| 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) |
Krixtal Icefluxor
Gallente
Bison Industrial Inc
   |
Posted - 2011.07.03 18:36:00 -
[2551]
{{{{BODY SLAM BUMP}}}}
Do SOMEthing about this besides just Incursions. 
**************************
"God is nothing but the power of the Universe, as a whole, to organize itself." - Lee Smolin Three Roads to Quantum Gravity |
Elanor Vega
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 08:55:00 -
[2552]
I see that 99% of the time is something else more important than botting problem...
and botting is ruining the game...
so... from all seen can be concluded that problems that are directly ruining the game are are on the end of the to-do list... 
and whats done is only to calm down the mass... one step and then stop... lets do something that is pure $$$...
|
Sirius Cassiopeiae
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:13:00 -
[2553]
I think we gave a lot time to CCP for that blog...
and its promised... so I think we don't ask for much...
|
Avila Cracko
|
Posted - 2011.07.11 07:58:00 -
[2554]
All this was, was closing ppls eyes with "we listen you" and "we are doing something" phrases.
yea... they gave us THE BUTTON, but only button don't do anything.
But, they won, they closed out eyes and we are waiting for that promised blog for next 18 months, till they make up some other phrases...
|
Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
|
Posted - 2011.07.11 08:15:00 -
[2555]
 Originally by: Avila Cracko
All this was, was closing ppls eyes with "we listen you" and "we are doing something" phrases.
yea... they gave us THE BUTTON, but only button don't do anything.
But, they won, they closed out eyes and we are waiting for that promised blog for next 18 months, till they make up some other phrases...
Anom changes?
0.0 changes?
UI changes?
What exactly do you want them to do, name and shame all the bots :P at least do some research and check the 'bot' websites, they have persistently had 'issues' with CCP patches which has resulted in their bots becoming less reliable.
Besides NC are dead now, so the prop thread isnt necessary anymore, the 'real' RMT powerhouse is dead, DRF barely have enough ISK to be considered RMT
.
LETS POST ON CAOD GANG! |
Avila Cracko
|
Posted - 2011.07.15 09:19:00 -
[2556]
Originally by: Kalle Demos
Originally by: Avila Cracko
All this was, was closing ppls eyes with "we listen you" and "we are doing something" phrases.
yea... they gave us THE BUTTON, but only button don't do anything.
But, they won, they closed out eyes and we are waiting for that promised blog for next 18 months, till they make up some other phrases...
Anom changes?
0.0 changes?
UI changes?
What exactly do you want them to do, name and shame all the bots :P at least do some research and check the 'bot' websites, they have persistently had 'issues' with CCP patches which has resulted in their bots becoming less reliable.
Besides NC are dead now, so the prop thread isnt necessary anymore, the 'real' RMT powerhouse is dead, DRF barely have enough ISK to be considered RMT
I want them to do what they promised... nothing less...
botts having problems with patch... lol... yea... last 8 years is that way... and bot makers need to spend 1 hour to update botts...
and i don't care about RTM... a care about BOTTS and MACROS... what they do after that with ISK is not that important... because botts are ruining the game... and no botts no after-things...
and i dont talk about some alliances... i am talking about all EVE universe...
|
Disturbed Pilot
|
Posted - 2011.07.15 09:26:00 -
[2557]
If CCP promised to give 10% of MT profit (for X amount of time) to combat bots, I would forgive them for all there short comings in the last several months.
|
Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.07.15 21:30:00 -
[2558]
Originally by: Disturbed Pilot
If CCP promised to give 10% of MT profit (for X amount of time) to combat bots, I would forgive them for all there short comings in the last several months.
Their lead developer for Internet Spaceships is a goon. Goons bot and RMT on a massive scale. Why would you expect them to do anything about bots or care if you forgive them or not (or believe their promises if they made them, for that matter)?
You must be new here.
"I represent those who voted for me, not 'everyone'. Don't give me your entitled voter schtick ..." ~CSM Chair Mittens |
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2011.07.15 21:59:00 -
[2559]
spent way too much time fishing in wow today
reminded me how simple it can be to make even the most mind-numbingly boring gameplay considerably harder to automate
|
Disturbed Pilot
|
Posted - 2011.07.15 22:15:00 -
[2560]
Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson
Originally by: Disturbed Pilot
If CCP promised to give 10% of MT profit (for X amount of time) to combat bots, I would forgive them for all there short comings in the last several months.
Their lead developer for Internet Spaceships is a goon. Goons bot and RMT on a massive scale. Why would you expect them to do anything about bots or care if you forgive them or not (or believe their promises if they made them, for that matter)?
You must be new here.
I'd just like to say, i left my opinion short and to the point to see if a troll would grab hold of it. Do you really got nothing better to do?
|
Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.07.16 18:06:00 -
[2561]
Originally by: Disturbed Pilot
Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson
Originally by: Disturbed Pilot
If CCP promised to give 10% of MT profit (for X amount of time) to combat bots, I would forgive them for all there short comings in the last several months.
Their lead developer for Internet Spaceships is a goon. Goons bot and RMT on a massive scale. Why would you expect them to do anything about bots or care if you forgive them or not (or believe their promises if they made them, for that matter)?
You must be new here.
I'd just like to say, i left my opinion short and to the point to see if a troll would grab hold of it. Do you really got nothing better to do?
You made an ignorant/inflammatory post to provoke a reaction, then? (Isn't that trolling?)
You really got nothing better to do?
"I represent those who voted for me, not 'everyone'. Don't give me your entitled voter schtick ..." ~CSM Chair Mittens |
Novon Toll
|
Posted - 2011.07.16 21:31:00 -
[2562]
Good topic. Death to bots!
|
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Amarr
PORSCHE AG
|
Posted - 2011.07.18 22:10:00 -
[2563]
ehhm... and whats about that blog??? 
_______________________________________________
"Everybody's at war with different things... I'm at war with my own heart sometimes" (by 2Pac) |
Cletus Majora
|
Posted - 2011.07.18 22:17:00 -
[2564]
Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae
ehhm... and whats about that blog???
lol, just lol.
To expect 'that blog', one would have to expect that anything CCP says, or has said, about their pursuit of botting was true, or is true. I know that most of the denizens of this threadnaught believe them, but, really, where is the actual evidence?
Everywhere I go I see either the same old bots or new bots in the same numbers.
Originally by: The A Team's Mr. T
I pity the fool (who thinks CCP really wants to do anything about botting)
|
OHU812
|
Posted - 2011.07.18 22:26:00 -
[2565]
Yup... might as well quit wasting your time.
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 20:26:00 -
[2566]
Over on failheap a potty-mouthed fanboi is claiming that with respect to bots, CCP have "picked up the ball here and run with it. The problem isn't completely solved and it never can be but they are doing something about it."
Is there any truth to this or is it still just like 1 guy at CCP giving multiple chances to botters enforcing a policy with multiple loopholes, allowing botting to continue more or less as before?
I'd think that if CCP were really doing something significant, they'd be crowing about it.
Want to buy a monocle? |
Meryl SinGarda
Caldari
Belligerent Underpayed Tactical Team
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 20:32:00 -
[2567]
There needs to be a topic called, "WE ARE FED UP!!!! TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE ABOUT DERPERS AND WHINERS!!!!"
Fly safe, Die hard |
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 21:02:00 -
[2568]
Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
Over on failheap a potty-mouthed fanboi is claiming that with respect to bots, CCP have "picked up the ball here and run with it. The problem isn't completely solved and it never can be but they are doing something about it."
Is there any truth to this or is it still just like 1 guy at CCP giving multiple chances to botters enforcing a policy with multiple loopholes, allowing botting to continue more or less as before?
I'd think that if CCP were really doing something significant, they'd be crowing about it.
CCP has told the CSM this (from the May meeting minutes with the Eve Secutity Task Force):
"CSM was shown a graph of the number of characters actively performing a ôcertain actionö more than 20 hours a day. There were huge chasms in the graph around Chinese New Year, Hulkageddon, and a final cliff like drop after the first ESTF bannings."
"Only 8% of players who receive their first strike go on to get a second strike. CSM noted that this compares to a 1-year recidivism rate in the US of 16%, which indicates that EVE players are distressingly law-abiding.
As of the week before the summit, nearly 100 players had received a third-strike, but an additional number of players who had been caught botting were separately banned for RMT.
CSM raised the concern that the numbers being shown were being affected by character laundering (selling of characters that have received strikes and replacing them with clean characters). However, CCP tracks this activity and the numbers are not significant."
For that last: The strikes are against the PLAYER, not the account or character. There are reports in the other bot thread of botters with 5 accounts, 4 of which bot, getting all 5 banned.
So CCP is doing something. But is it enough?
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 21:17:00 -
[2569]
Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
Over on failheap a potty-mouthed fanboi is claiming that with respect to bots, CCP have "picked up the ball here and run with it. The problem isn't completely solved and it never can be but they are doing something about it."
Is there any truth to this or is it still just like 1 guy at CCP giving multiple chances to botters enforcing a policy with multiple loopholes, allowing botting to continue more or less as before?
I'd think that if CCP were really doing something significant, they'd be crowing about it.
CCP has told the CSM this (from the May meeting minutes with the Eve Secutity Task Force):
"CSM was shown a graph of the number of characters actively performing a ôcertain actionö more than 20 hours a day. There were huge chasms in the graph around Chinese New Year, Hulkageddon, and a final cliff like drop after the first ESTF bannings."
"Only 8% of players who receive their first strike go on to get a second strike. CSM noted that this compares to a 1-year recidivism rate in the US of 16%, which indicates that EVE players are distressingly law-abiding.
As of the week before the summit, nearly 100 players had received a third-strike, but an additional number of players who had been caught botting were separately banned for RMT.
CSM raised the concern that the numbers being shown were being affected by character laundering (selling of characters that have received strikes and replacing them with clean characters). However, CCP tracks this activity and the numbers are not significant."
For that last: The strikes are against the PLAYER, not the account or character. There are reports in the other bot thread of botters with 5 accounts, 4 of which bot, getting all 5 banned.
So CCP is doing something. But is it enough?
That actually sounds promising. Thanks for the info. (Not sure how wise it is to tell the botters that the cut-off is 20 hours per day, but that might be (justifiable for a change) deliberate misinformation.
Want to buy a monocle? |
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 21:26:00 -
[2570]
Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
Over on failheap a potty-mouthed fanboi is claiming that with respect to bots, CCP have "picked up the ball here and run with it. The problem isn't completely solved and it never can be but they are doing something about it."
Is there any truth to this or is it still just like 1 guy at CCP giving multiple chances to botters enforcing a policy with multiple loopholes, allowing botting to continue more or less as before?
I'd think that if CCP were really doing something significant, they'd be crowing about it.
CCP has told the CSM this (from the May meeting minutes with the Eve Secutity Task Force):
"CSM was shown a graph of the number of characters actively performing a ôcertain actionö more than 20 hours a day. There were huge chasms in the graph around Chinese New Year, Hulkageddon, and a final cliff like drop after the first ESTF bannings."
"Only 8% of players who receive their first strike go on to get a second strike. CSM noted that this compares to a 1-year recidivism rate in the US of 16%, which indicates that EVE players are distressingly law-abiding.
As of the week before the summit, nearly 100 players had received a third-strike, but an additional number of players who had been caught botting were separately banned for RMT.
CSM raised the concern that the numbers being shown were being affected by character laundering (selling of characters that have received strikes and replacing them with clean characters). However, CCP tracks this activity and the numbers are not significant."
For that last: The strikes are against the PLAYER, not the account or character. There are reports in the other bot thread of botters with 5 accounts, 4 of which bot, getting all 5 banned.
So CCP is doing something. But is it enough?
That actually sounds promising. Thanks for the info. (Not sure how wise it is to tell the botters that the cut-off is 20 hours per day, but that might be (justifiable for a change) deliberate misinformation.
Which just leaves the minor side issue of the "potty mouthed fanboi" being right and you being wrong.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 21:43:00 -
[2571]
Edited by: AkJon Ferguson on 19/07/2011 21:46:11
On this issue (whether or not CCP's actions are having any significant effect at reducing/deterring botting,) it sounds like you were right and I was wrong. (and I'd rather be wrong than right here, tbh.)
Want to buy a monocle? |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 18:00:00 -
[2572]
Originally by: Vincent Athena
So CCP is doing something. But is it enough?
Not if it means that all a botter has to do is bot 18 hours a day on 4 PLEXed accounts instead of 23.5 hours a day on 3 PLEXed accounts.
'Recidivism rates' are meaningless if 'law enforcement' is incompetent or if the criminals have learned how to avoid detection.
Fewer than 100 players banned for botting. It sounds like CCP has made a 'promising' start, by targeting the most flagrant abusers. CCP is very good at promising. Delivering, not so much.
What ever became of that list of RMTers on EVENews24? Were they all banned? Were they at least all investigated?
Want to buy a monocle? |
edith prickley
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 18:45:00 -
[2573]
Edited by: edith prickley on 20/07/2011 18:50:14
The CSM numbers are interesting. 100 banned (3rd strike) and 8% 2nd strike recidivism. If we knew the 3rd strike rate, we'd know how active CCP has been, but we can still make some guesses.
For instance, if we assume the 8% repeat offenders are determined botters, and 100% of them go on to a 3rd strike, then we find that CCP have detected a total of 1250 botters. Doesn't seem like very much.
On the other hand, if we use the known 2nd strike rate (8%) for the 3rd strike as well, we get 15625 bots detected. Ouch, that would mean almost 10% of Eve users were identified as bots (assuming ~160k people are playing, which is about what you get from 360k accounts and 2.25 accounts per person).
Probably the real answer is between these two widely separated extremes, since I guess the perma-ban 3rd strike penalty is enough to deter some proportion of even the most serious botters.
Hopefully Sreegs returns to the forums with his blog at some point so that we can stop speculating.
|
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Amarr
PORSCHE AG
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:36:00 -
[2574]
Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae on 20/07/2011 19:36:36
ppl, you know that sticky topic "Current Botting and Exploit/Client Modification Policies - 12/5/2011"
well... its not any more...
and you know when something is not important any more... when they remove it... 
_______________________________________________
"Everybody's at war with different things... I'm at war with my own heart sometimes" (by 2Pac) |
Cletus Majora
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:43:00 -
[2575]
It's so very interesting to see all these people putting absolute faith in what amounts to an absolutely unfaithful company.
Ooooh, they showed the CSM a graph??? Well, shut my mouth! I guess that proves everything.
When combined with the removed sticky on botting policy, I wonder when all these faithful will finally open their eyes and see the absolute LACK of evidence staring right at them.
|
edith prickley
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 19:53:00 -
[2576]
Edited by: edith prickley on 20/07/2011 19:54:19
Yup, given that Sreegs has been quiet for a couple of months now and they've silently removed his policy sticky (a very strange move), I'm beginning to have more faith in the botters' point of view: CCP is really just paying lip service to this problem.
Well, we've heard it from Hilmar himself. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
So CCP, what are you doing?
|
Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 21:06:00 -
[2577]
Trusting CCP kinda reminds me of Sam Kinison's take on love/marriage.
"I represent those who voted for me, not 'everyone'. Don't give me your entitled voter schtick ..." ~CSM Chair Mittens |
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 22:14:00 -
[2578]
Originally by: edith prickley
Edited by: edith prickley on 20/07/2011 19:54:19
Yup, given that Sreegs has been quiet for a couple of months now and they've silently removed his policy sticky (a very strange move), I'm beginning to have more faith in the botters' point of view: CCP is really just paying lip service to this problem.
Well, we've heard it from Hilmar himself. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
So CCP, what are you doing?
Banning botters |
|
Tautut
The Union Of The Snake
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 22:19:00 -
[2579]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: edith prickley
Edited by: edith prickley on 20/07/2011 19:54:19
Yup, given that Sreegs has been quiet for a couple of months now and they've silently removed his policy sticky (a very strange move), I'm beginning to have more faith in the botters' point of view: CCP is really just paying lip service to this problem.
Well, we've heard it from Hilmar himself. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
So CCP, what are you doing?
Banning botters
Right on.
Although I've just put a couple of war decs on a few ... Not trying to make your life difficult but be sensitive to my combat needs. 
The Union of the Snake [SNAKE]
|
Moon Shadowfall
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 22:22:00 -
[2580]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: edith prickley
Edited by: edith prickley on 20/07/2011 19:54:19
Yup, given that Sreegs has been quiet for a couple of months now and they've silently removed his policy sticky (a very strange move), I'm beginning to have more faith in the botters' point of view: CCP is really just paying lip service to this problem.
Well, we've heard it from Hilmar himself. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
So CCP, what are you doing?
Banning botters
86 pages summed up with two words. LOL
|
| |
|
| 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 |