EVE Search - WE ARE FEED UP!!!! TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE ABOUT RMT AND BOTTING!!!!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

WE ARE FEED UP!!!! TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE ABOUT RMT AND BOTTING!!!!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 63 post(s)
Chesty McJubblies Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2011.04.02 14:48:00 - [2131] Originally by: Elanor Vega Originally by: Vincent Athena Has anyone noticed any reduction in the bot population? I tend to not frequent systems that harbor them, so I have not really gotten a feel for if CCP Sreegs is getting results. I do know one bot near me is still going.... Any other bot intel? I would like to know that too... anyone saw any progress??? Yes, they removed up to 1000 accounts.
Xylengra	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:04:00 - [2132] Originally by: Chesty McJubblies Yes, they removed up to 1000 accounts. Prove that statement.
Slate Shoa	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:21:00 - [2133] Originally by: Xylengra Originally by: Chesty McJubblies Yes, they removed up to 1000 accounts. Prove that statement. I believe the number 1000 comes from the EVE Fanfest Security Presentation, where I think Sreegs was talking about the difference between the new slow burn tactic versus the unholy rage tactic. Sreegs said something to the effect of: 'The number of accounts banned is less than 1000.' So the number 1000 is an upper limit, not an exact figure. That isn't an exact quote btw, and I don't know where exactly in the presentation he says it. On a different note: Originally by: CCP Sreegs Originally by: Slate Shoa Questions: SNIP (question was answered) 2) What is CCP going to do to continually prove to the playerbase that bans for botting are: a) occurring at a significant rate (ex: not one botter per day)? b) severe enough to be a significant deterrence (ex: not one day bans)? My take on the subject: Any feature to report bots is meaningless unless CCP can prove that they are continuously acting upon player reports of bots. Playerbase confidence in CCP's willingness to act on player reports must be restored. The bans must also be significant in penalty and rate of occurrence. The presentation addresses this specifically. and Originally by: Slate Shoa Quote: EVE Fanfest 2011 Security Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4gZm-85JOs From the presentation, it looks like CCP is streamlining the bot reporting process and coming up with ways to avoid having to make judgment calls for each bot report. This streamlining is good. I would still like to hear what is being done to continually prove that bot reports are being acted upon. In the presentation CCP Sreegs was commenting about how the old bot reporting system has a bad (no) feedback system. It seemed that Sreegs was going to comment on how the new bot reporting system feedback would be changed, but then it looked like Sreegs forgot to talk about it (assuming there was something planned). Are the players who report bots going to be notified if their reports successfully catch a botter? Is there going to be a Wall-of-Shame (or equivalent)? If some privacy agreement is preventing CCP from disclosing the result of a bot report, then that privacy agreement needs to be changed. CCP needs to be visible in its handling of botters and continually prove to the playerbase that botters are being delt with; lack of visibility will lead to additional (and justified) anti-botter rage. I will wait for the Devblog to be published to see if my concerns are addressed there. I am still waiting on the Devblog...
Sirius Cassiopeiae	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:22:00 - [2134] Originally by: Slate Shoa Edited by: Slate Shoa on 02/04/2011 17:26:37 Originally by: Xylengra Originally by: Chesty McJubblies Yes, they removed up to 1000 accounts. Prove that statement. I believe the number 1000 comes from the EVE Fanfest Security Presentation, where I think Sreegs was talking about the difference between the new slow burn tactic versus the unholy rage tactic. Sreegs said something to the effect of: 'The number of accounts banned is less than 1000.' So the number 1000 is an upper limit, not an exact figure. That isn't an exact quote btw, and I don't know where exactly in the presentation he says it. On a different note: Originally by: CCP Sreegs, post #1907 Originally by: Slate Shoa Questions: SNIP (question was answered) 2) What is CCP going to do to continually prove to the playerbase that bans for botting are: a) occurring at a significant rate (ex: not one botter per day)? b) severe enough to be a significant deterrence (ex: not one day bans)? My take on the subject: Any feature to report bots is meaningless unless CCP can prove that they are continuously acting upon player reports of bots. Playerbase confidence in CCP's willingness to act on player reports must be restored. The bans must also be significant in penalty and rate of occurrence. The presentation addresses this specifically. and Originally by: Slate Shoa, post #1987 Quote: EVE Fanfest 2011 Security Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4gZm-85JOs From the presentation, it looks like CCP is streamlining the bot reporting process and coming up with ways to avoid having to make judgment calls for each bot report. This streamlining is good. I would still like to hear what is being done to continually prove that bot reports are being acted upon. In the presentation CCP Sreegs was commenting about how the old bot reporting system has a bad (no) feedback system. It seemed that Sreegs was going to comment on how the new bot reporting system feedback would be changed, but then it looked like Sreegs forgot to talk about it (assuming there was something planned). Are the players who report bots going to be notified if their reports successfully catch a botter? Is there going to be a Wall-of-Shame (or equivalent)? If some privacy agreement is preventing CCP from disclosing the result of a bot report, then that privacy agreement needs to be changed. CCP needs to be visible in its handling of botters and continually prove to the playerbase that botters are being delt with; lack of visibility will lead to additional (and justified) anti-botter rage. I will wait for the Devblog to be published to see if my concerns are addressed there. I am still waiting on the Devblog... Waiting for Devblog too...
Chesty McJubblies Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:38:00 - [2135] Originally by: Xylengra Originally by: Chesty McJubblies Yes, they removed up to 1000 accounts. Prove that statement. I can't be bothered. As stated below they said they banned up to 1000 accounts. So it was probably more like 14 accounts.
Xylengra	Posted - 2011.04.03 01:31:00 - [2136] Originally by: Chesty McJubblies As stated ... they said they banned up to 1000 accounts. So it was probably more like 14 accounts. This, and even that grain of salt rubs the wrong way. Since when did we all just fall down and start accepting whatever word comes out of whatever dev as gospel? A quick review of the integrity of CCP pronouncements might be in order for the true believers. No, the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that anything at all has been done in this regard. It is certainly in CCP's interests to announce, and have the complaining masses believe, that they are now 'on it', so as to get the complaining masses to quit said complaining. What HAS happened is that a good number of legitimate miners are now scaling back their operations significantly, or are dropping mining altogether, at least for a while, so as to avoid being accused of botting by overzealous ragers that aren't playing the game any more than botters are. Whether or not that will affect the market, or the game overall, or in what way, remains to be seen. We have become a community wherein an accusation is all that is needed to launch an investigation, or worse. It is the new griefing, aided and abetted by CCP themselves. Sound RL historically familiar?
Mr Kidd	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:47:00 - [2137] Originally by: Xylengra Originally by: Chesty McJubblies As stated ... they said they banned up to 1000 accounts. So it was probably more like 14 accounts. This, and even that grain of salt rubs the wrong way. Since when did we all just fall down and start accepting whatever word comes out of whatever dev as gospel? A quick review of the integrity of CCP pronouncements might be in order for the true believers. No, the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that anything at all has been done in this regard. It is certainly in CCP's interests to announce, and have the complaining masses believe, that they are now 'on it', so as to get the complaining masses to quit said complaining. What HAS happened is that a good number of legitimate miners are now scaling back their operations significantly, or are dropping mining altogether, at least for a while, so as to avoid being accused of botting by overzealous ragers that aren't playing the game any more than botters are. Whether or not that will affect the market, or the game overall, or in what way, remains to be seen. We have become a community wherein an accusation is all that is needed to launch an investigation, or worse. It is the new griefing, aided and abetted by CCP themselves. Sound RL historically familiar? Would you believe them if they showed you a bunch of graphs concerning server load and performance as before and after snapshots to prove they banned +1000 accounts? Ha! And none of the miners I know are worried in the least about being accused of botting. As such they're not scaling back. Nor are they scaling up in anticipation of CCP's actions.
Florestan Bronstein Amarr Taishi Combine	Posted - 2011.04.03 09:05:00 - [2138] Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 03/04/2011 09:09:38 Originally by: Xylengra Originally by: Chesty McJubblies As stated ... they said they banned up to 1000 accounts. So it was probably more like 14 accounts. This, and even that grain of salt rubs the wrong way. Since when did we all just fall down and start accepting whatever word comes out of whatever dev as gospel? A quick review of the integrity of CCP pronouncements might be in order for the true believers. well, reading other forums it seems obvious that CCP has been handing out 14 day bans to quite a few detected botters (who try to overwhelm CCP customer support by disputing every single temp ban via petition in return). The problem is that training a Hulk-ready character is very cheap (using promotions like power of 2 and/or the buddy program and paying with PLEX) compared to the ISK income that a mining bot can generate per month. The time to break even for running a mining bot seems to be very short - and CCP has to detect & ban these bots faster than they break even. Also CCP explicitly allows you to open new accounts if your old ones have received permabans.
Xylengra	Posted - 2011.04.03 10:10:00 - [2139] Originally by: Mr Kidd Would you believe them if they showed you a bunch of graphs concerning server load and performance as before and after snapshots to prove they banned +1000 accounts? Ha! No, unless they gave me verifiable raw data and let me do my own analysis, and, of course, that isn't gonna happen, now is it? Again, true believers believe on faith, which is, by definition, unprovable. Originally by: Mr Kidd And none of the miners I know are worried in the least about being accused of botting. As such they're not scaling back. Nor are they scaling up in anticipation of CCP's actions. We obviously know different sets of miners. My post is not intended to get you or any of the other true believers to change their minds or their beliefs. Just realize how many times CCP has stated something and it has not been entirely true, or even false on its face. Believe what you want, but there is NO objective data being presented. Anything you assert is based on faith alone.
Xylengra	Posted - 2011.04.03 10:16:00 - [2140] Originally by: Florestan Bronstein Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 03/04/2011 09:09:38 Originally by: Xylengra Originally by: Chesty McJubblies As stated ... they said they banned up to 1000 accounts. So it was probably more like 14 accounts. This, and even that grain of salt rubs the wrong way. Since when did we all just fall down and start accepting whatever word comes out of whatever dev as gospel? A quick review of the integrity of CCP pronouncements might be in order for the true believers. well, reading other forums it seems obvious that CCP has been handing out 14 day bans to quite a few detected botters (who try to overwhelm CCP customer support by disputing every single temp ban via petition in return). The problem is that training a Hulk-ready character is very cheap (using promotions like power of 2 and/or the buddy program and paying with PLEX) compared to the ISK income that a mining bot can generate per month. The time to break even for running a mining bot seems to be very short - and CCP has to detect & ban these bots faster than they break even. Also CCP explicitly allows you to open new accounts if your old ones have received permabans. Yes, anonymous forum posts are always good evidence and can be trusted implicitly. I have followed this issue for many months now, even going so far as to joining the forums of most of the commercially available botting programs, both for mining and ratting. One I know in particular has advocated that its users post there and in other forums that they had received bans so as to decrease the rage of the anti-botting community, as in indicating that CCP is actually doing something. On the other hand, private discussions amongst those users indicate that the status quo has not changed and macroing is continuing unabated. Which anecdotal evidence one believes is up to them personally, but that doesn't change that it is only anecdotal evidence, which is somewhere down below anything real.
clixor	Posted - 2011.04.03 10:43:00 - [2141] Why focus on the UP to 1000 accounts banned? These were probably detected the old school way (i.e. resource heavy). It's more interesting to see what the security team is going to develop in terms of structural automated detection and/or making the client more bot-proof. We all know, and has been said as well, this is going to take a while. CCP however does need to improve it's communication on the matter, after years of silence you can't casually inform the community 'yeah, btw we're working on it', while clearly we're not seeing any change yet. All good intentions aside this is hurting CCP's reputation hugely. My advise: 1. communicate how much accounts are being banned regularly (if process is in place): this will deter the botters and make us +1. 2. be swift and ruthless, ban accounts for life, block ip's. If you break the EULA, especially for RMT, this should be the consequence. Not some lame 14 or whatever day ban. (real players will petition and it should be easy to prove that they were not botting).
Elyssa MacLeod	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:06:00 - [2142] Originally by: Vantoth I have tried searching for references of "unholy rage" in the forum search but get nothing. Could you enlighten me just to what "unholy rage" consisted of? a 3 day ban apparently
Mucous	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:39:00 - [2143] Outuni is aperfect baromter of how banning the bots is going. There is any where fron 50-110 players in the system at all times. I live there, undock there and see the bot retreivers/hulks/macanaws running back and forth from the ice belt 23/7. When ever I undock I will be garenteed to have one of the mining ships coming out of the station at the same time. I won't bore you with more details. I use to report them but that process showed itself to be a waste of time and effort. When I see the player count drop in system and less single mining ships warping back and forth from field to station...then that will tell me CCP is doing somthing.
Discrodia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:22:00 - [2144] Nice unholy rage there OP Originally by: anonymous WE JUST DID SCIENCE!
Elyssa MacLeod	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:37:00 - [2145] Originally by: Discrodia Nice unholy rage there OP Is it funny that this unholy rage seems to have had far more of an effect than the actual one?
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:46:00 - [2146] Originally by: CCP Sreegs If you are interpreting me expressing to you what our responsibilities are as being arrogant than I apologize, but the fact of the matter is that the EULA and TOS are pretty clear and until we amend them to say otherwise I'd follow what they say because that's what you're agreeing to when you play EVE. Since the EULA and TOS are pretty clear can we assume that GM Lelouch's assessment ("Synergy is fine") is accurate? Can you confirm or deny this (maybe after reviewing the software)? I think the point is that the EULA does not appear to be clear at all on some points (eg what is "inappropriate for the level or rank of the character contained in the Account") and stating that it is clear in your opinion does not really change this. I guess it would be more helpful to make a precise statement about the issue at hand (multiboxing) than repeating "we say what we say". If such a statement cannot be made this probably indicates that the matter is not as clear as suggested.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.04.03 17:22:00 - [2147] 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.
Titus Phook Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.03 20:06:00 - [2148] Lets face it, CCP Sreegs is about as evasive on the legitimacy of synergy and the like as a politician is when asked about his expenses. If GM's and the security team have differing views of the EULA & ToS what hope have the players got of getting a clear view of what is allowed & what is not. The security team need to sit down and talk to the GMs that have said x software is ok and formulate a company line from there. If there's not already one in place for CCP staff & volunteers to refer to then put one in place, as it is we are at the mercy of an individuals understanding of what it says. ---------------------------------------------
Paul Mustaka Hekard	Posted - 2011.04.03 20:35:00 - [2149] Edited by: Paul Mustaka Hekard on 03/04/2011 20:36:28 Corporations of any size develop and maintain written policy on anything that bears on legal issues. The TOS and EULA, I would imagine, have such backup. However....just like any other corporation, getting the policies consistently enforced can be a problem. I doubt there is any literal ambiguity to the policies, just employees who fail to execute them. I have a special term for employees like that in my organization; ex-employees. Sometimes also known as expediently terminated employees.
Slate Shoa	Posted - 2011.04.03 22:25:00 - [2150] 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... 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? Yes there's d-scan, but that's only scans to ~14 au (I think). Opinions anyone?
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.04.03 22:47:00 - [2151] Ive been looking for evidence for bot reduction in the Jita market PLEX prices have started to drop, but that could be the end of PLEX for good and rage-quits due to the anomaly nerf. But some could be bot accounts being closed. Mineral prices seem stable, so nothing there. But there are alot of sources of minerals other than macro miners. May take awhile for a effect to be seen here. Ice product prices have increased about 10% in the last few days. Ice mining is one of the most heavily macroed activities because its so easy. This may indicate CCP is in fact doing something.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.04.03 23:45:00 - [2152] 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.
moneykeeper	Posted - 2011.04.03 23:57:00 - [2153] Originally by: dexington 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. Ever heared of encryption?
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.04.04 00:06:00 - [2154] 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.
Elyssa MacLeod	Posted - 2011.04.04 04:28:00 - [2155] Originally by: Titus Phook If GM's and the security team have differing views of the EULA & ToS what hope have the players got of getting a clear view of what is allowed & what is not. none, and im betting they back up banhammering ppl they want sometimes and not others in the same cases with the "we can terminate ppl whenever we want" section in the eula or TOS I cant remember which. Its not fair, but then it doesnt have to be either, and it doesnt seem like CCP cares wether or not we think its fair.
Calistai Huranu Red Federation	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:14:00 - [2156] Weeks vacation over for ccp sreegs, so any news on when we get the Devblog on this?
Elyssa MacLeod	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:02:00 - [2157] Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod on 04/04/2011 08:04:19 Originally by: Calistai Huranu Weeks vacation over for ccp sreegs, so any news on when we get the Devblog on this? I wonder if we arent too mean for him now lol Id rather like to see them come together and talk TO EACH OTHER on the synergy issue and issue a statement. Theyre acting like they arent in the same company and dont have internal emails or ffs cant talk to each other in person for that matter
Rasz Lin Caldari Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:03:00 - [2158] Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod Edited by: Elyssa MacLeod on 04/04/2011 08:04:19 Originally by: Calistai Huranu Weeks vacation over for ccp sreegs, so any news on when we get the Devblog on this? I wonder if we arent too mean for him now lol Id rather like to see them come together and talk TO EACH OTHER on the synergy issue and issue a statement. Theyre acting like they arent in the same company and dont have internal emails or ffs cant talk to each other in person for that matter They dont and they cant. Read up about Agility or whatever the buzzword is for the developing method they are using. Basically its a slave labour where someone decides your goals for you, gives you few days to implement them and then you spend half that time jerking each other in the circle in the team meeting, next you fail to implement half of those goals but there is no time for delays or fixes so they are abandoned and you get NEW set of goals that you have to spend time talking about and then fail to implement. There is no time for talking to other teams as every team has to waste time in their own circle. Thats how PI happened. They had a list of goals, and they only managed 2-3 out of 10 in time but they still released cos AGILITY is all about releasing.
Elyssa MacLeod	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:42:00 - [2159] So Agility basically means destroy the game ah I get it
riverini Gallente Reliables Inc Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:16:00 - [2160] You know... I wasn't joking with that CCP setting up shop as an RMT blackmarket retailer story on april 1st, that was the actual joke... anyone with access to the logs in NC GenStab jabber for Feb 4 sure will know the full story and who I was referring to. CCP is this why my account now disconect every 30 secs into login in? The plan was sound, but for how long... time to shut down and re-tool Oh yes I have been naughty... R

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.