Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
amarr waffles
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:14:00 -
[1]
I have read over alot of fourms about bots and such but wondering is ccp banning the ip address of the bot? cause if so wouldnt that stop the bots? thanks in advance
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:18:00 -
[2]
They recieve 1 day bans.
In fact it is spreading like a disease , even alliances that allows to kill blue botters or at least kick them out , are unable to do anything significant in that regard.
|
Toilarmius
Minmatar Auxilia Enterprises
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:20:00 -
[3]
I like waffles, but not amarr waffles, becuase it enslaves the syrup in it's little square cup areas, and won't let it out. That is offensive to me.
--- Originally by: CCP Fallout I can scan (but don't have time atm) a picture of one of my mother's modeling photos and you'd see hers as well, and she's more obviously a women than I'll ever be.
|
Kogh Ayon
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:21:00 -
[4]
What a stupid alliance would shoot blue bots!!!!??????
|
amarr waffles
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:22:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Toilarmius I like waffles, but not amarr waffles, becuase it enslaves the syrup in it's little square cup areas, and won't let it out. That is offensive to me.
dont worry they will raise and fight the waffles :\ and use the left overs to create their get away ships
|
Shoopa Whoopa
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:24:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 21:26:51
Originally by: amarr waffles I have read over alot of fourms about bots and such but wondering is ccp banning the ip address of the bot? cause if so wouldnt that stop the bots?
No it wouldn't. Pretty much all of Europe has dynamic IPs. You would basicly ban 1 IP out of the ISPs pool of millions. An IP any customer might end up with.
Besides, if you wanted to get rid of someone permanently.. would you ban his IP? It's more reasonable to annihilate his account and soul.
Also, matter of factly, I ate Kaiserschmarrn today which is kind of waffle like... or pancake like... just not perfectly so.
|
Zyress
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:50:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Shoopa Whoopa Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 21:26:51
Originally by: amarr waffles I have read over alot of fourms about bots and such but wondering is ccp banning the ip address of the bot? cause if so wouldnt that stop the bots?
No it wouldn't. Pretty much all of Europe has dynamic IPs. You would basicly ban 1 IP out of the ISPs pool of millions. An IP any customer might end up with.
Besides, if you wanted to get rid of someone permanently.. would you ban his IP? It's more reasonable to annihilate his account and soul.
Also, matter of factly, I ate Kaiserschmarrn today which is kind of waffle like... or pancake like... just not perfectly so.
Eat it? How do you even pronounce it? LoL
|
Rorriana
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:53:00 -
[8]
Originally by: amarr waffles wouldnt that stop the bots?
Not in a world with VPNs, public proxies, and other ways to get around that.
Assuming that banning an IP stops a botter is like assuming you can capture a fugitive by going to his home address and picking him up.
|
Jon Taggart
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 22:02:00 -
[9]
I know this is probably completely random, and I have absolutely no experience whatsoever, but would the botting problem have anything to do with the fact that EVE can be played in Windowed Mode?
It seems games with botting and script problems, such as WoW, Ultima Online, Aion, and Lineage 2, and all of these games can be played in Window mode.
Doesn't it make it easier for botting programs to identify cursor location, keystrokes, and such if the game is windowed?
I'm just tossing an idea out there. I have no idea. ____________________________________________ Check out my proposal to change the wallet! |
Shoopa Whoopa
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 22:03:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 22:04:22
Originally by: Zyress Eat it? How do you even pronounce it? LoL
Kaai-zer-shmarrn
|
|
James Tiberius Kirk
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 22:05:00 -
[11]
It is more or less confirmed that major alliance leaders are involved with RMT via alt accounts. Either directly selling, or getting a cut from "rent" payments.
Most of the pet alliances are now bot alliances. Russians are more organized at this, thats why they always get the spotlight, but NC is at least as bad as the Russian alliances.
There are alliances that openly allow botting, they put this to their adverts, put botting guides on their forums. Most of these alliances are pets. Through VPN, most of them are completely separate from their parent accounts, so root will never get banned.
For bot infested regions, all you need to do is to check dotlan. When you see a system having 3-4 players non stop for 24 hours, and couple thousand steady npc kills, you can be fairly sure that they are botting. You can find such stats on every 0.0 region that isn't a warzone/active pvp zone. Considering there are only 3 open conflicts at the moment, you can bet rest is 80% bots.
CCP's policy is, don't do anything unless it is reported a dozen times. After that, they give 1-3 day bans, at most.
Issue is getting bigger and bigger, while CCP is pretty much ignoring everything there's to it.
EVE Online will be known as "that bot mmo" quite soon.
Yes, its that bad.
|
ButteSauce
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 22:25:00 -
[12]
Speaking of the NC, just ban Stella Polaris and United Front Alliance and you would get rid of a lot of bots :P
|
Julien Brellier
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 22:57:00 -
[13]
Introduce randomly-timed Captchas when using mining modules. Remove Agent Courier Missions. These are very simple solutions to some forms of botting.
Removing the ratting bots is a bigger challenge. Maybe increasing rat AI in nullsec would help.
|
Ai Shun
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: amarr waffles I have read over alot of fourms about bots and such but wondering is ccp banning the ip address of the bot? cause if so wouldnt that stop the bots?
IP Address ban:
- DHCP allocated IP addresses from a pool. While most ISPs will normally allocate you the same IP as you had before, it is not guaranteed.
- Multiple users behind a Network Address Translation type device. The public IP will be seen by CCP, not the private IP. This has a large impact on universities, dorms, hotels, etc.
- Getting a new IP is a trivial thing
So no. It would not stop the bots. But it would likely affect all those students that enjoy playing EVE. Or possibly those of us who happen to share an ISP with bot users.
Wouldn't that be fun?
Let's rather ban their accounts and actually cost them some money, eh?
|
shady trader
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Julien Brellier Introduce randomly-timed Captchas when using mining modules. Remove Agent Courier Missions. These are very simple solutions to some forms of botting.
Removing the ratting bots is a bigger challenge. Maybe increasing rat AI in nullsec would help.
Do a search for Captchas on these forums you will find its been suggested a lot by people unaware of how success the bots are at solving them. You could buy bots for less then 100 dollars to create web mail accounts 2 years ago with a 60% success rate for solving them. In eve they are can use a new version of the code and if that fails they just alert the bot herd to solve it.
As for the other post about windowed mode, that has no effect, the modern bots use a modified client hat has been reverse engineered and direct code injection ot excute the commands to save on processing power. This allows them to run more clients per PC. Macrointel, the place were the nature order of the universe does not hold sway. Pirates and ore thief's are congratulated by carebears for the actions. |
Shoopa Whoopa
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:08:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 23:08:53
Originally by: shady trader Do a search for Captchas on these forums you will find its been suggested a lot by people unaware of how success the bots are at solving them. You could buy bots for less then 100 dollars to create web mail accounts 2 years ago with a 60% success rate for solving them. In eve they are can use a new version of the code and if that fails they just alert the bot herd to solve it.
Damn! This explains why some sites switched to those ultra difficult captchas. The ones that even humans have serious trouble with... they make me furious.
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:08:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 28/02/2011 23:11:54 No, CCP doesn't care about botters and macros. We've known this for a while. So long as the bot- and macro-users pay for their accounts in a legitimate manner, it's additional income for CCP. It doesn't matter whether the owners of those accounts pay with real money or buy PLEX for ISK, since in the end someone still had to have spent real money on the game time code. So banning a botter or a macroer will diminish CCPs profits. In fact, a player who runs ten bot accounts is better for CCPs bottom line than a single legitimate player.
Here's an entertaining series of articles on the topic. A CEO admits that members of his corporation are botters; there is unimpeachable evidence that some of those members have been online and shooting NPCs for dozens of hours in a row without interruption, which is physically impossible unless the person controlling them is hooked up to an IV line and a catheter, and is popping morphine pills for his massive bed sores. CCP, predictably, does nothing. At most, it will suspend an account for a day or two, which is meaningless, not the least because that player might have multiple accounts.
CCP only has an icnentive to ban a player account if the owner of that account engages in RMT transactions, or if his macros and bot programs cause excessive server load. RMT transactions eat into CCPs profit margins, since they bypass the mechanism CCP set up for converting real money into ISK. Excessive server load causes bad publicity (mostly excessive lag, leading to diminished subscriptions as the game's reputation suffers) and forces CCP to dedicated more hardware (higher costs and thus diminished profits). Since Unholy Rage removed those bots and macros which caused excessive server load, CCP now has no incentive to go after botters and macroers who do not engage in RMT transactions.
Some players seem to think that threadnaughts will force CCP to take action. CCP will not take action unless its failure to deal with botters and macro-users in a systematic and visible manner causes bad publicity and thus reduces the number of new subscribers, or causes players with multiple accounts to leave the game. CCP, we must remember, is a for-profit company. It is not a charity, or an indie game designer run out of a basement or a dorm-room. It is a multinational corporation, albeit one which has made a very unique and enjoyable game. And because we continue to play EVE and pay CCP for the privilege, CCP knows that most players will not in the end quit over botters, lag, or even massive corruption among the CCP staff itself.
|
Jon Taggart
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:15:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Jon Taggart on 28/02/2011 23:15:31 There's a fine line between doing nothing and acquiring information in preparation for a mass banning.
How can we be sure which of the two CCP is doing? Both "look" the same.
Edit - Was there a mass banning of sorts in the past? ____________________________________________ Check out my proposal to change the wallet! |
Bloody Rabbit
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:17:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Rorriana
Originally by: amarr waffles wouldnt that stop the bots?
Not in a world with VPNs, public proxies, and other ways to get around that.
Assuming that banning an IP stops a botter is like assuming you can capture a fugitive by going to his home address and picking him up.
As a brother to a cop, do you know how many fugitives are picked up at their mothers houses? Speaks highly of the US criminal population doesn't it?
But I would prefer to just ban the account on a temp basis for the first offense and then to kill the account the second time it is caught botting. Most of the botters in 0.0 that I have run into are over a year old so that would be a pain in the ass if they lost those accounts. Plus on the accounts are normally Cyno alts or some other type of useful but low skilled char.
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:21:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 28/02/2011 23:23:14
Originally by: Jon Taggart Edited by: Jon Taggart on 28/02/2011 23:15:31 There's a fine line between doing nothing and acquiring information in preparation for a mass banning.
How can we be sure which of the two CCP is doing? Both "look" the same.
Edit - Was there a mass banning of sorts in the past?
There was a mass ban on 22 June 2009 called Unholy Rage. But note that the major motivations for Unholy Rage were (a) to get rid of accounts involved in RMT transactions and (b) to reduce server load. Getting rid of macros and bots for its own sake was not, near as can tell, a significant motivator.
So a botter who does nothing more than farm ISK all day is most likely not going to be targeted by CCP. The motivation simply isn't there, since CCP would simply be banning a paying customer.
|
|
Koragoni SkyKnight
|
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:39:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Koragoni SkyKnight on 28/02/2011 23:39:43 Want to stop bots?
Simple...
Fix the game
I don't mean fix the bugs... I mean fix the game. The basic issue with botting in EVE is simple. The "fun" in eve is PvP driven. To get to the "fun" stuff we have to do a pile of "grind". Think missions, ratting, mining. If the game naturally allowed us to to less "grind" or the "grind" was "fun" the bots would go away naturally.
Well except the RMT stuff.
CCP has a world of work to do to simply address the issues with the lack of game content. The dynamic content is all PvP fueled, and as long as people need their personal warships to be effectively disposable. There will be a need for bots.
This argument gets even more involved when you see the massive game design flaw that is the disparity between PvP and PvE ship fittings.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:00:00 -
[22]
Nerfing local would be the single best thing CCP can do to hurt the bots in 0.0 Help players solve the problem
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:03:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ephemeron Nerfing local would be the single best thing CCP can do to hurt the bots in 0.0 Help players solve the problem
It would also do absolutely nothing to combat the macro- and botter population in high-security space. If you don't like local, and want to be able to gank carebears in complete safety, there are a few hundred wormhole systems open for the taking.
|
Shoopa Whoopa
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:08:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Alice Katsuko
Originally by: Ephemeron Nerfing local would be the single best thing CCP can do to hurt the bots in 0.0 Help players solve the problem
It would also do absolutely nothing to combat the macro- and botter population in high-security space. If you don't like local, and want to be able to gank carebears in complete safety, there are a few hundred wormhole systems open for the taking.
I don't quite see why you're giving him a hard time. You're just making an ass out of yourself with those wild assumptions.
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:09:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Koragoni SkyKnight Edited by: Koragoni SkyKnight on 28/02/2011 23:39:43 I don't mean fix the bugs... I mean fix the game. The basic issue with botting in EVE is simple. The "fun" in eve is PvP driven. To get to the "fun" stuff we have to do a pile of "grind". Think missions, ratting, mining. If the game naturally allowed us to to less "grind" or the "grind" was "fun" the bots would go away naturally.
Some people consider running missions and mining asteroids to be fun. I very much doubt that many miners would appreciate being forced to play some sort of half-assed, repetitive, and exceedingly boring minigame.
Possibly PvE content could be 'fixed' by making it more team-oriented. I suspect that Incursions are a glimpse of what missions and anomalies will look like in the future. That would make missions and anomalies more difficult to run using bots. On the other hand, no doubt specialized programs will be written to run specialized ships such as logistics and and ewar in short order.
In addition, many players are perfectly happy to rat or mine alone. PvP is hardly the be-all end-all of the game, towards which all players are supposed to strive. Changing game content for the sake of discouraging botters, which in the long run this proposal will not do, is not really a good long-term plan if it prevents folk from doing what they want.
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:09:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ephemeron Nerfing local would be the single best thing CCP can do to hurt the bots in 0.0 Help players solve the problem
Except the game client itself needs to know if there are other people in the system, and a macro that can read the client memory will always have full access to local, even if it doesn't show by default. It'd be a buff to macroers.
|
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:10:00 -
[27]
The only way to prevent it would be to implement some kind of protected media path (DRM), so that bots outside of the Eve process space could not access any of the image surfaces Eve generates, and would therefore not work. I think Vista/7 support this, but I'm not sure if it includes D3D, rather than a fixed media path for things like sound and video:
Protected Media Path
The second method would be for Eve to include a kind-of virus checker, that periodically scans for known running process signatures. This would require an on-going dev and support effort however, so is unlikely to happen.
But perhaps the easiest way to deal with this is for GM's to actually investigate player reports and ban accounts but for reasons already given in other threads, this is probably not going to happen.
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:20:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 01/03/2011 00:21:43 Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 01/03/2011 00:21:04
Originally by: Shoopa Whoopa
Originally by: Alice Katsuko
Originally by: Ephemeron Nerfing local would be the single best thing CCP can do to hurt the bots in 0.0 Help players solve the problem
It would also do absolutely nothing to combat the macro- and botter population in high-security space. If you don't like local, and want to be able to gank carebears in complete safety, there are a few hundred wormhole systems open for the taking.
I don't quite see why you're giving him a hard time. You're just making an ass out of yourself with those wild assumptions.
No, I'm stating a fact. Removing local in high-sec wouldn't do anything to stop a macro-miner, since he is still protected by Concord. It will make life for non-PvPers even more difficult in lowsec, no doubt leading to more pirate tears about lack of prey. Removing local would be annoying to those of us who live in nullsec, but not significantly so since we already have to deal with AFK cloakers. Only difference is that now it would be even easier for someone to gank an unaware miner or anomaly-runner, or position a cyno alt and drop in some supercarriers. I have yet to see a decent explanation for how removing local would in any way make a dent in the bot population. At most it will force the bots to move into high-sec space.
If removing local isn't going to significantly hurt botters, then we must ask who it will benefit. The obvious answer is that it will benefit PvPers, who will now be able to move around with greater freedom, since their location in will no longer be automatically communicated across an entire region through intelligence channels.
Not a big deal, and hardly a bad proposal in and of itself, but removing local is not a proposal that will do much to counter bots.
|
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:32:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Koragoni SkyKnight Edited by: Koragoni SkyKnight on 28/02/2011 23:39:43 Want to stop bots?
Simple...
Fix the game
Ive seen this mentioned many many times. But I have never seen a description of what a "fixed game" would be like. If the ability to buy ships did not come "grinding", where would it come from? I don't want words like "something not repetitive and boring", I would like to see a full, complete description of what that something is.
Also no mater how fun making isk becomes, 16 bots running 23/7 will still make more than the single player who owns them, and hence there is still incentive to bot.
|
Shoopa Whoopa
|
Posted - 2011.03.01 00:55:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Alice Katsuko *snip*
The problem was: You were acting like he said otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |