|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.12 16:07:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Won't a bot generate a completely "Robotic" sequence of key ins, all in the same order and duration, for an obscene amount of time? And wouldn't this "Signature" be completely different then the "Signature" of a human being sitting at the keyboard?
Couldn't that easily be logged by the client?
if you add a little random delay then it's hard to detect any patterns, or you would atleast get a very high amount of false positives.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.12 19:33:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Othran
Originally by: dexington
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Won't a bot generate a completely "Robotic" sequence of key ins, all in the same order and duration, for an obscene amount of time? And wouldn't this "Signature" be completely different then the "Signature" of a human being sitting at the keyboard?
Couldn't that easily be logged by the client?
if you add a little random delay then it's hard to detect any patterns, or you would atleast get a very high amount of false positives.
In terms of market bots there is a clear trail of transaction charges.
In terms of ratting bots there is a clear trail of bounties.
The argument was that bots mimic human behaviour and if they loop the same input sequence over and over, all CCP needs to do is find one bot monitor it's behaviour and then would be able to detect all bots by looking for the same input sequence.
It's has nothing to do with transaction trails...
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.13 13:10:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Heh 4 major games sites reporting on RMT, Botting and EvE.
Can't be good for CCP's reputation.
It gives them a bad reputation compared to what games?, most/all of the major mmo's have bot/RMT problems. Blizzzard spend most of the last expansion trying to fight hackers stealing gold from players and guilds, i've not played aion online but from what i've heard they also have huge problems with bots.
It did'nt get publicity because it's a unique problem that only exists in eve, the incident got publicity because it's probably the first time a RMT site was hacked and the customer database leaked on the internet.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.14 04:49:00 -
[4]
Edited by: dexington on 14/03/2011 04:51:43 I think you are mostly expressing you personal opinion on RMT and how CCP is handling that problem, which right or wrong is not supported by the information in the news stories. The articles are all about the leaking of the iskbank customer database, and have really nothing to do with the RMT/bot problem of eve or the size of the problem.
Originally by: Infinity Ziona It gives them a bad reputation because when people read those articles, they get linked to other articles, or are made aware of, the apathy and neglect that CCP has towards RMT and botters.
Not one of the articles you refer to comments on what CCP does or does not do to stop RMT, or comment on the size of the problem within the eve universe. One article has the comment "CCP's response was the predictable "no comment" style approach, which is standard for most companies as they work to deal with RMT issues.", which make it seem like CCP is doing the same as every other company.
Originally by: Infinity Ziona CCP is rather unique in that they have painted themselves into a corner, where legal isk for cash, legal character transfers and illegal RMT and botting are all working together to prop up CCP.
Where other games companies are actively working against RMT and botters, CCP is actively working with RMT and botters, even if its not an intentional thing, it is what it is.
I can't seem to find any support for this is any of the articles, i can be wrong be i don't recall seeing any comments on legal sale of isk or transfer of characters. Feel free to prove me wrong and point out where it's said that CCP is working with botters and RMT sites.
Originally by: Infinity Ziona And lastly, any press is bad press, its highly likely that a person who is not a cheat, reading the article on EvE on those 4 sites, will decide against signing up, simply because they will have the impression that the game will be too hard without forking out rl cash or because they dislike cheating in games.
So once again, yes, Bad Press for CCP.
It's also said "There is no such thing as bad publicity". I think it's safe to assume that anyone reading the articles already playing an mmo, is playing one with just as many botters, hackers and cheaters. If someone is looking to try eve it's presumptious to assume they are going to change their mind because because a news story informs about RMT. Anyways this is just guessing, no of us know how or even if this is going to affect CCP/EVE.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.14 07:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: dexington on 14/03/2011 07:34:22
Originally by: AkJon Ferguson It gives them a bad reputation because the other companies you cited are actively fighting against that behavior instead of condoning it (if not enabling it) like CCP does.
Blizzard has the most played mmo in the world and they have just as many problems with bots, and alot more problems with account getting hacked. It got bad in TBC and alot worse in WOTLK, i stopped playing wow in the last weeks of WOTLK and the situation was pretty much this, people where complaining that they received scam emails, scam messages in-game, accounts hacked cleaned out and used as bots, bots being active weeks after they had been reported, and the list goes on.
The trade channel was constantly filled with spam from RMT sites, and RMT sites even used exploits to make character float in the air so they could use them to make animated 3D advertisements in the major cities. People reporting bots by name had their threads closed by admins for breaking the naming and shaming rules, and if treads got a response it was always something like "we are working on the problem.".
If they are actively fighting bots and rmt it have had no effect for the previous 2 expansions where things just got worse and worse, the only reason things seem better in wow is because they don't have the same player driven market as eve.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.15 11:25:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Erick Odin tbh all you guys in highsec making billions is total safety resemble bots to me. just saying.
0/10
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.15 13:01:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Othran Edited by: Othran on 15/03/2011 12:50:00 On detection of ratbots (ratting bots) :
I don't really understand what the "technical issue" is here.
Every time you kill a rat you get a bounty and/or sec standing increase. Now I know that sec status only goes to +5 these days but there's no reason why the increases couldn't be logged if required.
So as a first pass to filtering who's potentially running a ratbot you run a monthly check of total bounties per day/week on the playerbase. I'm assuming that data can be easily extracted by CCP and used "offline". Once your automated filter pulls out the top 5% of bounty earners then you enable logging of sec standing increases for those players (or ratbots). A week or so of data will show whether its a normal human being or not. Edit - obviously bounties wouldn't work for drone regions, but TBH they need attention anyway - both in the sense of ratbots and in the sense of being horrible places to live.
Now you've got a list of people who are either botting or account sharing. If its account sharing then that should be fairly easy to identify as the same peaks/troughs of rats killed will appear over time - or IP addresses/login times.
This is the point CCP should be handing the list to your senior GMs and get them to go have a look at how the player/ratbot behaves when something that isn't blue comes into system.
Its not rocket science. It does require a willingness to enforce the rules though.
Fanfest isn't far off anyway so we'll see whether that willingness exists.
It would be easy to spot 1 bot running for 23 hours, but how would you spot 10 bots running for 2.3 hours each?. Aslong as gametime is payed with isk it don't really matter for botters if they need to pay 300M or 3B a months, the bots are still going to make a huge profit.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.15 14:47:00 -
[8]
If you can't handle critique the internet is a dangerous place to post your ideas, not everyone will agree that half measures is a solid solution. I only pointed out an obvious and easy to exploit weakness in your plan, i never say that nothing should or should not be done.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.18 23:29:00 -
[9]
Edited by: dexington on 18/03/2011 23:34:21 @Nadarius
Can't you start a new thread where you post screenshots of people you petition, i really don't know how much more of your smug self-satisfied snitching i can stomach.
It's not your job to be the SS of the space police, you have zero prof that people are doing anything illegal, petition them and let ccp deal with them. If you are the kinda of petty person that needs to gloat, them convo them or send them a mail, before you know they indeed have done anything illegal you should'nt post it on a public forum.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 00:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Nice try at godwinning the thread, but if you really want to compare you could call me a concerned citizen sick of the authorities' inaction.
People like you and whitehound are obviously of the opinion that there is no problem. People like me (oh, and 90% of the rest of the people in this and other threads) think there is.
You have a problem with me stating my opinion? Perhaps it is you who need to be compared to the SS.
The problem is not you stating your opinon, the problem is that you are calling people out to be isk buyers with no proof except an odd 1B contract. What is next you are going to post every scam contract with prices listen in M and not K, they are just as likely to be the cover for an RMT transaction.
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome Edit to add: My petitions carry absolutely 0 weight as proof with CCP, as it should be. I'm merely alerting them to the fact that I personally think that there is an issue with a particular transaction. Much like the evebank list, I do not expect nor want CCP to take that as any kind of proof of nefarious activity. I merely want them to use their own tools, eyes, and perhaps even brain to determine innocence or guilt, entirely with their own data. All I'm doing is trying to get them to take a closer look at the people I'm petitioning.
This has nothing to do with the iskbank customer list, that list was the closest you can get to solid proof. What you are doing is picking odd contracts and publicly claiming people are involved RMT transfers, and demanding that they prove you wrong without you in the first place proved they did something illegal.
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome I guess you're one of those people who looks the other way when you see a car being broken into. Or who ignores the screams of someone being assaulted. "Can't get involved, I'm not the piloce...".
You really should get down form your moral high ground, what you are doing is the equivalent picking the first person that maybe matches the description and just start shouting "he did it!, he did it!".
|
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 03:00:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Katie Tanaka
Originally by: dexington The problem is not you stating your opinon, the problem is that you are calling people out to be isk buyers with no proof except an odd 1B contract. What is next you are going to post every scam contract with prices listen in M and not K, they are just as likely to be the cover for an RMT transaction.
Oh please. Give us your alternative explanation for why a sub-one-day old character would buy a script worth approximately 10,000 ISK in the market via the contracts system for 2.5bn ISK from a player who feels the need to put his name as the contract description? You get bonus points if I don't sneeze my coffee out of my nose in laughter at the outlandishness of your suggestion.
If you did a financial transaction like this in the real world, you'd be reported under anti-money-laundering legislation.
My comment was aimed at the post with the 1B contract for 1 unit of salvage loot, which does seem odd but i don't think it qualifies as proof of RMT. I would say there is a big difference between someone who makes multiple 2.5B transaction on a character that seem created only for that purpose, and someone that make a strange 1B contract.
If some transaction seems suspicious then get the GM's to look at it, there is no point in using the forum to convict players of RMT when it's impossible to prove their guilt or for them to prove their innocence.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 10:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Infinity Ziona No they don't control the connection but they control the bitcode that is being flagged. Like I said before, this happened when CCP changed the bitcode not because all of a sudden ISP's started shaping traffic in peak times.
The problem is no the program code, it's the ISP's system that is not configured correctly. It's the ISP that needs to fix the problem, not CCP.
Do you have any proof that the ISP is throttling internet speed based on the eve data signature, or are you just guessing?. The systems i've heared of doing this, does it based of the amount of data you are down/up loading. Eve don't use a massive amount of bandwidth, seem very odd they would use that as a trigger.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae And all this botting is producing Super-Cap numbers rising.
And you cant say that this is not killing EVE... 450 supercaps produced every month... and that is old data... well... that is sad...
QEN says the number is a lot lower then 450, probably not higher then 300.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:37:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Katie Tanaka In the real world, obvious under- or over-pricing of goods is a red flag for money laundering. Same in EVE.
That still don't mean anyone has to prove anything to someone on the forums, suspicious trading and scams is part of eve.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 14:07:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Katie Tanaka So we have a transaction with a vanishingly low probability of success in a scam scenario, which attempts to achieve a funds transfer other than by the mechanisms that people believe CCP actively monitor for RMT (e.g. direct transfers).
That still does not justify that someone needs to prove anything on the forums, petition the transaction and if the GM's find there indeed have been something illegal going on they will deal with it.
There is no proof anything illegal have been going on, if you convict people based on suspicion how are they ever going to prove their innocence?. If the person who made the contract said he did it just to show a friend how contracts work in eve, everyone would say he was just trying to cover the fact he was would something illegal, even if he was telling the truth. It's like when religious people say you need to prove that gods does not exist, without having to prove he exist in the first place. If assume god exist and the bible is fact, and not fiction, it's impossible to prove god does not exist.
As long as the users of the forums can't produce hard evidence that someone is involved in RMT, they should not post alligations of illegal activity.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 16:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Katie Tanaka Don't want people to talk about what you're doing in EVE? Don't do dumb / weird / suspicious stuff in public.
There is a clear difference between saying someone is doing dumb / weird / suspicious stuff, and claiming they are doing bannable offenses without any solid proof.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 21:36:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome I'll just restate: We're not asking CCP to ban people based purely on the stuff players dig up. We're simply saying "Here, this looks suspicious. Plese investigate."
MAKE A PETITION, the forums are not the place to report suspicious behavior.
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome It appears some people have a problem with that. Why, I wouldn't know. What would be a good reason to not want CCP to look into RMT?
Yes, some people are having a problem with you being to dim to understand the correct use of petitions and the forums. No one is trying to stop CCP from doing anything, except maybe you. If you would petition the problem and not using it for attention whoring on the forums, maybe something would be done about it.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 00:00:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Looking at implant prices in Jita we have seen a steady decline during the last month (after a short period of rebound/stabilization before).
Up to anyone's guess if this is due to botting becoming rampant (on buy orders we are nearing pre-unholy rage levels of sell orders) or botters slowly liquidating stock as they are scared of CCP action.
Would there be any point in liquidating stock except to sell all the isk?. I'm not sure RMT sites can increase the demand for isk, but lowering the prices, after all most of their customers should know they increase the chance of detection the more isk they buy. To me it seems that the demand for isk would remain the same, and the RMT sites would either have to start selling isk at lower prices, which would be equal to giving it away for free. Or they would have to sit on a massive amount of isk, and hope no one detects it.
Is there any reason why it would be safer for the RMT sites to hide the isk, compared to items?. The action of selling the items may raise some flags, why not just wait it out and make as little noise as possible. It's not like running away to mexico with all the isk is an option :)
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:27:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Othran In the case of that particular domain, well its got a nameserver in RIPE IP space ostensibly allocated to a US LLC company that doesn't seem to exist. Same nameserver for a mining bot which has two .com addresses.
ns1.publicdemands.co.uk (178.79.137.18) is the same ip running the forum, the server is probably hosted by linode.com, who the ip also is assigned to. The servers running the forum, are located somewhere in england most likely close to london where linode.com also have facilities and hardware.
Can't really see what the problem should be, looks perfectly legit to me.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:11:00 -
[20]
Edited by: dexington on 28/03/2011 16:15:06 Feel free to point out where i'm wrong, seems like you once again are making wild claims you can't support...
Originally by: Othran .uk domain names have fairly strict rules - part of which is that if you run a commercial site you must provide accurate contact info, this overlaps into Distance Selling Regulations (UK consumer law) as well.
Registrant type: UK Individual Registrant's address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.
The reason the information is not public is probably because the registrant is using valid information.
Originally by: Othran In the case of that particular domain, well its got a nameserver in RIPE IP space ostensibly allocated to a US LLC company that doesn't seem to exist. Same nameserver for a mining bot which has two .com addresses. Not even going to bother looking at the whois for the .coms as it'll be garbage and it'll be a USA registrar.
Wrong wrong wrong, they are using a very real american company with servers and office in london. You would know this is you had bothered to lookup the domain/ip and cross reference that with the ripe database.
Originally by: Othran So in this instance (if I'm right) we can get the .co.uk pulled either because the registrant info is wrong or the registrant does not do any business within the UK (which he doesn't). Now at that point we can get RIPE involved via Nominet and get the IP allocation pulled.
You may or may not be right about the personal information being false, most likely you are wrong. Even if it's false, the Nominet policy does not say that the domain is removed, only that i can be. And you are dead wrong about ripe is going to do anything about the ip.
|
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:32:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Othran Uhuh. You know who has the IP space? Like hell you do. You looked at the obvious and failed.
The reason is YOU HAVE NO CLUE.
Again, **** off and stop trolling.
nslookup publicdemands.co.uk Address: 178.79.137.18
nslookup 178.79.137.18 Name: li193-18.members.linode.com
whois 178.79.137.18 inetnum: 178.79.136.0 - 178.79.143.255 netname: LINODE-UK descr: Linode, LLC country: GB
The uk office of linode.com is assigned the ip range hosting the server...
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 17:36:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Othran
Oh and there's probably some tax evasion which is a criminal offence.
lol, taxes from the massive amount of money he is making running the forum?
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:01:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod Cause when it gets to hundreds of titans per battle and thousands of supercaps, that wont impact anyone.
Some grows in the use of titans and super caps has to be expected, it will happen even without bots, the use of bots just makes it happen faster.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:23:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Furb Killer Well supers are fundamentally broken, but still then, some growth is indeed expected, but less than a year ago it was still a big hit when Atlas lost a titan in H-W, now powerblocks are losing 10+ titans in a single fight (and still supers are build way faster than destroyed), and sure i guess it has a little impact on morale, but not more than that. Do the math how it is next year if CCP doesnt do anything about it.
This really has nothing to do with bots, as the eve universe population grows this is bound to happen. The bots may have some impact on ship construction, but the ideology of blob warfare will exist without bots.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 20:39:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Greagore i just don't understand why people are so against botters who probably make a few billion a month, but they had no real issues with the moon mining that was making some corps trillions for no effort at all.
is it the fact that they are logged in making the isk? That is the only difference I can see.
If CCP would allow bots, everyone would do it. The economy would be gone, and all ships might as well be free.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:12:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod
This would be true if the population increased about TEN TIMES in that time.
That's not really true, you said yourself more titans are being build then destroyed. It does not take more players, it's just takes time. Bots, more players, etc is just a positive catalyst, making it happen faster.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 21:41:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod
Originally by: dexington
Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod
This would be true if the population increased about TEN TIMES in that time.
That's not really true, you said yourself more titans are being build then destroyed. It does not take more players, it's just takes time. Bots, more players, etc is just a positive catalyst, making it happen faster.
So it happening faster is a good thing in your eyes? Is your main in a huge corp with 15 titans by chance?
I really don't care that much about titans, positive catalysts increase the speed of the process and negative catalysts, or inhibitors, decrease the speed of the process.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 22:08:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Vincent Athena Can a pilot be sold from a temp banned account? I sure hope the answer is "No", because otherwise botters can just move pilots from banned accounts to new ones and carry on. But if they got to wait 30 days, then depending on how good your detection is, they may get 3 or 5 days in, then have to wait for 30 days before they can carry on. That actually might be sufficient deterrence.....
You can't use the CCP system on the forums to trade characters that have been banned:
The 'For Sale/Auction' post must be made by the character being offered. This is being added to prevent scams for characters that have been misrepresented, banned, non-existent, etc.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 10:15:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Originally by: Jack Gilligan So what was the big announcement at fanfest?
I didn't see any in the news.
Have we been lied to again?
The tl;dr is that the first two times you are caught you only get short temp bans, and that most likely ISK earned by botting will not be taken away
Do you have any info that would suggest that it's likely that the isk is not removed?, seems to me it's very likely that the isk is removed, that happend to the players in the iskbank customer database.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 12:24:00 -
[30]
Originally by: bitters much Edited by: bitters much on 29/03/2011 11:43:56 1st time they catch you --> slap on you wrist
2nd time they catch you --> 30 days banz0r
3rd time they catch you --> permaban
Only CCP forgot about the possibility for the botter to sell his character for ISK, buy a new one of the forums after the 2nd catch and start all over again.
Way to go CCP
I hardly think it's the case they don't know that people are able to sell characters, seems more to me that it's you who don't understand bans are account based not character. If you get catch two times using bots on you original character, and get catch again on a new character on the same account you are still getting banned.
|
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 16:50:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote: I hardly think it's the case they don't know that people are able to sell characters, seems more to me that it's you who don't understand bans are account based not character. If you get catch two times using bots on you original character, and get catch again on a new character on the same account you are still getting banned.
And why would you possibly keep using the same account if you are going to buy a new char? Obviously you also make a new account then.
What can CCP do more then they are doing now?, unless you are suggesting they should removed character transfer and make it illegal to own multiple accounts, which would be totally pointless and only hurt legit players.
Originally by: EULA ii. Termination of EULA CCP may terminate the EULA, close all your Accounts, and cancel all rights granted to you under the EULA if: (i) you fail to pay the subscription fee when due; (ii) CCP is unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide; (iii) you or anyone using any of your Accounts materially breaches the EULA, makes any unauthorized use of the System or Software, or infringes the rights of CCP or any third party; or (iv) CCP becomes aware of game play, chat or player activity under your Account that is, in CCP's discretion, inappropriate or in violation of the Rules of Conduct. Such termination shall be effective upon notice transmitted via electronic mail, or any other means reasonably calculated to reach you. CCP reserves the right to terminate any and all other Accounts that share the name, phone number, e-mail address, internet protocol address or credit card number with the closed Account. Termination by CCP under this section shall be without prejudice to or waiver of any and all of CCP's other rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved, survive termination, and are cumulative. You will not receive a refund of prepaid subscription fees for a termination pursuant to this section.
They can ban all accounts connected to the running the bots, i can't see how it's humanly possible for them to do more.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 19:00:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Baihuigau With their new security initiative their concentrating more on programs interacting with the client so it should lower wrongfull bans based on the miners that afk for those 15 minutes, whats anoying is that based on what the dev said in the presentation their hinting that multiboxing programs are not allowed but have not given a definate answer on it just that they can interepret the eula like they want and give u a warning ban wonder if their going to keep multiboxers in the dark or come out and say whats allowed or not allowed.
Multiboxing is allowed, as long as you control all clients.
Originally by: GM Lelouch
Hello there,
To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.
Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).
An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!
Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.
I hope this clears up this matter.
Best regards, Senior GM Lelouch EVE Online Customer Support
Linkage
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:46:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Baihuigau I agree that pushes the limits and things like that should be limited, by hope you dont class those that use it to run lets say 3 clients in the same category as someone who runs 5+ clients which is kind of aproaching botting, just because of those players who push things that far, those of us who use it for less clients shouldent be punished as well, multiboxing programs are pretty usefull, maybe have a client restriction as a rule lets say nothing more than 5 clients, then again that would be hard to detect, so its kind of a either u allow it all or nothing, catch 22.
It has to all or nothing, i else you could just use two multibox setups with 5 clients each.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:36:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Grey Stormshadow People surely seem to like the grey area and pushing their boundaries as close to the limit as possible.
I can't see how it can be a grey area or pushing boundaries, until CCP decides to change their policy/EULA/TOS you are allowed to use multibox setups.
CCPSreegs - Multiboxing
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 00:52:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Grey Stormshadow Well the eula states that "3.You may not use macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game."
I would say that using 3rd party program to store mouse click on one client window and automatically applying it to random number of other client windows is "macroing". Also if used in PVP/PVE that surely makes it easier to gain items, currency objects, standings and so on... It is also modification of the user interface, as basic interface doesn't allow you to share mouse clicks with other client interfaces...
A keyboard or mouse macro is a sequences of keystrokes and mouse actions, and it has nothing to do with sharing the mouse/keyboard input between multiple computers. And it's in no way a modification of the EVE UI, it's still receiving input from a mouse and keyboard controlled by a human.
Multiboxing and automated game play is two different things, and if CCP wants to "ban" multiboxing they should add a paragraph about it when they release the revised EULA.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 02:01:00 -
[36]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs The first I'd heard of any applications being given some grant by someone to interact with the EVE client directly AGAINST the very clear written statement in the EULA was at Fanfest and I certainly can't answer something like that without doing a bit of digging.
To interact with the client would imply that the applications use some form of two-way communication, that is not the case with mouse/keyboard sharing software.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 03:33:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane Multiboxing programs are against the EULA. Even if you're at the keyboard, if you replicate one mouseclick to 10 clients, that's what I would define as "an accelerated rate" of acquisition.
It's only illegal if you eg. use macros to accelerate the rate of acquisition, tabbing between two accounts is also an accelerated rate of acquisition but perfectly legal.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 10:11:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Malcanis However if the "wrist slap" is the normal action, then I could reasonably risk it, especially if I'm using a disposable PLEX-supported account.
In fact, knowing that there's a small chance of getting instabanned just encourages me to spread the risk by running 2-3 bot accounts instead of one.
If I knew for sure that as soon as my accounts got caught botting that they'd definitely be banned, the ISK traced and the receipients punished then I'd be deterred. As it is, the wrist-slap policy seems like it's just a small cost of doing business.
There is a balance between player numbers and the action taken against bots, i think it's fair to allow CCP to take an approach that keeps player who stop using bots in the game. I do think they should change their 3 strike policy to warning > perma ban or 30 day ban > perma ban, and i think if the deterrent approach does not work they are going to change their policy.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 15:13:00 -
[39]
Edited by: dexington on 30/03/2011 15:15:09
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: dexington
Originally by: Malcanis However if the "wrist slap" is the normal action, then I could reasonably risk it, especially if I'm using a disposable PLEX-supported account.
In fact, knowing that there's a small chance of getting instabanned just encourages me to spread the risk by running 2-3 bot accounts instead of one.
If I knew for sure that as soon as my accounts got caught botting that they'd definitely be banned, the ISK traced and the receipients punished then I'd be deterred. As it is, the wrist-slap policy seems like it's just a small cost of doing business.
There is a balance between player numbers and the action taken against bots, i think it's fair to allow CCP to take an approach that keeps player who stop using bots in the game. I do think they should change their 3 strike policy to warning > perma ban or 30 day ban > perma ban, and i think if the deterrent approach does not work they are going to change their policy.
The key element is the confiscation of the illicitly gained ISK. Without that, botting is a one-way bet. With any other exploit, the fruits of the crime are taken away. With botting it seems that this is not so. If I RMT 2 billion ISK and get caught, even for a first offence, the 2 bill is automatically removed. Why should botting be different?
CCP Sreegs said that it was what he would like to do, i guess the reason why they don't do it is because it's not always easy to determine the amount of isk generated by botting. If they catch someone only part time botting, should they then also take the isk made by legit play? If a alliance or corp use materials supplied by a player who have been botting in secret, how should they then be punished, it's not that easy to remove 0.1% of a titan.
If CCP need to invest man hours each botter they catch it's going to drain resources away from other parts of the game, at the moment it may just be the lesser of two evils to not investigate the isk.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 17:22:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ban Doga Since the EULA and TOS are pretty clear can we assume that GM Lelouch's assessment ("Synergy is fine") is accurate?
I think it's safe to assume that CCP Sreegs don't support the assessment of GM Lelouch, he just don't have the balls to say it. He keeps saying the same BS about reading the EULA, trying to avoid giving a straight answer. If he shared the same opinion as GM Lelouch he would just say so, and not keep saying that even a ****** could find the answer in the EULA, when not even the CCP employees seem to agree on what the EULA says on this subject.
|
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 23:45:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Slate Shoa A long time ago, I advocated making null-sec local like w-space local as a way to make it more difficult for botters (side effect: and consequently real players too) to thrive in null-sec. Someone then made me aware that it was possible to sniff the network traffic to see if someone is in local, regardless of what is displayed to the player. That threw a wrench into the idea of changing null-sec local...
The server could just stop send the local chat information, then there is nothing to sniff.
Originally by: Slate Shoa From the security presentation it seemed like there is a desire by the security team to detect players sniffing the network traffic, and punish accordingly. Assuming that the security team is able to detect sniffing traffic, does this mean that nerfing null-sec local is now a viable option?
It¦s possible to detect network analyzers running on the same computer as the eve client, but it¦s easy to setup firewall rules that make it impossible to detect sniffers running on other computers and the same network.
CCP can¦t stop anyone with two computers and half a brain from sniffing the client server connection.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 00:06:00 -
[42]
Edited by: dexington on 04/04/2011 00:07:25
Originally by: moneykeeper
Ever heared of encryption?
Running like 50K ssl connections are not something you want to do unless you really have to, it takes a lot more resources to do encryption.
And it may still be possible to detect players, just by monitoring the network traffic, if a player joining local generates a special traffic pattern.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:25:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Othran Edited by: Othran on 04/04/2011 15:59:57 Part 1 of "who is RoidRipper*" is complete - whois is populated, so you can see the registrants address;
Part 2 is now in progress - time to get a real registrant name or the domain gets suspended. Nominet is on the case as we speak;
Part 3 will no doubt be follow the money, couple of weeks I guess......
I got bored this week so I followed up a couple of things
*RoidRipper=publicdemands
Part 4 publicdemands.com goes online...
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 22:42:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Jack Gilligan Yeah, the arrogance and hubris is quite mind numbing isn't it?
Is liked it better then your brain dead whining...
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 23:24:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Grey Stormshadow There is rather easy way to make life of (mining) bots much harder...
I know that people are against captcha but if this was implemented to work with the report bot button, it would efficiently stop the bot and also provide data about characters "after report" behauvior to devs...
So... in nutshell the idea is that when some player hits report bot button, reported character gets notification in mail and link to some captcha. The catch is that reported player can not undock or do any market orders before the captcha has been completed.
You can get people in India to solve captcha for 1.50$ pr 1000 captchas, it would take a week before it's a standard option in bots.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 02:11:00 -
[46]
Edited by: dexington on 06/04/2011 02:11:41
Originally by: CCP Sreegs The three strikes rule is an easily understandable policy that allows for people to become good citizens.
Do you have any system to determine if the account is used only for botting, i would believe is possible to make qualified guess whether or not the account is used normal/legal play or only botting. Would the 3 strike rule also apply to eg. a newer account with a hulk pilot that not really has done anything but mine/bot?
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 11:26:00 -
[47]
Edited by: dexington on 06/04/2011 11:27:02
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein edit: I also think he may underestimate how much of the EVE client relies on Python and how much is c++.
It don't really matter how much or little the client relies on python, it is always going to be easier use python then c++. From the examples i have seen it looks like eve deploys python with the parser, so all you need to do is find a way to inject code, which is not hard, and you are ready to go.
In PHP, i guess the same is true for python, it's in no way impossible to remove the parser and have the scripting engine only run binary code, hardened version often implement some form of signing and/or encryption. Unless CCP is using some bizarre python code, they could at least remove the parser making it harder to inject code and it would also improve on the performance of their own code.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 17:26:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ludacrys Captchas for updating market orders would get rid of a lot of bots
once the bots have implemented ways of bypassing the captcha, it's just going to annoy normal users.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 22:21:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod char a gets 2 infractions and is sold off and a new character made. Rinse, repeat. Botting continues
Rules fail at this point.
And you don't think that is the pattern even if the character can't be sold?, it would be the same even if you would get banned on first offense.
"char a gets banned and a new character made. Rinse, repeat. Botting continues"
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 22:45:00 -
[50]
Originally by: mkint after his 2nd strike it won't matter because he'd already have sold the character completely legally for more than 2 month's worth of botting income.
Your assume a value of the bot character that probably is much higher then, what it really is. If CCP catch the botter within the first month or two the character is not going to be worth anything close to 1-2 months of botting.
|
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 23:05:00 -
[51]
Originally by: mkint The botter is still in a win-win situation, and Sreegs seems fine with that, rather than turning it into a lose-lose situation.
He already said that they know about it they are going to close that loophole, he probably knows better then you where it's best to focus man power, and if even a lot of bots are being character traded.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.04.14 20:14:00 -
[52]
Are anyone experiencing bots asking them to sell your contracts a little cheaper then the price you are asking for?
I've had the same person write me 3 times now, on 3 different contracts, and the conv is always the same. First he ask me to sell it something like 20M lower then the price i'm asking, when i say no he tries with 15M lower. He says the exact same thing every time, and always closes the conv without saying anything after the second attempt, and it always happens 5-10M after i posted the contract.
Anyone else experiencing this?
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.25 19:54:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson You do your job and you'll have no complaints from me.
I find that very hard to believe.
|
|
|
|