet placed 10 billion isk negative. 2nd offense same as 1st plus 6 month branding. 3rd offense perma ban across all known accounts associated with the player.
~Z In EVE Online...-á-áA Friend will calm you down when you are angry after getting Ganked.., but a Best Friend will fly along beside you commanding a Strike Group singing "Someones Gonna Get It!!!".-á ~Zora'e |
Fel Regal
lnterBus
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 10:58:00 -
[504] - Quote
How about giving players a Concord standing increase if you kill someone with a Scarlet Letter? Like they were a rat... |
Eelis Kiy
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 12:27:00 -
[505] - Quote
Give their corpses really teeny genitals then plaster their corpses (1 for each billion isk taken back) all over space for us to laugh at.
Or just perma-ban. Seriously people should know better than this by now, there's not really any excuse. Anything else will still be seen as a "badge" by some. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:29:00 -
[506] - Quote
(Crimewatch) Make them a 'Fugitive' - a permanent account-wide Criminal status. Wallets will be debited each day into EVE Central Bank authorized by CONCORD where players can kill them without regret every time and be rewarded by EVE Central Bank, feeding their cheated ISK & AUR back into the economy. Eventually they'll be capitally punished if they fail after depleting their cheated wealth.
- The 'Fugitive' is out-game account-based whereas 'Suspect' and 'Criminal' is in-game character-based. You can always shoot them until the player proves their remorse in writing and gives-up their cheated ISK.
- They are permanent bounties tabbed as 'Fugitives' on the Bounty Office, briefly describing them. Permanent bounties which allows CONCORD to legally discount their Wallet upon each Medical Clone they activate.
- Fugitives will be prompt each week on steps to show their remorse of their actions and respest to CCP, the Community and the game. Having the player do this may 'convert them', which was mentioned at Fanfest.
- After all their cheated ISK & AUR is fed back into the economy, A Fugitive failing to repay & repent will be hunted by CONCORD Spec Ops after all their cheated ISK & AUR is fed back into the economy. They'll be quarantined for imposed Termination (Capital Punishment).
This, to me, seems like an immersive way to bring cheated ISK & AUR back into the player's game economy though I think I'm missing something about PLEXs. |
muhadin
Origin. Black Legion.
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:58:00 -
[507] - Quote
Rimase wrote:(Crimewatch) Make them a 'Fugitive' - a permanent account-wide Criminal status. Wallets will be debited each day into EVE Central Bank authorized by CONCORD where players can kill them without regret every time and be rewarded by EVE Central Bank's 'fugitive pool', feeding all EVE's cheated ISK & AUR back into the economy.
This is something that we want to prevent, because bots farm isk faucets, increasing the flow of raw isk into the economy, thus slowly but surely destabilizing the market. "Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love" |
Amanda Solette
xX Angels Xx
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:09:00 -
[508] - Quote
My opinion is that botters should be marked, labled, or otherwise made publicly known for their crimes
Reasons for this a) Corporations should know if they are recruiting, or have recruited characters found guilty of botting and/or associated with botting. Bots are a supplement to mains, so some other character is still benefiting from the bot. We should know who this is, because why shouldnt be able to be aware if we interact with a criminal, such as the sex offender registry
b) Players will know, without having to figure out and/or guess if a player was botting. If bots are marked, then players wishing to kill only bots will be able to make a cursory glance and punish those individuals further for their devious actions. this might be ganking, or just not interacting with them, or as boring as bumping them away from their destinations :
Now, this is the key to success with this program CCP will have to be absolutely sure of the character being marked, that they are infact guilty of botting, and therfore acting against the EULA, There should be no doubt what so ever as to the guilt of the marked character
It is already listed that characters found guilty of botting will be barred from the Character Bazzar, so we do not have to worry about purchasing a botted Character There were concerns about people being able to removed their marked status, and my answer to that is: There is no reason for this; if a character is marked as a bot, then your stuck with the consequences of your actions. As for the Sex offender registry example used earlier: If you commit the crime, then you will be known for yuor crime for life, why should you be able to hide from this?
Again, this comes back to CCP only marking characters that are guilty without a doubt
Also, as with other criminal offenses here in the real world, give them a benefit of the doubt for the 1st time with only a warning, maybe a few day ban, and a removal of assets and what not. Also you could reduce their security status, meaning that they will have to work their asses off to get back to empire and on the not so bad list again
However, if you are going to do it again, then shame on you. If CCP will not perma-ban you on the 2nd time, then you should be marked for it. Besides if you did it twice, why wont you try a 3rd time
As for anyone who will make the claim that some people are unaware of botting being against the EULA, then to you I say, Learn to Read or otherwise research your decisions. Botting is something that gives you an advantage over people who do not bot. If this were not illegal, then more people would do it and this game would be bots and PVP, therefore it wouldnt be an advantage anymore. If something gives you an advantage, then it is probably a glitch/cheat/ or against EULA or something. Someone else, somewhere else has already thought of it, so if it isnt comonplace, then somehing is wrong about it But anyways, to keep to the point: As summary Marked characters is a good thing for the rest of us. if your against this, then you are a botter and should quit doing it to aleviate those of you criminals that think you will be acused and marked even though what you are doing is wrong, but not botting, there should be a gaurentee that the mark will only be place on characters that have 0% doubt as to their guilt There might also be a warning before the mark for the idiots that for some reason had thought it was ok to bot. however if this is the case, let us all know... maybe we can all try botting 1 time until we get caught
The biggest concern for any of this: WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE CHARACTERS THAT ARE ASSCOCIATED TO BOTS? THE ONES THAT GAIN ALL THE ISK? ARE THEY ALSO BEING ADVERSLY AFFECTED? ATLEAST TAKING THEIR ASSETS? IF THEY HAVE A FLEET OF BOTS WORKING FOR THEM, THEN BANNING A FEW WILL JUST BE A SETBACK TO THEIR GREATER PLAN, SO THE CHARACTER IN QUESTION NEEDS PENALTIES AS WELL, OTHERWISE THE SAME OFFENDERS JUST COME BACK WITH A DIFFERNT NAME
This had to be caps so that it draws the attention to the real problem |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
229
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:15:00 -
[509] - Quote
Fug reading that brain ache (Previous post).
Here
^^ some white space for you. Please apply liberally ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Ken Kyoukan
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:23:00 -
[510] - Quote
My PoV...
Flagging should last for 1 day per qty of isk confirmed as botted.
I see the first flag as being kept reasonably quiet alongside Impounded ISK/Assets to allow further investigation and to allow for any accidental false positives (I would like to assume there were none, but always better to be safe than sorry.), prior to those ISK/Assets being removed from the game.
The second flag being the Scarlet Letter version.. A CEO or Director would automatically have their Corp Member Listing flagged for all of their fellow Corp and Alliance members upon getting the second flag.
Flag: 1a. Personal Character Info (Via NeoCom) shows as Flagged with a warning about future actions. 1b. Applications to Corps flagged for CEO/Directors/Recruiters as potential problem. 1c. Corp Member Listing flagged for that Corps CEO/Directors as potential problem. 1d. Impounded (and then removed) ISK/Assets.
2a. Personal Character Info (Via NeoCom) shows as Flagged with a final warning about being banned. 2b. Applications to Corps flagged. 2c. Corp Member Listing flagged for that Corps(/Alliances at CEO discression) members. 2d. Removed ISK/Asset.
During the second flag timer the following could also apply: 2e. Marked as Wanted (Reason being: Botting, Exploiting, etc.) - Scarlet Letter. 2f. No Concord Protection, upto -10 Sec Status. 2g. Flagged as a Militia target for every Militia.
3. Perma-Banned! |
|
Enuen Ravenseye
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:31:00 -
[511] - Quote
Amanda Solette wrote:We should know who this is, because why shouldnt be able to be aware if we interact with a criminal, such as the sex offender registry.
OK, I hate botters just as much as the next guy and love seeing perma-bans for all involved, but comparing botters to sex offenders might be just a bit over the top, eh? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3247
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:37:00 -
[512] - Quote
Amanda Solette wrote:My opinion is that botters should be marked, labled, or otherwise made publicly known for their crimes
Reasons for this a) Corporations should know if they are recruiting, or have recruited characters found guilty of botting and/or associated with botting. Bots are a supplement to mains, so some other character is still benefiting from the bot. We should know who this is, because why shouldnt be able to be aware if we interact with a criminal, such as the sex offender registry
b) Players will know, without having to figure out and/or guess if a player was botting. If bots are marked, then players wishing to kill only bots will be able to make a cursory glance and punish those individuals further for their devious actions. this might be ganking, or just not interacting with them, or as boring as bumping them away from their destinations :
Now, this is the key to success with this program CCP will have to be absolutely sure of the character being marked, that they are infact guilty of botting, and therfore acting against the EULA, There should be no doubt what so ever as to the guilt of the marked character
It is already listed that characters found guilty of botting will be barred from the Character Bazzar, so we do not have to worry about purchasing a botted Character There were concerns about people being able to removed their marked status, and my answer to that is: There is no reason for this; if a character is marked as a bot, then your stuck with the consequences of your actions. As for the Sex offender registry example used earlier: If you commit the crime, then you will be known for yuor crime for life, why should you be able to hide from this?
Again, this comes back to CCP only marking characters that are guilty without a doubt
Also, as with other criminal offenses here in the real world, give them a benefit of the doubt for the 1st time with only a warning, maybe a few day ban, and a removal of assets and what not. Also you could reduce their security status, meaning that they will have to work their asses off to get back to empire and on the not so bad list again
However, if you are going to do it again, then shame on you. If CCP will not perma-ban you on the 2nd time, then you should be marked for it. Besides if you did it twice, why wont you try a 3rd time
As for anyone who will make the claim that some people are unaware of botting being against the EULA, then to you I say, Learn to Read or otherwise research your decisions. Botting is something that gives you an advantage over people who do not bot. If this were not illegal, then more people would do it and this game would be bots and PVP, therefore it wouldnt be an advantage anymore. If something gives you an advantage, then it is probably a glitch/cheat/ or against EULA or something. Someone else, somewhere else has already thought of it, so if it isnt comonplace, then somehing is wrong about it But anyways, to keep to the point: As summary Marked characters is a good thing for the rest of us. if your against this, then you are a botter and should quit doing it to aleviate those of you criminals that think you will be acused and marked even though what you are doing is wrong, but not botting, there should be a gaurentee that the mark will only be place on characters that have 0% doubt as to their guilt There might also be a warning before the mark for the idiots that for some reason had thought it was ok to bot. however if this is the case, let us all know... maybe we can all try botting 1 time until we get caught
The biggest concern for any of this: WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE CHARACTERS THAT ARE ASSCOCIATED TO BOTS? THE ONES THAT GAIN ALL THE ISK? ARE THEY ALSO BEING ADVERSLY AFFECTED? ATLEAST TAKING THEIR ASSETS? IF THEY HAVE A FLEET OF BOTS WORKING FOR THEM, THEN BANNING A FEW WILL JUST BE A SETBACK TO THEIR GREATER PLAN, SO THE CHARACTER IN QUESTION NEEDS PENALTIES AS WELL, OTHERWISE THE SAME OFFENDERS JUST COME BACK WITH A DIFFERNT NAME
This had to be caps so that it draws the attention to the real problem
I SUGGEST YOU READ CCP SREEGS LATEST BLOG HE ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION VERY SATISFACTORILY Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
501
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:41:00 -
[513] - Quote
Enuen Ravenseye wrote:Amanda Solette wrote:We should know who this is, because why shouldnt be able to be aware if we interact with a criminal, such as the sex offender registry. OK, I hate botters just as much as the next guy and love seeing perma-bans for all involved, but comparing botters to sex offenders might be just a bit over the top, eh?
Not counting how even the worst sex offender can defend themselves and have a judge (sometimes with escalations) decide.
In EvE it's you vs the head chopper whose belief in their tools is total (like they had in Titanic) and their belief in you is zero. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Spacing Cowboy
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
30
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 15:13:00 -
[514] - Quote
Hot pink and pony's is the answer.
After getting un-banned, all ships of offender are hot-pink ( for all to see ) for a , month.
2e offence.. 3 months... ( be creative )
Some my little pony tags in his profile..
That, or a "tag" on your face, like a wanted tag , but then , again in hot-pink. "botlord" . To be removed after a specific timeframe.
|
Spacing Cowboy
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
30
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 15:19:00 -
[515] - Quote
But i really do think, Player justice, best justice
Enrich the gameplay while punishing botter back into a -honest- non cheating capsuleer.
Ccp,give the players the sand, we find a way to clean the catshit out of our sandbox |
Rashmika Clavain
Revelation Space
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 15:59:00 -
[516] - Quote
As much as I'd love to rub one's nose in it, that's all you accomplish. Yeah sure, I'd love to know the "truth" about certain 0.0 alliances, but it's not really going to make any solid difference to my EVE experience.
Just ban them and leave it there.
Graciousness in victory and all that. |
Eri Em
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 16:10:00 -
[517] - Quote
CCP shouldnGÇÖt ban bots but instead flag their accounts as GÇ£BOTGÇ¥ in game. Players that marked as GÇ£BOTGÇ¥ is not protected by CONCORD, so every gankers or anyone else for that matter can KoS.
Create kill board for bots, and issue prices. This way we can get at least some fun in game and get rid of botters.
Let the Witch hunt begin.
|
dragonwrath2k8
Freedom-Technologies The Jagged Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 16:20:00 -
[518] - Quote
The biggest benefit would indeed be for potential CEO's and directors to avoid involvement with those less ethical individuals... but tbh, that would only work if it's a scarlet letter on every single account/character the individual uses. To think that a botter is using their main is somewhat silly... Then again, it seems like the whole 'rehab' concept would only work on those who are not scum, but simply had a period of weakness and thought trying botting would be acceptable. The hardcore botters will simply bio their accounts and start new ones on a different proxy, or (hopefully) leave EVE alone and go back to botting in WoW.
Having said all that, as long as it's something they can earn their way out of, then it can't be a bad thing to at least try it out. If someone will bio the account/char they actually play just because they got a puke/rainbow collored 'B'(please use that ccp) on their portrait, they then probably didn't have the stomach for eve anyway. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 17:25:00 -
[519] - Quote
Eri Em wrote:CCP shouldnGÇÖt ban bots but instead flag their accounts as GÇ£BOTGÇ¥ in game. Players that marked as GÇ£BOTGÇ¥ is not protected by CONCORD, so every gankers or anyone else for that matter can KoS.
Create kill board for bots, and issue prices. This way we can get at least some fun in game and get rid of botters.
Let the Witch hunt begin.
Mentioned above. |
AFK Hauler
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 18:13:00 -
[520] - Quote
Implement in stages...
Strike one: (B) You receive a letter on your applications to any corp and only you and the CEO can review this information. What he does with it is up to the CEO.
Strike Two: (A) You receive a public letter in your decorations that cannot be turned off for one year or longer.
Strike Three: (N) No more need to shame, player receives a BAN.
Crime has consequences. If the payers do not have peer pressure to dissuade wrongful activities through the possibility of public shame, then this game should be a solo standalone client.
|
|
RealaiX
Yard Industries Seventh Heaven
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 18:37:00 -
[521] - Quote
hello
i really dont get it... how can people compare botting with in-game criminal acts
it's really your own fault if u get ganked in high sec or through a corpthief or whatever can happen to you in eve-universe trough "in-game-mechanics"
For me botting isnt a criminal act "in-game" where those pilots/cheaters are given the chance to get a good guy again by implementing some kind of flag or letter.
one warning, then just permbam/biomass these guys because they are using a "out-of-game-mechanic" where they can go shoppin in RL in the meantime
it simply CHEATING and is ruining the game for all faithfully players of EVE and MY TRUST in CCP
|
Dreneht
The Dead Rabbit Society
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 19:44:00 -
[522] - Quote
How about instead of making it a public name and shame thing, making it a searchable database or api request item. Something Corporations and Alliances can use to check if the charcater looking to join them has been flagged as botter at some point during their career in eve. This then doesnt neccesarily publicaly smear their name but does give the corporate leaders a option for checking for a behavoir that may not want to be a part of their corporate views.
Also when a player is flagged as being a botter a ingame mail is then generated and sent to the CEO of said corp notifying them that a member of their corp was flagged for botting just like the CEO now receives messages when a player leaves the corp.
Of course there is always the chance with this info someone then uses it for meta gaming purposes but it then rest upon the members of said corp and community to use it hopefully in an ethical manner. |
Callduron
127
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 22:19:00 -
[523] - Quote
I think it's a good plan and you should go ahead. |
Trasher Okaski
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 22:58:00 -
[524] - Quote
I'm against name and shame because false positives may stigmatize a player
However, I think that Corporations should get tagged with a "Botter inside" once one of its botting members is caught. It's easy to spot a botter at a corporation level, and such a measure would push its members to report the cheater.
This way, the botter could leave his corporation to prevent it from gaining such a flag. One of the main advices given to former addicts is to change their group of friends. Such a measure would add further consequences to their acts and could lead them to truly redeem themselves by changing their habits and social entourage but above all, it would prevent other corporations from allying with cheaters. |
Renslip Darkdraught
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 04:33:00 -
[525] - Quote
shouldn't this theoretical Scarlet Letter be applied to ALL characters on the account? In that manner, if someone has their mining bot alt that "plays for them" when they aren't pew-pewing (or whatever it is the other character might do in a legitimate manner), it will spill over into the rest of their game if they're caught.
I know that's not a deterrent for all (many?) botters out there, as they'll be the only thing on the account, but it seems this might be useful if we're to accept that a temporary flag may lead to a non-hardcore botter reforming his ways after x-# of months.
All that said, I don't see why they need three warnings. Temp ban, with the potential of a permanent ban on first offence. Perma-ban on the second. Why mess around? You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit.
-Ginsberg |
Natassia Krasnoo
R3D SHIFT
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 09:14:00 -
[526] - Quote
I stopped reading the posts after page 7 so forgive me if this had already been said.
There are a lot of good ideas in this thread. If CCP implements a "Scarlet Letter" policy it would need to be after the second offense in order to give that individual the chance to turn around, otherwise if it's implemented on the first offense, it would make it very very hard for that player to "Go Good". Here's why....
Once the player is flagged he's not likely to find a corp that would want to risk having a known botter in the corp. This in turn leaves the player ostricised and pretty much alone in an NPC corp where there is little sense of belonging, sense of accomplishment, sense of team work and dedication, or financial help. Those are the tings that provide a healthy social climate in a game and keep players coming back. Without them the player may feel disenfranchised and find himself using a bot for monetary gain in order to fill the gap. Or he simply quits all together driving them away from EVE.
Flagging the individual with a NEW EDEN wide criminal flag after the third offense and allowing player justice is one I would love to see implemented. Put a bounty on their ships and pods and if they are dumb enough to log in and undock players have a chance to earn some isk from killing and podding them. How you could implement this with the bounties without exploitation is something I can't think of right now, but at least allowing a criminal flag so players can seek revenge on those who would destroy our game would be great. |
minerdave
Shits and Giggles
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 10:43:00 -
[527] - Quote
I very much like the idea of permanently marking players with a "Black spot" for botting however, I have concerns that people may try to exploit this system to deliberatly Smear honest hard working players and give them a bad rep. What Garantee do we have that this practice will not happen?
In a related note. Assuming an actual player is accused of botting and is "blacklisted" is/will there be a way to appeal to such a claim? |
Parthonax
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 11:28:00 -
[528] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:) double faced hypocricy by CCP Who are you protecting , probably some favoured null sec alliances It is no secret CCP is blatantly showing favouritism to certain group of players , actually if there hadn't been such a poutcry against a certain person , you wouldn't even banned him for 30 days and not only them CCP seems to ignore their own EULA and TES if it comes to people getting griefed till they leave the game
sad very sad pretty sure you have lost more subscriptions during the last 6 months because of your own stupidity than from banning bots and RMTs
and don't bother reporting me or giving me a ban april 6th my last subscription ends pretty much tired of any things you say and promise CCP , i hope you go down pretty fast soon and stop spamming my mailbox with offers so this is permanence |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 12:39:00 -
[529] - Quote
whats the point of making it temporary flagging? its useless. make it permanent, that way they wont just disable the account for a period of time until the flag is gone. It would be total waist of code. Been branded a cheat should be there forever since it should not have happened in the first place. If it happens then "you get what you sow" just like it with cause and effect in the rest of eve.
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
128
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 13:53:00 -
[530] - Quote
I would like to be able to screen recruits for rmt and botting and stuff like it, yes. |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 15:04:00 -
[531] - Quote
instead of a scarlet letter for ceo's, just throw bot accounts back into the NPC corp and ban them from joining player corps for a year. You can give some cryptic and vague rejection message so people don't know exactly why the offending character cant join up. |
Naara Elein
Les Force
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 16:14:00 -
[532] - Quote
Does a botter use his main to bot?
If yes, then sure, a scarlet letter could have an effect. A character like that might not be much good for anything though since there is a lot of hate for them. But in some circles it might get a "bad boy" cool factor to it, sort of like some pirates wants -10 sec status so they will look really evil. With a scarlet letter one will be the evilest of them all.
But if a botter use an alt for it instead, a scarlet letter will fail. The real botter is still invisible, he just rakes up what isk he can from the bot before discarding it for a new. Rinse and repeat, no real harm done, just time lost.
So a scarlet letter may not have the desired effect. The smart botters (who are the real damage dealers to the game) still go free and remain invisible. The stupid / duped botters find themselves in a position that can have ruined their character.
And to repeat what others have said before me: the risk and consequences of a false-postive is simply not worth it. The bot catching division could get into too much trouble with a player outrage. Having it run silently in the background is better for everyone than risk its work with bad PR. What if an upset botter atempts to create a false-positive scandal to get even?
I agree with 2nd time caught equals ban, that is a good idea. Breaking the EULA once is bad enough. Twice is a habbit.
|
Chokichi Ozuwara
Royal One Piece Corporation Deadly Unknown
83
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 18:21:00 -
[533] - Quote
If CCP isn't going to be tough on crime (zero tolerance) people will bot until they get a warning.
That undermines the game for all of us.
This reminds me of any local police, which are usually the biggest local criminal outfit. No crime, no cops, so the cops make sure there is always a little crime to keep the jobs going... Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round. |
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 08:52:00 -
[534] - Quote
My initial thought on the Scarlet Letter was "HELL YES!" but then I thought about it over a couple of days.
I, personally, would love to know who all has been botting. It would make targeting them for griefing, decing, harassment, or other vile things I enjoy doing, much easier. And yes, I would seek out toons with the Scarlet Letter just to make their lives in New Eden a complete pain.
I then started to think about what they would actually do: They would stop playing.
At first that may seem a good thing. Someone trying to cheat the system and ruin it for others shouldn't be a part of the game. But, that's what the ban function is for. Giving me knowledge of their past indiscretions will simply turn me (and others) into vigilantes. These 'attacks' against the known botters (who have already been punished at least once) would not even be toon vs toon attacks, or a desire for wealth within New Eden. These 'attacks' would be directed towards the person sitting at the computer trying to play Internet Spaceships.
I personally don't want that kind of knowledge, because I know what I would do with it and how it would be turned directly towards and against another player.
And it wouldn't end with people like myself, who seek out to blowup and pop a person. Someone with the Scarlet Letter would find themselves unable to join many corps, if they tried to form their own the only people who would really want to join in with them are awoxers looking to kill a blue/green botter.
The end result would be ruining the player's chance of ever enjoying EvE again. They would either have to start up a new account, or more likely, drop the game all together.
When someone who enjoys sitting at a belt mining for hours quits EvE that's one less easy target for me to pop (for profit).
Please, no Scarlet Letters.
If CCP's punishments for botters aren't enough, CCP should do more against them. Not turn that power over to the players to go on witch hunts. Nohb Oddy likes you. |
ctx2007
Wychwood and Wells
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 11:13:00 -
[535] - Quote
Scarlet letter with a shoot to pod policy without concord intervention. So if they continue mining .............. BANG!! |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 12:10:00 -
[536] - Quote
Everybody knows EVE is a cold harsh place to live in. Lets extend that EVE that we already know to the rest of the game. First offence temporary ban + pemanent flag of botting. If get caught a second time then perma ban! There is no need to do a three times strike here. If you did not learn the first time, will you really learn the second time? Unlikelly! This is why.
The flagging for botting must also be something that stands out in the character. I mean it must stands out as much like bad security level stands out or must stands out like having a bounty!
When it stands out, it does not have to say botting or have some serious message. Instead can be somthing that causes laughter or even ask a question. A broken heart logo in the corner of the character avatar will be helarious as people will ask why you got that in monacle!
Broken Heart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
2D34DLY4U
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 12:34:00 -
[537] - Quote
Nohb Oddy wrote:My initial thought on the Scarlet Letter was "HELL YES!"
[...]
I, personally, would love to know who all has been botting. It would make targeting them for griefing, decing, harassment, or other vile things I enjoy doing, much easier. And yes, I would seek out toons with the Scarlet Letter just to make their lives in New Eden a complete pain.
I then started to think about what they would actually do: They would stop playing.
[...]
The end result would be ruining the player's chance of ever enjoying EvE again. They would either have to start up a new account, or more likely, drop the game all together.
[...]
If CCP's punishments for botters aren't enough, CCP should do more against them. Not turn that power over to the players to go on witch hunts.
Seriously this. Obviously.
No one with a sane mind will ever play again if this scheme targets them, as much as people in this thread like to think they will so they can farm some easy helpess targets.
The game impact of the SL implementation is some former player graveyard list of cheaters that should have been banned in the first place anyway.
Name and shame doesn't work when people can opt out. If the jews that were forced to use armbands with david stars had some scheme that allowed them to move out of the ghetto, how many do you think would stay?
Might as well move the cheaters to the 666 corp or make some other similar corp for former players. Even this is not smart as these things are best left hidden to prevent meta gaming and as further deterrent. Just ban them forever. |
Coolsmoke
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 13:06:00 -
[538] - Quote
2D34DLY4U wrote:Nohb Oddy wrote:My initial thought on the Scarlet Letter was "HELL YES!"
[...]
I, personally, would love to know who all has been botting. It would make targeting them for griefing, decing, harassment, or other vile things I enjoy doing, much easier. And yes, I would seek out toons with the Scarlet Letter just to make their lives in New Eden a complete pain.
I then started to think about what they would actually do: They would stop playing.
[...]
The end result would be ruining the player's chance of ever enjoying EvE again. They would either have to start up a new account, or more likely, drop the game all together.
[...]
If CCP's punishments for botters aren't enough, CCP should do more against them. Not turn that power over to the players to go on witch hunts. Seriously this. Obviously. No one with a sane mind will ever play again if this scheme targets them, as much as people in this thread like to think it so they can farm some easy helpess targets. The game impact of the SL implementation is some former player graveyard list of cheaters that should have been banned in the first place anyway. Name and shame doesn't work when people can opt out. If the jews that were forced to use armbands with david stars had some scheme that allowed them to move out of the ghetto, how many do you think would stay? Might as well move the cheaters to the 666 corp or make some other similar corp for former players. Even this is not smart as these things are best left hidden to prevent meta gaming and as further deterrent. Just ban them forever.
You're mixing real players with bots.
Bots should be banned, griefed, dec'd - whatever and whenever. Mercilessly. Bot accounts are illegal and should be treated like pariahs.
The accounts that bots supply with isk should *not* be banned, imo. Or scarred with a Black Spot, or whatever.
The whole point of this new effort to houseclean is a) to reduce the number of bots and therefore b) to "persuade" players who run bots to actually go about making isk in a legal manner.
Same with RMTers. Stop the rot without losing subscriptions - that is and will always be CCP's focus.
EDIT: While we're at it, I'd like to see insurance payouts re-introduced to players who gank botting ships then report the bot to CCP- provided the bot is subsequently confirmed & banned by CCP's own methods. Might be a pain to administer that, though :s |
Sevena Black
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 14:03:00 -
[539] - Quote
This may be a bit weird, but could prove insightfull:
In my nation it is illegal to "name and shame". This includes extremes such as childabusers and such.
The reason is very simple and in my opnion very justified: You either punish someone (convict) or you dont. Once punished (sent to jail) any naming and shaming cannot apply to the original act since that one has been taken care of. Hence you're committing an entirely new crime by doing so.
So I think you need to make a choice; either punish them yourself by banning them or name and shame them with all the excessive punishment that elicits.
|
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 19:30:00 -
[540] - Quote
Coolsmoke wrote: ... You're mixing real players with bots. ...
I see where you are coming from. But I can not completely agree with you. While there are people who do serious botting as a means of RMT or other affairs, there are also the players who want to get ahead but don't want to buy PLEX.
There are many other games out that have botting, even some games that have built in automation for what could be considered botting in EvE. When a new player jumps in there's a good chance they didn't read the full EULA, they haven't spent hours digging through the forums, and they would miss that little bit of information about Scarlet Letters, naming and shaming, and other HUGE negative impacts that would befall them if they performed these actions.
People can be new, and people can be stupid. People can screw up and miscalculate. They can see the 'flashy' (are they flashy?) isk fountain of botting and think that it is just what they need. As soon as they get Strike One from CCP the real player behind the toon has a chance to stop what their doing and fly straight again. If they are branded with a Scarlet Letter that is as good as a perma-ban since it gives us, the players, knowledge (and thus power) over the people who did dumb things.
But Coolsmoke, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some harsh punishment for botting. But the Scarlet Letter goes outside the bounds of the game and puts you, myself, and any other player, into their own hot-seat as we go forth griefing and harassing would could be a real player (thus we would be violating the EULA ourselves). So if the new system is not enough to deal with botting then CCP should step up their game against botting, but leave us out of it (aside from reporting them, of course). Nohb Oddy likes you. |
|
Marduk Nibiru
Risk Breakers C0NVICTED
163
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 20:52:00 -
[541] - 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.
Unfortunately, I don't see how. The market doesn't exactly allow you to buy from those you want to buy from. Even if you could identify which sell order was from a reputable seller, and which are not, you can't decide to buy from the reputable ones. If you try it just gives the money you would have paid them to whomever has the lowest sell order; giving them extra ISK in other words. Botters of course would find it a lot easier to undercut the market than legitimate traders and thus you just end up buying from them whether you want to or not.
CCP would have to allow us to purchase from exactly who we want, and of course this would instantly be abused to our detriment by the same botters and RMT **** wads we're trying to get rid of.
Quote:It would also be useful for recruitment screening, helping to keep our corps bot-free.
This though. Recruitment would of course require full API, which most are these days, and anyone found receiving or giving funds to one of these marked characters could be excluded from participation by the player community. Of course, first step there is to convince the main chunk of players that they should do this and it would seem that since a great many of the large alliances enable, support, and fund botting...that might be a hard sale.
|
Coolsmoke
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 18:20:00 -
[542] - Quote
I know this thread has probably gone on long enough, but for anyone sitting on the fence regarding botters, here are some quick figures for a typical mission botter scenario:
Player X runs (a fairly typical) 5 mission botters in CNR's, each running 20 hrs/day and earning around 40mill isk/hr.
5 x 20 x 40 = 4 billion isk/day or 120 Billion a month.
A fair, if not major, proportion of botters RMT some of this isk. With the rest, they buy plex for their accounts and after that, pretty much whatever they damn well please. There's no disputing the fact that botter iskies are a major contributing factor to inflation.
With the current run on bot-spotting and banning, botters are trying a mix of methods to prevent detection - the most obvious being a reduction in the time spent constantly running missions.
But even at 10 hours a day, each bot player is pulling in 60b/month.
There are a LOT of botters in Eve. Pretty much any L4 mission hub in Caldari space has them.
It takes 20 days from account creation to run a T2 & faction fitted CNR in Level 4 missions. "Mission bot software" is highly sophisticated and customisable, and constantly being adapted in order to better reflect the actions of a genuine hands-on player.
Find them, report them and ban them all |
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.08 08:10:00 -
[543] - Quote
Regardless of your choice on the matter CCP Sreegs, I want to thank you for opening this forum of discussion and taking an active part in it to really get a feel for what the players think. Nohb Oddy likes you. |
Halvon Strauss
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 11:40:00 -
[544] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Does anyone seriously think shaming is any sort of deterrant in Eve If I'm making phat isk doing something you don't like, you think wagging your finger is gonna stop me?
You raise an excellent point. Moreover, if the "majority" or even some of the botters happen to be involved with RMT rings, you think them having their accounts flagged actually will have any negative impact? It could in fact have an opposite effect and in some cases be a form of advertising for them. The best place to pick up "escorts" in vegas is on the courthouse steps as they're walking out from their courtcases or paying their fines. You might not make your move right then, but if you're interested you can rendezvous and hammer out the details elsewhere.
The RMT organizers are very clever at finding new ways to get as much currency per hour as they can, especially as many of their "employees" seem to be located in ecomically depressed countries. If their known toons/accounts get blacklisted for botting they'll find other ways to work their trade. Bans are considerably more effective and inconvenient to the RMT rings.
To the average botter not working for the RMT market? Not sure they'll care either. I doubt the average attention deficient gamer is going to take the time to look at a laundry list of demerited botters before logging in or even at all. Most "RL" friends in EVE know if one of their comrades are botting and many corp-mates can figure it out. It's been my experience that no one likes botting for the myriad reasons of fairness unless your friend happens to be a botter and shares their wealth with you; then some folk are willing to offer discretion at the expense of personal gain.
In a sandbox where relabeling a ship as the tiered upgrade of itself and trading it away for a scamming profit is common place, or falsely creating buy and sell orders around a mis-named skill, simply adding a flag to someone's toon probably won't mean a whole heck of a lot. Unless it's in bright neon colors and makes a keynote everytime the player types out a chat message and you are audibly warned when these players come in and out of local space, but even then I remain skeptical. After enough scarlet letters were observed you might check your UI to find a way to disable it's functionality.
The Scarlet Letter we're discussing just seems an additional way to humiliate the botter, but doesn't seem to serve any real effect aside from recruitment. Even then someone once told me that if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough. Given the harsh "world" of EVE, working outside the bounds of convention may be applauded by some and frowned on by those unwilling to risk questionable wealth procurement at the expense of game time served. I personally think it's crap and messes with the already volatile New Eden economy. Adding a badge of honor for breaking the rules may not be as undesirable as one might think. |
CirJohn
The Flying Tigers Intrepid Crossing
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 12:06:00 -
[545] - Quote
I believe you've said that you're using a 3-strikes plan for botters. Why not make the scarlet letter part of the second strike? Here's my reasoning:
A 1-strike individual has a good chance of becoming a "good guy." He has seen that botting really is punished, so there is an incentive to stop. If he does stop then everyone wins.
A 2-strike individual has been warned (and punished), but he still continues to cheat. This shows both a habitual pattern of wrong behavior and a disregard for the rules. This type of person will often continue to break the rules without regard for those around him.
By placing an "habitual botter" tag on repeat offenders (2 strikes), you allow corporations to protect themselves from these selfish players. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 12:40:00 -
[546] - Quote
CirJohn wrote:By placing an "habitual botter" tag on repeat offenders (2 strikes), you allow corporations to protect themselves from these selfish players.
What sort of corporation would skim 15% in taxes from an enthusiastic ratter without asking too many questions about where they came from in the first place!?!?!
(Hint: As long as the taxes are not reclaimed corps won't give a **** if someone is named and shamed) |
Waylan Yutani
The Ghost Division
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 13:08:00 -
[547] - Quote
I'm all for a public scarlet letter, not only should it apply to the character that bots but also to the corp and alliance that houses said botting characters. Also make them criminally flagged to all other players for 6 months I have zero tolerance for players using bots.
Question is, whether you wants to rehabilitate bad players or wage an all out war on bots.
edit; from "wartargets" to "criminally flagged" |
Malcorath Sacerdos
Deep Space Equinox
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:30:00 -
[548] - Quote
Name and shame! But not only the toon but the entire acc and all accs owned by the same person . and when you introduse the meta acc system that has been discussed last year id say add it to that so that all toons on all acs under the same person is flagged as botter.
however it shuld not be a permanent marker unless you get hit with one say three times.
why
well if you let us know who does it we will make shure they learn how we feal about it after their ban period is over.
Edit i agree with the previous poster .. flag em all while they harbor a botter and im personally gonna front the isk for a good merc corp to decc them . |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
986
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:50:00 -
[549] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:CirJohn wrote:By placing an "habitual botter" tag on repeat offenders (2 strikes), you allow corporations to protect themselves from these selfish players. What sort of corporation would skim 15% in taxes from an enthusiastic ratter without asking too many questions about where they came from in the first place!?!?! (Hint: As long as the taxes are not reclaimed corps won't give a **** if someone is named and shamed)
You're calling a botter an "enthusiastic ratter", so let's keep it this way even if I don't like your definition of boter. If you accept bots in your corp knowing this, then your corp wallet should go negative too if the guy is caught again, and don't start your rabble about "I didn't knew it" if the guy is flagged.
Because with 10min e-mail address and very often a lot more tools you can find in some corporations/alliances forums, you can perfectly create a bot alt and not be detected by regular tools watching IP or MAC address, because I know how easy it is to change those ones.
Hacking and cheating is a way of living or a state of mind, you just can't change those guys to good guys if they do it more than once, so whenever you hit those just hit hard, ban and biomass char's take all isk destroy all items and disband their corp/alliance take all corp/alliance assets.
No, if you do something then you do it right and don't close one door to those jerks and let another one open, you close it definitively and decisively, CCP would look like idiots if they do it differently and I trust forum alts to bring that up when it happens. |
Marduk Nibiru
Risk Breakers C0NVICTED
168
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 19:00:00 -
[550] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Andski wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation. I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting? So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me. If CEO's are doing recruitment then they probably need to delegate roles a bit better. Anyone with roles to accept applications should be able to see it. But that isn't enough, most of the time people who apply have already been accepted because they went through the recrutiment process and were already accepted. The actual application is just there because it is necessary, but holds no substance in terms of the recruitment process. This info being avaliable through the API would be ideal because any sane corp who does recruitment uses the API to check things. Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.
I also like the idea of it being available in the API for then someone could demand access to it as part of various other operations such as forming "business" relations. With the way they API works now, requiring player consent for all permissions, it seems like this would create the best of possible worlds. |
|
FeralShadow
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 19:35:00 -
[551] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.
APB Reloaded is publicly naming and shaming. It's a FTP game, and has been riddled with hackers. They've gotten better at taking them out, and the long lists of names on their forums is good to see, giving people confidence that steps are being taken. Hacking in that game is quite obvious, unlike in Eve, and in addition to that it's a FTP game that anybody can start playing so hackers just make a new account and start all over again.
Well, anyways, i just wanted to give you a game that uses name and shame, Sreegs. Successful "carebear" attitudes:-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=37279 |
Halvon Strauss
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 20:17:00 -
[552] - Quote
FeralShadow wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:
No other MMO is naming and shamimg. I just want to point that out and if I'm wrong I'm happy to stand corrected.
APB Reloaded is publicly naming and shaming. It's a FTP game, and has been riddled with hackers. They've gotten better at taking them out, and the long lists of names on their forums is good to see, giving people confidence that steps are being taken. Hacking in that game is quite obvious, unlike in Eve, and in addition to that it's a FTP game that anybody can start playing so hackers just make a new account and start all over again. Well, anyways, i just wanted to give you a game that uses name and shame, Sreegs.
Other devs in most other mmos keep their disciplinary measures on the downlow as to not draw attention to potential exploits. The common philosophy is to avoid talking about "Fight Club" to not draw any curiosity towards it's pursuits. The laundry list seems nothing more than a metric to show that the "powers that be" are actually taking action. It makes the community feel more "protected" I imagine, similar to seeing a beat-cop. |
KwaLevu
PH0ENIX COMPANY The 99 Percent
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 03:52:00 -
[553] - 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?"
Alot of corps , atleast i hope alot donot condone RMT or anything to do with it. By naming and shaming them we can kick people who do it from our TS and also from our community. Alot of people trade chars legally and the only way we know who they are is thier voice on coms and if you name and shame these ppl using i sold my char as an excuse for being banned will no longer be used .
|
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
326
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 04:05:00 -
[554] - Quote
I support this idea. I do not think that monetary losses will ever be a good enough deterrent against botters until you can make them consistently lose more money than they make. Which may eventually be possible but I doooont think its even close right now :> We already know from the history of the world and every government ever that the less involved the state is in a solution the more efficient the solution will be. Letting the players refuse to associate with botters, hunt them down, and make their time worse for free will be the best deterrent to botting.
I understand it would also almost completely stop their ability to reform without making a new account but if you deter enough people you stop needing to reform them. In the end it comes down to what CCP wants. If you do not mind losing some players now, who might have actually made good EVE players when warned once, to almost entirely stop botting, then you should do this idea. If you think that you can achieve this eventually through other means and want to keep the few players who do reform then do not implement this.
You know our stance though! ;D Ferox #1 |
Thurken
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 05:18:00 -
[555] - Quote
Botters are in a NPC corp. This people don't care about social flags.. Botters are on multiple accounts. Accounts caught over that, should have their characters removed them from their Player corp if there is one
Flags are not really good, because there are minors, who do make mistakes and will maybe never return. Also the metagaming. It could be possible that players bot to receive that flag with the intention to damage reputations of Corps and Alliances I fear you open a can of worms with early flagging.
But as a final Punishment an Event Idea: Take possesion of all bot accounts. Move their characters with their actual used ship into a unreachable Wormhole system put them all in a corporation. Once a month A special deadspace gate to that system opens in the trade hubs, which limits to t1 cruiser and lower ships to enter. Who finds and shots the most botters gets a nice price. Players have fun killing each other and the "botted" botters. And CCP has a nice stress testing environment on the live server :)
Botageddon :)
|
Xi-Admiral-P6045
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 06:29:00 -
[556] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
Ship them off to Polaris, and tell them that they can leave if they find the stargate.
|
Wiccan999
Starwinders The Unwilling.
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 07:44:00 -
[557] - Quote
I'm not sure if its posted yet or not.
You could always place a concord bounty on botters and make it a proffession in eve.
Botkillers will emerge, and maybe even corps dedicated to this proffession alone...
just a thought.
|
Ken Kyoukan
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 12:30:00 -
[558] - Quote
For those of you who only read the latest page, I noticed no-one had commented on my suggestion below:
Ken Kyoukan wrote:My PoV... Flagging should last for 1 day per qty of isk confirmed as botted. I see the first flag as being kept reasonably quiet alongside Impounded ISK/Assets to allow further investigation and to allow for any accidental false positives (I would like to assume there were none, but always better to be safe than sorry.), prior to those ISK/Assets being removed from the game. The second flag being the Scarlet Letter version.. A CEO or Director would automatically have their Corp Member Listing flagged for all of their fellow Corp and Alliance members upon getting the second flag. Flag:1a. Personal Character Info (Via NeoCom) shows as Flagged with a warning about future actions. 1b. Applications to Corps flagged for CEO/Directors/Recruiters as potential problem. 1c. Corp Member Listing flagged for that Corps CEO/Directors as potential problem. 1d. Impounded (and then removed) ISK/Assets. 2a. Personal Character Info (Via NeoCom) shows as Flagged with a final warning about being banned. 2b. Applications to Corps flagged. 2c. Corp Member Listing flagged for that Corps(/Alliances at CEO discression) members. 2d. Removed ISK/Assets. During the second flag timer the following could also apply:2e. Marked as Wanted (Reason being: Botting, Exploiting, etc.) - Scarlet Letter. 2f. No Concord Protection, upto -10 Sec Status. 2g. Flagged as a Militia target for every Militia. 3. Perma-Banned!
|
Shade Alidiana
Concern Clear Sky
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:56:00 -
[559] - Quote
The game seems to go further and further from the one that impressed me being so close to reality.. Both the recent boomerang and this anti-bot campaign make it look more like a game. Let players punish players for this! Don't become the gods of such a beautiful world.
And boomerang... It seemed to have so nice economical consequences.. I was almost going to try gank someone |
Alundil
The Unnamed.
148
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:20:00 -
[560] - Quote
This was my "name and shame" idea posted several months back and hit on both the name and shame aspects of anti-botting/RMT and potentially added some interesting exploration content and made visible warnings of the perps ingame.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=107650#post107650
Quote:Just a thought in regards to the Botting/Macroing/RMT-ing people caught in Sreegs' devious net of devious catching.
I thought it would be a great idea if there might be a special place in New Eden for those toons/accounts caught exploiting or botting/macroing/RMT-ing by the Devs.
There's an oft quoted and cliched saying along the lines of "There's a special place in Hell for..."
1. It of course relies on CCP's willingness to seriously address the problem (insert EVE meme at your leisure). I am not necessarily saying that they do not - there just doesn't appear to be much in the way of meaningful "Perp-Walk"
2. Once the offending toon/character/account is detected the following actions happen:
a. Their accounts are immediately frozen and disabled b. Their EVE-worldy possessions (from all toons on the account) are ejected in a special super large "Jet Can" in a random system in space (w- or k-). These containers would be scannable/probable using Deep Space probes and would offer a real neat surprise to the player(s) that located them. c. The ship hulls in their possession (from all toons on the account) are transported to a remote beacon in the system they were located in. d. This beacon would be called something along the lines of "Sreegs' revenge" or some other Lore - Appropriate name e. These transported hulls would be derelict wrecks and un-salvageable. They would retain the names of the Toon caught and expelled for violating the TOS in the manner described above (botting, etc)
This would, effectively, be an EVE ship graveyard populated by some of the most despicable characters in New Eden. |
|
Empathic Psychopath
Cult of the Crayon
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 11:21:00 -
[561] - Quote
I can't admit to looking at every single response to this but I've skimmed over a lot of posts and one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the level of "WE MUST PUNISH" and general righteous indignation. I notice quite a few people saying they'll happily pay for a merc corp to go chase botters...why not do it yourself if you feel so strongly, or are you too busy care bearing?
People need to get off the "punish them forever" bandwagon that is so popular in the US these days (and look how many people they've imprisoned in their own country purely as punishment rather than rehabilitation) and start looking at this rationally. If someone tried botting, got hit with a temporary ban and decided it's not worth the risk (i.e. no more botting ever) then why the need to name and shame? Given that said ex-botter is probably playing legitimately since they obviously haven't left the game (paying for a sub or playing to pay) then continuing the punishment after the initial ban will just p1ssthemoff and CCP loses a customer, so from a commercial perspective it's kind of dumb. If people continue to bot then hey, simple solution - perma ban all their accounts (i.e. what already happens now).
Hard core botters are mostly RMT based corps with very few actual people who have been around a long time and will be there as long as the game mechanics and code base allow this. It takes nothing to set up a network of bots and there are so many ways of disguising where your PC(s) are located it's not funny. Given that the incentive still exists for massive scale botting (i.e. RMT dollars) then in my view there are only 2 semi-realistic options to fix this.
One is to change the EVE client to remove the possibility of code injection and/or mess with OCR bots by keeping things on the screen dynamic enough for that type of bot not to work. Chance of this happening? Not high given the complexity involved - if it was easy do you think CCP wouldn't have already done this by now? We aren't talking about simple tweaks here. And of course any changes to the client need to be made carefully so as not to completely wreck gameplay.
So, what's the other way? To paraphrase the current debate about "solving" drug problems, start treating this as a health issue rather than a criminal one and you will probably get better results. I'm not saying that botting isn't criminal within the context of EVE, certainly it results impacts both players and CCP alike. But like the drug trade, if you take away the incentive (i.e. the stupid amounts of money to be made for doing virtually nothing) then you'll see the botters eventually disappear once the effort vs reward balance swings in favour of effort. To do this, CCP would need to start selling ISK directly to players. I'm not talking about buying plex then trading for iskies in-game. I'm talking about paying real money to get iskies. The trick is to sell it at a rate that is low enough to make botting not worthwhile for the RMT crowd, but not so cheap that your create massive inflation due to currency oversupply. Essentially you just replace one RMT organisation with another (CCP!) but when you think about it, conceptually this isn't really that much different from selling graphics cards for plex.
Other than that, I guess all that can be done is continue to catch the RMT bots and perma-ban when found.
My 0.05 ISK worth :) |
Grace Chang
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 12:05:00 -
[562] - Quote
I think you need to look at the whole issue from a different angle.
Obviously you look at it from CCPs view, which probably comes down to "how do we keep a player and generate revenue from him while at the same time we won't upset other players". Your 3-Strike rules seems to me like an attempt to walk that fine line.
Personally, i am not convinced of your metrics that that approach works, for all i know it could be PR (how about some more details?). Also the whole premise of "making a bad player a good player" is flawed in my opinion. A person who bots or cheats doesn't belong into this game, because he doesn't have the necessary mindset to enjoy it in the "right way" to begin with. A cheater or botter has already proven that he is not willing to compete within the ruleset. For "good players" (as you define them), the joy of playing such a competetive game is however fundamentally built on a fair playing ground, if that is gone, the joy is gone (and that should be your greatest fear in my opinion, not the lost revenue from some miscreants). Therefore i would think that a botter/cheater will never be able to enjoy the game it is supposed to be enjoyed - it is not a problem of action, it is a problem of mindset. This mindset is also the reason that a person that cheats in FPS games will never seriously attempt at getting better at the game, he will focus his efforts at not being detected the next time.
Which brings us to the proposed changes. As a person who enjoys this game for its competetiveness i don't see a reason why i should tolerate you ruining my fun just to get some extra bucks from people who don't really deserve a second chance. It should be your responsibility that the rules you set up for this game get enforced, if you don't do that (what you actually do with your 3-Strike rule) they are not really rules to be taken seriously to begin with.
What the proposed changes will do is to allow players to enforce YOUR rules socially, that you are unwilling to enforce because of financial reasons and that you are unable to enforce of technical reasons (that part you are really not to blame for, cheats cannot really be completely avoided on general purpose computing plattforms, but still you are quite far away from what can be done technically)
So, yes i think scarlet letters are great. It will allow me to shut out players from my gameplay, players which you should have shut out from the game in my opinion. Therefore it is only the second best option, but you owe players that abide to the rules that much at least. At the end of the day i don't want to be CCPs unvoluntary propationer. It is not about you, CCP, it is about the players that stick to the rules. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 05:35:00 -
[563] - Quote
Well scarlet letters might be visible but lack details. Think about generalizing (not just RMT) the flag to simply say
"this person has previously engaged in bannable actions which could potential ensnare other players in penalties -- number of days since last offense occured xxx "
(CCP can also be harsher and use "days since last ban ended xxx"
PLUS to separate the one time curious or possibly semi-innocently ensnared from habitual offenders consider adding
"number of prior bans zzz"
or to confer information on seriousness of offense(s) as well as repeats
"total number of weeks previously banned for all offenses is zzz"
Frankly if they are habitable offenders, the public deserves to know as most will work the gray areas hard (i.e. harsh scams, tantrum ganking, etc). Some will try to get others to carry out risky parts of potentially bannable activities while waiting to fall off CCP radar.
Finally I would think scarlet letters should attach to ACCOUNTS not just toons. Some bannable actions don't take that much toon training. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 05:48:00 -
[564] - Quote
Plus I think posting toon names of offenders does NOT impede progress to reformed citizen.
RL such stigma does however often lead to special groups.
Such toons might well need to locate other offenders to form new corps.
Carebears might even offer to set up HALFWAY HOUSE type corps where a few parole officers monitor their behavior over 6 months to a year. As graduation gift they get special public award.
Heck CCP might even have its staff players CEO a few of these HALFWAY HOUSE corps to make sure they don't get griefed too badly nor go rogue and to add soem weight to the reformed sticker.
Opportunity not problem. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1027
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 10:49:00 -
[565] - Quote
Ok guys I haven't forgotten about this thread. I'm going to start going through all 120000 pages over the next couple of days. <3 "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
Andrev Nox
SOMER Blink Cognitive Development
64
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 10:52:00 -
[566] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Ok guys I haven't forgotten about this thread. I'm going to start going through all 120000 pages over the next couple of days. <3
Please, may I draw special attention to those posts made by the player-run businesses/investments - as they're among the most directly endangered by unknowingly interacting with botters. Somer Blink - The original microlottery site. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1027
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 11:00:00 -
[567] - Quote
Andrev Nox wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Ok guys I haven't forgotten about this thread. I'm going to start going through all 120000 pages over the next couple of days. <3 Please, may I draw special attention to those posts made by the player-run businesses/investments - as they're among the most directly endangered by unknowingly interacting with botters.
You could but I'm going to read every post in the thread equally anyway. "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
ElQuirko
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
552
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 11:03:00 -
[568] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: You could but I'm going to read every post in the thread equally anyway.
OMFG I QUOTED A DEV
If we distribute pictures of people, does that mean God can file copyright claims under SOPA? |
wiskyjack
Caldari Deep Space Ventures Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 11:14:00 -
[569] - Quote
How about this.
Dont ban them, put a marker on them that would allow them to be ganked and you would not be insta poped by concord. Of course we would not be able to see this marker, turning the kill into a roulette game.
It would make things interesting |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
334
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 11:45:00 -
[570] - Quote
wiskyjack wrote:How about this.
Dont ban them, put a marker on them that would allow them to be ganked and you would not be insta poped by concord. Of course we would not be able to see this marker, turning the kill into a roulette game.
It would make things interesting I think a marker (unknown to the botter) for the first day would be "fun"... Then allow CCP's normal disciplinary routine to take over. I also only think that this would really only work in hi-sec. Lvl 4 & mining bots would then be a lot less popular...
As a side note, allowing players to pop them is far more enjoyable than /graphpron....
vOv
I personally hate bots, but if CCP can turn someone around and get $/month from them, more power to you.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1507
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 12:56:00 -
[571] - Quote
Someone brought up this idea before. I really liked it and it makes complete sense. 1st offense, they get a warning. At this point they are given a chance to reform. 2nd offense, they are given a warning and tagged for all to see as a known botter. If they were already warned once then they are likely not to ever change their habits anyway and at this point it is good for the rest of the player base to know who they are dealing with. 3rd offense, ban, obviously. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
995
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:01:00 -
[572] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Someone brought up this idea before. I really liked it and it makes complete sense. 1st offense, they get a warning. At this point they are given a chance to reform. 2nd offense, they are given a warning and tagged for all to see as a known botter. If they were already warned once then they are likely not to ever change their habits anyway and at this point it is good for the rest of the player base to know who they are dealing with. 3rd offense, ban, obviously.
If you really want to do something put a one year tag at the first offence and perma ban at second. Why give a second try? So he can bot until he gets caught at the first one? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
579
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:53:00 -
[573] - Quote
CCP Sreggs, when you remove botted assets, just what do you remove? ISK? Stuff?
Who do you remove it from? Anyone other than pilots owned by the botter? How far do you "follow the ISK" before you remove it?
I can see botters and RMTers doing all sorts of stuff to try to launder the money. Fake scams, buying trit for 1 million a unit, buying a ship and abandoning it in space, and so on. Do you follow all this and try and take the ISK from the player who ends up with the value from the illegal activity?
P.S. I made a post right about the time you signed off, between your last reply and your "good night" post. Please do not skip over it by starting reading at your "good night" post. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 16:59:00 -
[574] - Quote
Sounds like an excellent idea. I'm all for it and most if not all of my reasons have already been listed from a brief glance at other postings.
In short, Do it. TIIP: The Incredible Invisible Poster |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1402
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 17:07:00 -
[575] - Quote
:-) |
Kevin Kliner
QQ Continuum
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 17:55:00 -
[576] - Quote
Really bad idea. I revived a ban, despite never botting and if CCP does something like this, I won't be playing anymore. I'm not going to put up with players harassing me for a mark I got due to GM lacking the competence to understand how sentry drones and aggro mechanics work. |
Darex Nidor
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:14:00 -
[577] - Quote
Caught on botting, instant biomass. |
Iskawa Zebrut
Smoke to Train - Train to Smoke
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:54:00 -
[578] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:The reason why I am against the scarlet letter, is that if a player is wrongly accused then the damage is already done - even if CCP later reverses the scarlet letter. People know on the forums, and your reputation is potentially shot. At least with bans, CCP can reverse the ban, restore lost items, reimburse with ISK, get free game time, etc... without causing any lasting damage. Unless an opposite "Viridant Letter" is placed on false positives. An explicit "this person was marked by mistake". |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
79
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 22:53:00 -
[579] - Quote
I have not read all the responses to this thread, so forgive me if my suggestion has been posted before. As I understand it, anyone caught doing naughty stuff may find their wallet negative by some billions of isk. Surely most folk in this situation would simply quit Eve. So, what about if they were to be taxed on everything they do, say at 50% by CCP until the debt is cleared. This would enable said naughty player to function in Eve, but at the same time they would have to repay their debt to the game. Visible Scarlett Letter would, in my view make the players life in Eve so unbearable that he/she would probably quit Eve. Not a good financial result for CCP. You want fries with that? |
wiskyjack
Caldari Deep Space Ventures Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 23:18:00 -
[580] - Quote
Or this
If cought botting, all items not in use are deleted but the current market value and the contents of there wallet( to a negative balance of 100 million isk) are spread out to all players. And they serve a 14 day ban. This I strike one
Strike two.
As above, but they are biomassed in place of ban. |
|
Desparo
Roid Ravagers Unitary Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 00:11:00 -
[581] - Quote
Okay I'm all for the use scarlet letters.
NOT because I think that it will help prevent macro'ing or help reform those caught but because I'm hearing nasty rumors that in CCP's drive to remove bots they are unfairly punishing innocent victims in the process. If there is even a remote chance this is true then I don't want to be anywhere in site of CCP's banning and isk penalty hammer. And I doubt anyone else does either. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
579
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 04:25:00 -
[582] - Quote
Desparo wrote:Okay I'm all for the use scarlet letters.
NOT because I think that it will help prevent macro'ing or help reform those caught but because I'm hearing nasty rumors that in CCP's drive to remove bots they are unfairly punishing innocent victims in the process. If there is even a remote chance this is true then I don't want to be anywhere in site of CCP's banning and isk penalty hammer. And I doubt anyone else does either.
There is a big issue about rumors of CCP banning non-botters: Who made the reports of the bans? After all people who do bad things have been known to lie. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
DODGE CITY
We are the few. -Silicon Heaven-
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 01:23:00 -
[583] - Quote
im waiting to see the list of names. and decide for myself if i want to trust them with corp assets ....
i decided already if they release the names i wouldn't let them join corp IF CCP WOULD ALLOW PLAYERS TO VOTE ON GAME CHANGES BEFORE THEY MAKE THEM -áPLAYERS WOULD HAVE LESS REASON TO COMPLAUN GëíGêÜGëí |
Nylith Empyreal
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
94
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 01:52:00 -
[584] - Quote
Did anyone actually read the book? -á |
DODGE CITY
We are the few. -Silicon Heaven-
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 08:32:00 -
[585] - Quote
I doubt many younger people have read the scarket letter here is a link to a summary of the book witch is a fitting name should they release the names http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/scarlet/themes.html IF CCP WOULD ALLOW PLAYERS TO VOTE ON GAME CHANGES BEFORE THEY MAKE THEM -áPLAYERS WOULD HAVE LESS REASON TO COMPLAUN GëíGêÜGëí |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
158
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 09:42:00 -
[586] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:You could but I'm going to read every post in the thread equally anyway.
If so you'd be the first CCP employee to ever read a full thread. |
Ryno Caval
Go Deep Mining
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:26:00 -
[587] - Quote
I think in addition to a "scarlet letter" botters should also lose security standings to prevent them from the safety of high sec I think if caught botting automatically put you at a -10.0 security status it would deter botters as well as cause their ability to safely bot away I highly doubt a player would risk botting in null sec and getting thier ship destroyed regularly by player and npc pirates but that's just me I think botters wouldn't take that specific risk. |
Matrix Operator
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:33:00 -
[588] - Quote
What the CCP team has failed to realize is that social pressure is very powerful. If a player if under threat of being branded, it will be a powerful deterent to the impulse of botting. It will also protect CEOs from recruiting them and getting burned... |
Taria A'nor
Department of Social Security The Welfare State
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 23:45:00 -
[589] - Quote
There are two machariel ratting botters in FE-6YQ if anyone is interested.
The second a neut jumped into local, both toons insta-logged out. This also happened numerous times whilst roaming around that space...... |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 23:54:00 -
[590] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:...
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?" ... Clearly identified targets to hunt, grief, wardec and otherwise hound relentlessly helping to reduce the chances of them returning to botting activities.
Botters are the sex offenders of EVE. No peace and no privacy. 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
|
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
228
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 00:04:00 -
[591] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:...
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?" ... Clearly identified targets to hunt, grief, wardec and otherwise hound relentlessly helping to reduce the chances of them returning to botting activities. Botters are the sex offenders of EVE. No peace and no privacy.
Key points below:
CCP Sreegs wrote: whether or not they were still engaging in this activity.
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote: Clearly identified targets to hunt, grief, wardec and otherwise hound relentlessly.
You just confirmed to CCP Sreegs (CCP) what they already knew and the reason they won't be able to disclose that information. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 12:07:00 -
[592] - Quote
Sasha Azala wrote:Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:..
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? ... Clearly identified targets to hunt, grief, wardec and otherwise hound relentlessly helping to reduce the chances of them returning to botting activities Botters are the sex offenders of EVE. No peace and no privacy. Key points below: CCP Sreegs wrote: whether or not they were still engaging in this activity Hakaru Ishiwara wrote: Clearly identified targets to hunt, grief, wardec and otherwise hound relentlessly You just confirmed to CCP Sreegs (CCP) what they already knew and the reason they won't be able to disclose that information. Oh dear. Do you really believe that we, the community, could pull the wool over the eyes of CCP regarding the intentions of hunting of identified botters? Do you think that I spoiled some sort of subscriber-created ruse intended to fool CCP into taking a particular action?
Let's at least be truthful in this conversation. 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
231
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 12:21:00 -
[593] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:Oh dear. Do you really believe that we, the community, could pull the wool over the eyes of CCP regarding the intentions of hunting of identified botters? Do you think that I spoiled some sort of subscriber-created ruse intended to fool CCP into taking a particular action?
Let's at least be truthful in this conversation.
Why do you think I said 'what they already knew'?
There is no ruse, this whole thread is for the most part a waste of time.
You could argue they're looking to find a way to warn corps about offenders/ex-offenders, but there is no real way of doing that without painting a target on them. |
Ryno Caval
Go Deep Mining
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 07:10:00 -
[594] - Quote
I have to say that i did locate some AFK miners/Botters in WH and well this killmail will explain ithttp://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Ryno+Caval#kills they are seriously a pain since they pull so much from belts and leave legit miners searching for ore but to benifit from them all i say is dont ban them just make the game harder for them by making them auto -10 secutity status so they can be openly attacked and make some kind of badge or signature showing that they have been caught cause other pilotts will weed them out and make AFK/ Botting more difficult i mean an ORCA getting destroyed by a lone T1 Geared Thrasher shows how botting will be mitigated by other players as long as they can be identified pilots that want fair gameplay will hunt them down. Plus players who buy from botters dont know weather or not the items they are buying were cause of botters or not so i dont think it is fair to penalize them nor the people who kill and loot botters shouldnt be penalized either also place a bounty on botters automatically will make them a good target for anyone to remove them from the game. i think most of these things will relieve the botter issue and make the game more fair and who knows there may be a botter hunting Corps (or a few) that pop up to make benifits of this. |
dave3NG
mgfc
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 07:54:00 -
[595] - Quote
For mining bots, on top of standard punishment, how about removing the mining skill and not allowing them to retrain it. Not an immediate red mark clearly visible, but still obvious to corp CEOs who can check a skill queue, (and see exhumer, but not basic mining for example).
They could become good citizens in any other form of gameplay. |
Dorna Loone
Dark Star Demolition
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 11:26:00 -
[596] - Quote
Whilst it would give players some indication of the success of the bot detection (from the numbers of tagged players they see) and an opportunity to censor such players, I don't believe it would really serve much purpose beryond that towards the objective of eliminating the practice. The primary deterrent will be in how effective your detection methods are and in the confiscation of the proceeds of botting. If that is good and accurate that should suffice. |
Yatama Kautsuo
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 13:11:00 -
[597] - Quote
i am all for:
you bot, you lose your account.
no need for scarlet letter then. |
Budsin Adar
CCP's Secret Services
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 15:31:00 -
[598] - Quote
Hello there is a German small corp [MDOGS] 6 member corp using 4 hulks and 2 orca's and 1 is fleet boosting and they are using a Bot Program. I have asked in local and i even bumped them they said nothing to anyone so i posted in a few systems so far they are not back as of yet but they mine out entire systems and they must be stopped i would suggest Bot-a-geddon 365 till miniers like that 23 hrs a day get the hint but we must be free of concord and standing losses if possible. This would be much appreciated by many thanks everyone fly safe o/ |
Cebraio
Starfire Oasis
154
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 15:48:00 -
[599] - Quote
Budsin Adar wrote:Hello there is a German small corp [MDOGS] 6 member corp using 4 hulks and 2 orca's and 1 is fleet boosting and they are using a Bot Program. I have asked in local and i even bumped them they said nothing to anyone so i posted in a few systems so far they are not back as of yet but they mine out entire systems and they must be stopped i would suggest Bot-a-geddon 365 till miniers like that 23 hrs a day get the hint but we must be free of concord and standing losses if possible. This would be much appreciated by many thanks everyone fly safe o/
This is NOT how to report bots. Petition them, if you think you have a proof.
Also, learn punctuation.
|
Mallak Azaria
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 16:07:00 -
[600] - Quote
Budsin Adar wrote:Hello there is a German small corp [MDOGS] 6 member corp using 4 hulks and 2 orca's and 1 is fleet boosting and they are using a Bot Program. I have asked in local and i even bumped them they said nothing to anyone so i posted in a few systems so far they are not back as of yet but they mine out entire systems and they must be stopped i would suggest Bot-a-geddon 365 till miniers like that 23 hrs a day get the hint but we must be free of concord and standing losses if possible. This would be much appreciated by many thanks everyone fly safe o/
In before banned for necro-posting. |
|
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1616
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 16:11:00 -
[601] - Quote
Budsin Adar wrote:Hello there is a German small corp [MDOGS] 6 member corp using 4 hulks and 2 orca's and 1 is fleet boosting and they are using a Bot Program. I have asked in local and i even bumped them they said nothing to anyone so i posted in a few systems so far they are not back as of yet but they mine out entire systems and they must be stopped i would suggest Bot-a-geddon 365 till miniers like that 23 hrs a day get the hint but we must be free of concord and standing losses if possible. This would be much appreciated by many thanks everyone fly safe o/
Well ... start shooting, genius ? Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
179
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 16:20:00 -
[602] - Quote
All things considered, I'm amazed that anyone even cares about bots anymore. I guess CCP found something they could distract that masses with, while still failing to implement non-buggy code....
"CCP, is a cutting edge developer, they have found a way to sell lag to their customers, and make them believe it's a feature." |
Pinstar Colton
Sweet Asteroid Acres
166
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 16:49:00 -
[603] - Quote
If I see a player and the way they act on occasion...and later find out they were banned as a bot, I would be able to more easily identify future botters more accurately if I see others with similar behaviors. This may help detect other bots faster.
On the market side, seeing .01 isking market bots banned would do a good deal to clam frustrated traders who hate the .01 isk game. While it won't stop the .01 game... it'll assure players that the remaining .01 isking competition is other legitimate players and that they aren't trying to compete against a 23/7 market bot when their order gets overtaken almost instantly.
At its core, seeing players get punished for botting is just comforting in general. If you could post not only their name but how much ISK you deleted from them, it would be all the more rewarding. Just as some players love seeing high-value kill mails on players acting dumb... seeing high-value ban-mails from players botting would draw the same crowd...and probably go a long way to discouraging botting from players who might be considering it. In the cat-and-mouse game that is low sec, there is no shame in learning to be a better mouse. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 17:16:00 -
[604] - Quote
dave3NG wrote:For mining bots, on top of standard punishment, how about removing the mining skill and not allowing them to retrain it. Not an immediate red mark clearly visible, but still obvious to corp CEOs who can check a skill queue, (and see exhumer, but not basic mining for example).
They could become good citizens in any other form of gameplay. I like.
Simple, elegant, does the job. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |
Ukrane Bob
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 17:49:00 -
[605] - Quote
dave3NG wrote:For mining bots, on top of standard punishment, how about removing the mining skill and not allowing them to retrain it. Not an immediate red mark clearly visible, but still obvious to corp CEOs who can check a skill queue, (and see exhumer, but not basic mining for example).
They could become good citizens in any other form of gameplay.
I would even take it a step further and allow CCP to bio mass offending characters caught botting and flagging any other characters on the same account. This way it would instantly remove the botter out of the business and for the folks that want to give the criminals a chance to rehabilitate, well they(the botter) can make a new character and decide a new career path to pursue which would give them a bit of time whilst retraining to think upon their previous ways, flagged of course. I like to **** people off.. Get Over it.. Adapt .. Survive! |
Korsiri
Mousetrap Building Inc.
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 18:23:00 -
[606] - Quote
I dislike it, not because I think botters should have any protection - they shouldn't . The only pro thing I've read so far that makes sense is recruitment. I don't see any other reason players would benefit from this. As for shame, forget it. Botters by definition aren't there, some of em are professional at it. They're not going to feel guilt or shame because they got caught; annoyance - maybe. Then they'll open another account and do it again.
Why not simply post the names of toons caught botting? Recruiters can look em up, wanna be equalizers can look em up and do some work instead of having a flashy red delicious button on a moving target to attract em first lol |
Irya Boone
Escadron leader La League des mondes libres
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 18:29:00 -
[607] - Quote
Necroposting, necrothreading and necroTopicing are bad really really BAD |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 18:52:00 -
[608] - Quote
In my mind the benefit is in knowing how widespread botting is and that something is being done about it. I would like to be able to see a year from now that there is less of it than there is now. That is not so say that there are not more effective ways to show this, but public humilitation would definitely work. |
Naomi Apollonia
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 19:35:00 -
[609] - Quote
Why are you not just banning these cheaters out right? |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies THE UNTHINKABLES
58
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 19:38:00 -
[610] - Quote
eh throw them on a seperate eve server just for botters. they can still play just not in my universe. |
|
Zapphire
Circle of Jerks
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 20:09:00 -
[611] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: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!
:)
Since you ban botters, what would be the point? They will not be able to log in when you ban them. So, you just want us to be able to harass them on the forums? For what? We will not be able to discuss their ban, without fear of the Hammer coming down on us. Again, what would be the point of all of this?
Seems like it would just create more stupidity.
|
Hudzen Ten
Diva-Droid International
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 20:35:00 -
[612] - Quote
Naomi Apollonia wrote:Why are you not just banning these cheaters out right?
20 bucks per month.
Botters caught in high sec should be given a -10 sec status and possibly - faction standings to some degree (def for mission bots). This enables them to be ganked while they serve a penance doing missions to repair the sec
Botters caught in low sec seem like they should of been ganked by someone, but i know they can be setup pretty ninja. I can't think of anything tailored to it, maybe this for the current standard punnishment from CCP as its more unlikely to be any serious 10 char kinda bot farm.
Botters caught in 0.0 should have all characters involved deleted or suffer some kind of skill point reduction similar to being podded with a basic clone. There is so much isk floating around there is no excuse.
Botters caught in wh's should be hired as developers to create a better AI for eve in general. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 20:59:00 -
[613] - Quote
Necroe'd by someone who got their post snipped. That's just terrible. -RubyPorto
IB4TS |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:24:00 -
[614] - Quote
So, Screegs, when is this going to happen?
Certainly there are plenty of bots out thar.
I want to see a B tattooed on the forehead of the botters.
They wont care of course, but I want to see it just the same. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
613
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:31:00 -
[615] - Quote
sreegs. |
Brooks Puuntai
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
770
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:31:00 -
[616] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:So, Screegs, when is this going to happen?
Certainly there are plenty of bots out thar.
I want to see a B tattooed on the forehead of the botters.
They wont care of course, but I want to see it just the same.
Since this thread is almost 6 months old I would say probably never. Or in 12 months.
|
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:57:00 -
[617] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:sreegs.
I like it my way better.
SCREEEEEEEE gs. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:32:00 -
[618] - Quote
I'm curious, if this would be implemented would people stop accusing multiboxers of botting since they wouldn't have the mark?
Seriously though, multiboxing <> botting. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1101
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:39:00 -
[619] - Quote
You should be marked for botting... if by marked you mean banned...
|
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 05:20:00 -
[620] - Quote
I wonder whats taking them so long to implement this.
Its like they put all the bad parts of inferno in, but left out all the good stuff.
Yay, wardecs are more expensive. Oh, but scarlet letter for corp jumpers......no can do.
Lets ban bots!!!! Then create the Mackinaw and Retriever.
Its like punching yourself in the nutz repeatedly to get a hardon. You might get where you are going, but it will take a very long time. |
|
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
260
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:25:00 -
[621] - Quote
Necroed again?
CCP is on the five year plan, anything talked about now, will be discussed again in five years....
"CCP, is a cutting edge developer, they have found a way to sell lag to their customers, and make them believe it's a feature." |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:37:00 -
[622] - Quote
Ah a "rise and shine thread"... It appears to me that applying practices broadly used from medieval times until the 1940 in a european state, marking "Suspects" with letters or signs so everybody can distinguish them .... yeah sounds like a very progressive and new feature. |
Incindir Mauser
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:19:00 -
[623] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Ah a "rise and shine thread"... It appears to me that applying practices broadly used from medieval times until the 1940 in a european state, marking "Suspects" with letters or signs so everybody can distinguish them .... yeah sounds like a very progressive and new feature.
CCP has access to data that we do not, and the ability to identify bots.
I am convinced that the only way to stop botting in EvE is through player-based policing. Tag them, deny them protection from CONCORD in high security space, put ISK bounties on their heads, and we will take care of the rest.
Instead of bounty hunters. Bot hunters.
It could become a profession. Like miner bumping. |
Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1842
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:23:00 -
[624] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:So, Screegs, when is this going to happen?
You make it sound like this was a a post from CCP Sreegs about an upcoming feature, rather than a statement from CCP Sreegs that he sees no value in scarlet letters.
It is not going to happen.
I am as upset as you are about the nerf to suicide ganking. Scarlet letters aren't going to reinvigorate suicide ganking, sadly. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Evil .inc WHY so Seri0Us
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 23:25:00 -
[625] - Quote
How about an off the game, unofficial botting list? Anyone up for that? |
Pipa Porto
1000
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 00:10:00 -
[626] - Quote
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus wrote:How about an off the game, unofficial botting list? Anyone up for that?
It'll be great to see it when you've finished it. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: [one page] |