|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 26 post(s) |
Sarah Tarith
Science and Trade Institute
   |
Posted - 2011.05.29 16:03:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
Originally by: adskimomo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello again, I finally had a response back from eve.
One account was deemed a bot user - from what i can gather by accusation not "evidence" although unproven either way as eve don't wish to discuss this any further... a shame as i can see many legitimate reasons but still - it's their game.
For clarification see below: -
Eve warning info
All other accounts were banned due to "direct association" (Same IP I believe) and hence all 5 accounts were taken out of action.
Solution - I'm going to ditch/sell the targeted macro account and start a new one on another unique email address.
Small note - if banned - don't forget to send petitions from all your banned accounts (if all have a unique email) as it gives eve GM's something to do
Fly safe all.
Damn son of a **#@%ú$&, I am stuck in a ban petition since May 5 because of sorry @#Çú$%& like him. I hope CCP destroys their kin and pours salt on their tombs.
|
Sarah Tarith
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 07:29:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Sarah Tarith on 30/05/2011 07:33:55
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.
See, once I'd agreed with you. I was even more radical, I was for instant deletion of assets, perma ban at the second attempt at botting and so on.
Then something happened and I have seen myself banned out of the blue.
About 1 month after the fact, I am still at an intermediate phase of my petition basically just asking about what happened.
If CCP rushed it like I wanted once and like you ask now, I'd be without money, maybe without assets, all my POSes offline and still without a clue why it even happened. I'd have quit without even knowing who to thank for this.
Don't ask radical retribution for what could happen to you, if someone told me this would have happened to me 2 months ago I'd have laughed in his face with vigor.
Now instead I am unbanned but still in suspension because I don't know how to keep me out of a next out of the blue ban and it's a terrible punishment already to never know if today you'll still be able to log on or not.
At least I can look at the positives: unlike so many whiners always beating on EvE, I taste every little precious second I can play EvE like it was the last, because it could really be the last.
|
Sarah Tarith
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 11:34:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Sarah Tarith on 12/06/2011 11:34:49
Originally by: Sala Kyss
They are also way too lenient on their botting punishments. 3x and you're out? One strike and gone, all that needs to be done.
This is not possible as of now.
CCP appear to have implemented a very efficient bot detection for known bots but have to resort to manual (and long) and error prone manual investigation for unknown bots.
Since CCP cannot blow up ships to see if pods keep warping belt <=> station, they use "common sense" heuristics that everyone may imagine: logged on amount of time, if you keep doing the same activity (i.e. mining) and so on.
The problem with this is: too many EvE legitimate content is made so bad that legitimate players HAVE to play like they are botting.
I.e. without blowing a ship / personal convoing it's totally impossible to reliably detect whether an ice mining guy is botting or not.
All you have got is the amount of log on time and there are indeed limit cases.
To bring my personal case, I have been banned exactly because of heuristics. The "one strike and gone" is crap, because in that case I could not even explain CCP what / when / how I did and defend my case.
Be careful calling bad karma on the other people, you never know it could turn back to you when you less expect.
|
Sarah Tarith
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 12:19:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Sarah Tarith on 12/06/2011 12:20:12
Originally by: Camron Champagne
Is there no way for CCP to alter the game so that GM's are able to start a private conversation that cannot be rejected or closed and pops up in a large Color shifting box in the center of the screen? Then perhaps follow that up with a email that has a new Email notification pop up that's 3x as large and in flashing randomized letters? Surely if there is no response to any of these and the person (bot) continues to preform an action after it's been contacted that would be a strong indicator of an issue to investigate.
It'd certainly be a good start, but still insufficient.
When I mined, I'd go to lunch / dinner leaving the ships in the belt / in station for 1 hour doing nothing (*). A bot would have kept mining instead. But with your solution, a CCP employee would convo me / anyone who does not log off during meals and would find no reply for 1 hour because I was dining.
(*) Payware connection, 1 hour idle ship costs 100k bandwidth, each log in is 1-2 MB of download.
|
Sarah Tarith
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 07:38:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Sarah Tarith on 13/06/2011 07:39:06
Originally by: Henry Haphorn
I know, it's a boring process. But I'm pretty sure that CCP is doing the same thing along with the advanced tools that they have to make sure they don't ban the wrong people. It's like forensic science: you leave no stone unturned (even if the stone is the size of a strand of human hair).
Sadly, the tools are not advanced enough yet. I am going to try and convince the GM that is following my ban case (I am unbanned since weeks but want to help CCP) to let me talk with the guy(s) who implement their filters. There are some rare cases (like mine  ) where I know myself I will raise all the red flags despite not botting but there are 2-3 objective additional filters (i.e. logs meausurable things done that bots would not do) that would cover even them.
It's still a very uphill battle, the "perma ban at first sight" approach would be far too dangerous. Maybe it could be done for 100% recognized botting software but even then, who can guarantee no single application out of millions out there couldn't generate a false positive? The current policy is still the most balanced imho.
|
|
|
| |
|