| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Shandir
Minmatar
EVE University
Ivy League
   |
Posted - 2011.03.01 22:11:00 -
[1]
The problem with demanding immediate action is that immediate action won't work. They need to plan and scheme.
And the problem with demanding permanent, 99% effective action - is that this would include measures some players aren't happy with.
I think the only real long-term useful solution is going to be a Punkbuster style monitoring application - some have stated they will not accept such an intrusive reaction.
I would cautiously approve of it - depending on what, exactly, it did.
And giving out a ú1 one time access code generating dongle to all players could hobble the RMT hacking business.
Purely PLEX-based accounts also seems like it could be a potential security hole, as it allows an account to have never been attached to a confirmed RL name. Perhaps a ú0.01 charge for setting up an account would force botters to either associate their accounts together, or commit credit card fraud and open themselves up to a lot of legal trouble.
|
Shandir
Minmatar
EVE University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 23:08:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Shandir on 01/03/2011 23:10:30
Edited by: Shandir on 01/03/2011 23:10:07
I keep seeing people saying they want a "Legal CCP bot"
I don't understand how this would improve the game - it's either sufficiently good that the only difference is that we're paying CCP to make the game less competitive, or it's got some inherent flaws, in which case the botters won't use it, and in either case people who would not have botted, will now use the acceptable version - and the situation gets worse.
Conversely - option 2 is extremely difficult and expensive, but it would be the best solution.
Option 3 should be a no brainer. Don't just ban then for three days, don't even ban them for life, track them down and blow their kneecaps off.
|
Shandir
Minmatar
EVE University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.03.02 15:19:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Shandir on 02/03/2011 15:19:48
 Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I won't comment on PI one way or another as I'm The Security Guy, not the Game Design Guy and I also don't agree that game design is the root problem.
Can you get the most "Game design guy" working on this problem to give us at least a broad overview of what's on the table?
Edit: For PI, and other similarly straightforward tasks.
|
Shandir
Minmatar
EVE University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 13:21:00 -
[4]
Originally by: CCP SreegsPart of what we're trying to get done is achieving precisely this. As I said, solving the problem has multiple angles to it, one of which is being able to properly follow through and action on reports by players and on top of that repeat offenders. It's not to say there's not some of this going on today but it could be done a lot better. We have a solution to that and as soon as we're ready to implement (like REALLY soon) I'll let you guys know.[/quote
Is it legally impossible (I find this difficult to believe) to publish the character/account names of a player who breaks the EULA? To name and shame them without revealing RL personal information.
Similarly, is there a legal reason why a player reporting an incident is never informed of the result of it - or is this simply policy? If so, why is this so?
|
Shandir
Minmatar
EVE University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 11:55:00 -
[5]
Guys - no matter how many times you say "Now now now now NOW!" they aren't going to fix the problem overnight.
Sreegs has already said they've got a plan, and Unholy Rage was a similar event - they kicked the botters/RMT guys wholesale out of the game.
Good ideas take time to implement, wait till FF and see what they've got planned. Also, note the CSM isn't raging about this issue - that's a hint that what they've got planned (that the CSM probably know about) might work.
But I agree that there should be a no tolerance attitude towards botting and RMT - please also come down on those to whom the ISK keeps going to, too. Take the ISK back out of the system. (Please implement an 'undo' feature for a player's purchases, ISK transfers, etc)
|
Shandir
Minmatar
EVE University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.03.18 13:08:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Either Optus Internet or Tata communications is flagging EvE data as p2p. Been happening for the last 4 months. This is in my opinion the direct result of the bitcode change and not because Optus or Tata is flagging traffic since they have been packet shaping for years with the old code and the issue never presented until CCP made its recent changes.
Your ISP is probably flagging non-torrent traffic as torrent traffic. This is a bug at the ISPs filtering system. They are at fault.
CCP can help, but if you want to resolve the problem with your ISPs filtering and software, you need to talk to your ISP and get them to do something about it.
And if they're refusing to fix it, this might be a good way to get out of your contract - their equipment is faulty.
This is like blaming your car manufacturer for roadworks. CCP makes the traffic and expects the internet to work as it's intended to. If something stops the internet from working properly, you can't expect them to agree it's their fault.
-
Vote Trebor Daehdoow for CSM and Chairman of CSM.
Trebor's Campaign Manifesto |
Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 11:39:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Chesty McJubblies
The "unusually high number of hours online per day" policy to highlight 1 person, now becomes "there's 4 chars that mine for 6 hours a day. So they're probably actual people.
It is 6h/day per account, but clearly 23.5h/day for a single IP address (for most small time cheaters - yes there will be people botting on multiple IPs)
I think CCP really needs to clarify and harden their policy for multi-account banning. And a two-strike policy is better, in this instance, than a three strike. (Or how about they remove the PLEX option on first/second strikes? Pay by tracable, personally identifiable methods or GTFO?)
-
|
Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 13:06:00 -
[8]
CCP Sreegs - any objection to removing the option to A) PLEX, and B) Character Transfer on a 1st and 2nd warning botting account?
Both of these would cripple profitability, while allowing legitimate players to continue playing.
-
|
| |
|