|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 26 post(s) |
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 23:38:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Lucia Sarain Problem is a lot of the banned accounts get recycled through the Character Bazaar from what i've read on botter forums. CCP need to start monitoring character transfers for recent bans.
We're aware that people think this is somehow going to benefit them. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 21:47:00 -
[2]
For the OP, while we do the work ourselves as well if you have bots that you think might be of interest to us feel free to send a mail to [email protected]. I'm far from perfect and getting information from the players such as this can point out gaps in what we have already looked into. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 23:24:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Henry Haphorn I was wondering if we could eavesdrop on the botting community and figure out where they typically mine. That way, we could hire mercenaries in Eve to gank the crap out them. :)
I can think of a number of ways this could be done. I'll leave it to your friendly player bros to fill in the blanks. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 01:37:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Oh CCP can you give us some data here? Please!
I really want to know roughly how pervasive botting is. If you could tell us 5%, 10% of logged on players? Worse? My imagination tells me it is ~15-20% but I really hope that is pure bunk.
If I could answer that there'd be x% fewer people playing right now. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 09:37:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Cyaxares II Edited by: Cyaxares II on 06/04/2011 08:01:14
There are some pretty persistent rumors that CCP has agreed to settlements over "unfair" bannings in the past (that were coupled with that person agreeing to get banned from EVE for life).
If you threaten to take CCP to court over some EULA-related matter they take a pretty big risk by actually fighting the fight (parts of their EULA might be found to be not binding which could have some nasty fallout as players that have been ruled against by CCP on grounds of these parts in the past become aware of it and sue).
People have tried this elsewhere in the industry. There is nothing unique about our EULA. There is a correct statement that contracts have to be agreed to. However, you agree to that contract by stating you agree when you click the "Accept" button when you launch the client for the first time. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 02:31:00 -
[6]
I haven't forgotten about you guys here in this thread I've just been tied up with the forum issues since last week. We'll likely be publishing some information of some type as an update in the next 3 weeks or so. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 02:34:00 -
[7]
Edited by: CCP Sreegs on 13/04/2011 02:34:00
Originally by: Sergeant Spot Dear CCP
Thank You. Show them no mercy. The game is better off, and more long term viable, WITHOUT botters.
If the cost of trit goes to 20 isk a unit, so be it. It means it goes to 20 isk a unit for everybody. I can live with that a lot easier than I can live with the existance of botting.
Good start on the mining bots, just make sure you get the other ones too, and then do your best to keep your anti-bot wear up to date.
Have you concidered contacting other game companies and making this a joint effort? Just a thought.
I've been in contact with some people at other companies. Most of them tend to play their cards very close to their chests but I'm trying to get some really good cross industry communication going on. It may mean that we have to have some more success and get people's attention first.
:edit: Also, you're welcome. :) |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.18 03:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: clixor On page 3 so bumping.
I must say i'm a little worried about CCP resources in tackling this problem. Not blaming you Screegs but my guess is that you have been busy (still) with fixing the forums. Isn't it the job of the project team to deliver and FIX? In fact, they should be stationed in the lunch room with pink tanktops, hannah montana music on repeat and minimum caffeine rations until fixed.
Reason i say: the botters are like the borg and adapting their cubes. You're not going to win the war if you and/or your team have to allocate your precious time elsewhere to fix other teams mistakes.
Remember that the banned will be unbanned, it's crucial that they are monitored otherwise risk vs reward will shift in their favour again.
The security task force has continued its work and continued meeting. What I haven't had the cycles for is posting on the forums. :) |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 05:00:00 -
[9]
Originally by: clixor
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 23/04/2011 14:39:18 You are thinking about this issue like a normal player would (who doesn't want his accounts banned), not like a business.
I was actually thinking more in the likes of CCP. Hoping that they've got their basics covered. I know how corporations work and everybody is busy. Giving CCP the benefit of doubt for now.
In actuality, the normal player is the one who has the most to lose. We will catch him and he will lose all his stuff. It's the cheaters who don't fit the mold who will require the most attention. We went after a new one today. HAPPY EASTER! |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 12:38:00 -
[10]
Originally by: clixor Happy Easter as well Screegs
Any news about the forthcoming Blog?
I'm back to work tomorrow so we'll sort that out then |
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:54:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Slaves Trader Bobbert Seems to be a big hubub about macro miners and ratters, but what of the ever-present trading bots?
Do the same detection methods work on them aswell, or are we seeing some botters slip under the radar as the sights of CCP rest firmly outside of stations?
Detection methods work on them but we're finding that they're a LOT less common than people think they are. This is also still an area we're doing more investigation. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 00:31:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Darkendedfold
Not correct either, this agreement would be deemed what i term an assumed contract, or possibly what is known as a 'shrink wrapper' contract similar to what software companies offer.
You take the shrink wrap off the software and install it, you have agreed to the terms of service and/or contract.
The EULA goes a step further as you actually have to agree to it. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 10:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: NinjaSpud Edited by: NinjaSpud on 09/05/2011 16:48:23 One more quick snip,
As for macro ratters, either they don't' report losses or CCP hasn't yet found them. I'd love a comment from Sreegs about this, and I have no doubt that they're working on it.
On a brighter note, the other week, my alliance (WH based) found a exit to null sec. So we formed a raiding party and stumbled accost what we all believe to be a macro ratting carrier. We think it was a macro because instead of fighting back or calling for help, the pilot logged when we had him pinned down. So he was either a macro or a fail carrier pilot, either way easy kill.
:EDIT: Updates on RR's website. RR had been using a website called 'public demands' to host their forums. These forums where for RR, but hosted many other topics about many other bots. While checking on all the links, I found one that lead to a blank page with this on it:
Quote:
www.publicdemands.co.uk domain name is for sale, contact [email protected]
FYI
Without getting into detail it makes sense to me that miners would have been hit harder. This won't be the case for very much longer. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 11:03:00 -
[14]
To ensure we're communicating these things openly I've made a sticky thread here which will contain our current botting policies:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1509907 |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 11:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Adrian Idaho
Originally by: CCP Sreegs Without getting into detail it makes sense to me that miners would have been hit harder. This won't be the case for very much longer.
Interesting. Did you concentrate on mining bots until now? Did you want to test your detection algorithms on miners first? Tell us more!
I can't wait to see reports of ratting bots getting banned. Their tears will be delicious.
There's a lot of variability here but suffice to say we cast a couple of different nets and some of them were very narrowly focused. That work doesn't end up getting wasted but added to over time. You don't start from day one with The Final Solution to the Botting Problem. We started very small and have been building up from there. I can't really give much more detail than that. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 14:26:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ingvar Angst Edited by: Ingvar Angst on 12/05/2011 13:45:39 With great thanks to GM Lelouch:
Quote: This is something we are already doing, bots are removed from the game as we discover them. Known bots might under some circumstances find themselves escaping action for a few days if we're in the process of mapping out and removing said RMT operation in a full swoop, but we will never turn a blind eye to known bots for an extended period of time.
Dollar figures cannot be provided but the financial impact of banning bots is smaller than you might think as a lot of bots are funded through illegitimate means to begin with. Accounts do not mean as much to most RMTers as they do to regular players so RMTers will often resort to stolen credit cards for funding their accounts. They are in other words oftentimes operating under the preconception that the accounts they are using will be found and banned eventually; if not through normal investigative efforts of our anti-RMT team, the account will be taken out of business when the credit card is chargebacked or when the owner of the credit card contacts us regarding the illegitimate payments.
Also:
Quote: Well over 3000 full accounts have been banned in the past month for botting or some sort of RMT affiliation (sans ISK spamming). If we include banned trial accounts and accounts banned for advertising RMT sites, we're almost at 5000 accounts. Information on future projections cannot be given.
I know it's terrible being ambiguous and I've already started talking to people internally to streamline these types of communications, but it should be noted that the quoted posts are IN ADDITION TO the work being done by the Security Task Force. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 02:55:00 -
[17]
Originally by: J Kunjeh Edited by: J Kunjeh on 12/05/2011 19:59:49
Originally by: CCP Sreegs To ensure we're communicating these things openly I've made a sticky thread here which will contain our current botting policies:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1509907
This, is awesome. I'm so happy that CCP seems to be turning a bit of a new leaf on their communication efforts lately. More Dev blogs, more posts in the forums, the "answer anything" thread, and your stellar efforts Sreegs. I think that lack of clear and voluminous communication from CCP has been an impediment on the community and the game itself for a while now. So yeah, kudos.
I do have to say though that I'm confused about the penalties. Why such a drastic difference in penalties between the botters and the bot-providers? Shouldn't they be at least a little closer together? After all, aren't they equally breaking the EULA/TOS? The bot-providers surely have a wider impact than the individual botter, so I understand putting more resources behind stopping the distributors, but as far as punishment when caught I don't see why they shouldn't both be perma-banned.
For those who haven't read the OP in that thread yet:
Client Modification or exploiting û First Offense û Permanent Ban
People involved in the creation and distribution of bots or exploits û First Offense û Permanent Ban
Players found to be botting:
ò First offense û 14 day ban
ò Second offense û 30 day ban
ò Third offense û Permanent ban
Someeone using bot software can have their behavior changed and can become a good customer and valued eve player. Someone distributing malware is not someone we wish to have continuing to abuse our service. I think that's where the line is drawn. It's not a resource issue at all. |
|
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.22 09:24:00 -
[18]
Originally by: helix darkstar Edited by: helix darkstar on 22/05/2011 09:07:52 i keep seeing people quoting numbers for how many accounts have been band, is there a blog or a forum post i've missed because i haven't seen any offical numbers from ccp and yet these number keep being used as if they are from ccp.
According to a post by GM Lelouch:
Quote:
Well over 3000 full accounts have been banned in the past month for botting or some sort of RMT affiliation (sans ISK spamming). If we include banned trial accounts and accounts banned for advertising RMT sites, we're almost at 5000 accounts.
Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 03:31:00 -
[19]
Edited by: CCP Sreegs on 26/05/2011 03:31:38 Hey guys, I haven't had time to catch up but I wanted to let you know that I'm working on a blog that should go out in the next week or so and I've included some numbers that I think do a bit to show our progress and justify some of the decisions we've made so far. I also have some pretty exciting additional stuff to talk about. I'll let you know when I have a definite publication date. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 14:42:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Captain Davison I think I'll leave this little article... here.
Devs had better start making some major progress, this is some bad bad rep for them.
The only thing this article has to do with EVE is that it's about some activity that's occurring against a site related to the game. It has nothing to do with botting or anything remotely connected to the EVE Online servers. |
|
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 14:48:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: CCP Sreegs Hey guys, I haven't had time to catch up but I wanted to let you know that I'm working on a blog that should go out in the next week or so and I've included some numbers that I think do a bit to show our progress and justify some of the decisions we've made so far. I also have some pretty exciting additional stuff to talk about. I'll let you know when I have a definite publication date.
Will this include the number of petitions and escalations by the dirty botters? That would make some good pron.
And how much ISK you guys confiscated... *drools*
Petitions and escalations are Customer Service's responsibility. The ESTF is not the sum total of all of CCP's actions against bots. We're merely establishing policies and programmatic ways to change bad behavior. We also don't confiscate ISK. Yet. CS does in some cases so if any ISK has been confiscated it's been the GMs who did it.
We are starting to take a harder look at income generation however and will determine how to action once we've mulled over the numbers. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 22:03:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Captain Davison I think I'll leave this little article... here.
Devs had better start making some major progress, this is some bad bad rep for them.
The only thing this article has to do with EVE is that it's about some activity that's occurring against a site related to the game. It has nothing to do with botting or anything remotely connected to the EVE Online servers.
the article quite explicitly mentions RMTers as the prime suspects...
The article also acts as if the alleged actions being taken have something to do with our game or our servers or anything to do with us. Nothing in this article is related to CCP or EVE Online in any way. If these attacks are actually happening they're focused on fansites. The article makes it appear as if this is somehow a part of our game or attacks on our servers and it couldn't be further from the truth. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 02:35:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Iurnan Mileghere Edited by: Iurnan Mileghere on 30/05/2011 01:11:49
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
We are starting to take a harder look at income generation however and will determine how to action once we've mulled over the numbers.
Seriously, Sreegs, you have to stop using "action" as a verb. There's a perfectly good corresponding verb ("to act") and lots of others you can use. This makes me crazy.
heh, is it not a perfectly valid use of the word? |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 02:35:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Heedless Not confiscating isk is a terrible, terrible policy in my opinion. You are basically telling everyone who plays this game that the risk vs reward for botting is so heavily weighted toward reward that it's silly NOT to bot.
Sheesh. One step forward and two steps back.
I'm not sure that's really the message, but as I said we're reviewing this. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 12:12:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Llyandrian
Originally by: Iurnan Mileghere
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
We are starting to take a harder look at income generation however and will determine how to action once we've mulled over the numbers.
Seriously, Sreegs, you have to stop using "action" as a verb. There's a perfectly good corresponding verb ("to act") and lots of others you can use. This makes me crazy.
Wrong. Action is perfect proper for an ongoing activity, and not a single deed.
*phew*
Need an English ref here please |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 16:40:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ludacrys SCREEGS! are you doing anything at all about Trading bots? specially in jita? im started to get a little frustrated when i get undercut in less than 5 minutes by the same person 24 hours around the clock
We are. Email me a name and I'll take a look at it. [email protected] |
|
|
|
|