Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 26 post(s) |
Henry Haphorn
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:48:00 -
[511]
Originally by: IGNATIUS HOOD Look at it like this. Bot-Mining is really a form of market manipulation and currency devaluation through a commodity which has real and game consequences. Everyone who plays the game by the rules is getting screwed by the devaluation of their ISK. Our mining efforts are not as profitable and our ISK doesn't stretch as far. The only way to truly fix this is to cap the market or cap the ISK in circulation. One of the really unique things about Eve is the open economy but the respawned money trees (asteroid belts) makes this behavior lucrative so it really attacks one of the economic pillars of the game. If you cap the ISK in circulation or adjust the respawn rate of High Sec belts it would put a damper on this behavior. But there are BIG consequences to both. On the other hand I think CCP should offer greenlights and bounties on BOTS. I would gladly wander hs killing bots if CCP bountied them and told us who they were.
Capping the ISK/mineral faucet is only a stop-gap measure. However, flagging bots for legitimate ganking (without the Concordoken) will be epic.
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?
Someone once suggested punishing the bot users by taking away skill points from their respective fields. I could see that working.
|
clixor
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 12:25:00 -
[512]
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?
If you watched the Fanfest presentation you saw that one part of the detection methods is behavioral patterns. If someone is logged for 23.5/7 and ACTIVE during that time this ofcourse is suspicious and likely investigated.
Although this is not particularly directed at trading bots they will probably will scale down their activities which is already a WIN situation until technical detection is optimized.
|
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 15:55:00 -
[513]
I just took a look at Dotlan to see if I could find a 0.0 system with tons of npc kills, uniformly distributed over the day, and no jumps. Could not find any. All the systems with large numbers of NPC kills have very irregular kill rates, and lots of jumps. So either:
Its players coming to the good systems to make isk. The bots have been reprogrammed to jump out now and then, and take player-like pauses.
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 17:40:00 -
[514]
Originally by: Vincent Athena I just took a look at Dotlan to see if I could find a 0.0 system with tons of npc kills, uniformly distributed over the day, and no jumps. Could not find any. All the systems with large numbers of NPC kills have very irregular kill rates, and lots of jumps. So either:
Its players coming to the good systems to make isk. The bots have been reprogrammed to jump out now and then, and take player-like pauses.
That's why the only best method to detect bots in 0.0 is through intel. If you're in 0.0 and you know someone to be a bot, you can anonymously report them to CCP. Or you could have a neutral alt just afk cloak in the system you found the bots in. Remember, bots automatically safe up and cloak when even a single neut is present. This way, you can hinder their operations.
|
FeralShadow
RipStar. United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 17:49:00 -
[515]
Awesome news. I also have a botter if people are bored, name of BloodyDog, he's located in ZK- something or other in Branch, surrounded by Razor alliance systems (the botter is neutral). He is logged on 23/7 in a tengu that is fitted so you can't probe him out, and when nobody is in system, he goes belt ratting.
I've been camping him for about 5 days now and stay logged on cloaked and afk as much as I can so his bot program prevents him from warping to belts. He is getting really really angry with me and talked to me in local once (now, you're going to say that means he's not a bot, but i assure you he is, he logs on immediately after downtime and doesn't log off until downtime the next day.) Another raeson I firmly believe he is a bot is because as soon as I log on he always warps to his safe spot and arrives approximately 3-5 seconds after I log on, meaning he initiates warp immediately upon me logging into system, any time of day. (I've tried logoffski trapping him in belts, but timing the bot to see how long it takes it to start ratting again is nearly impossible).
Anyways, I would surely welcome more coverage so even when i'm sleeping he will be camped and won't make any isk. (if you're capable of coming out or live in Branch already)
This really seems to be the best way (unfortunately) to eliminate botters currently, just by camping the ratting bots so they don't rat any longer, the bot owners get SUPER frustrated.
I have also reported him to CCP and hope to see him banned soonish :)
At any rate, cheers guys! let's get em! -Feral
_______________________________________________ "If you want to taste the ground, feel free to attack." - Kenshin Himura
|
Whoooaaa
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 02:51:00 -
[516]
Edited by: Whoooaaa on 27/04/2011 02:52:28
Originally by: clixor
Originally by: J Kunjeh Edited by: J Kunjeh on 18/04/2011 21:46:22
Originally by: Guitonkagya
Seriously does anyone else think we need some sort of organised in-game player based effort against the bots? or maybe there are already Bot hunting Corps out there? I would be very interested in joing or forming an organised co-alition of Players Against BotsÖ. Maybe we should bring together the rabble of Bot hunters out there into an organised force? Share intel and bot tears etc
A Botageddon? I'm in.
I might even donate some isk for such a cause
This might also be a good chance for the major alliances to show what their worth. If they refuse such an initiative on their turf.. well. that kindof says it all doesn't it.
Good topic NinjaSpud! I just hope CCP is serious about this and it is not just a PR stunt. Bots in empire are nuisance, in 00 they rake in some serious isk, and market bots...that's just downright scary! A "normal" player (how normal most of us are is a discussion for another time) has no way to compete with botters unless they too start using bots. In lieu of that I would give boters one warning to change their ways and after that a permanent ban. Really,no need for two slaps on the wrist.
A friend of mine started this this http://www.reportbots.com recently, it was also mentioned in the EVE Fanfest 2011 video. Best part about it is that anyone reported goes straight to the CCP's security guys without going trough the overloaded petition system. I will see if I can get him to make a forum on there, maybe we will be able to organize hunting packs I'll help out as much as I can while I'm state side.
|
FeralShadow
RipStar. United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 03:02:00 -
[517]
The bot i've been camping for several days seems to be missing today! Maybe CCP banned the ratting tengu null sec bot! NICE! _______________________________________________ "If you want to taste the ground, feel free to attack." - Kenshin Himura
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 03:57:00 -
[518]
Quote: A friend of mine started this this http://www.reportbots.com recently, it was also mentioned in the EVE Fanfest 2011 video. Best part about it is that anyone reported goes straight to the CCP's security guys without going trough the overloaded petition system. I will see if I can get him to make a forum on there, maybe we will be able to organize hunting packs I'll help out as much as I can while I'm state side.
Sounds like something I'm willing to join.
|
Vonlutt
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 04:35:00 -
[519]
Originally by: Whoooaaa
Good topic NinjaSpud! I just hope CCP is serious about this and it is not just a PR stunt. Bots in empire are nuisance, in 00 they rake in some serious isk, and market bots...that's just downright scary! A "normal" player (how normal most of us are is a discussion for another time) has no way to compete with botters unless they too start using bots. In lieu of that I would give boters one warning to change their ways and after that a permanent ban. Really,no need for two slaps on the wrist.
A friend of mine started this this http://www.reportbots.com recently, it was also mentioned in the EVE Fanfest 2011 video. Best part about it is that anyone reported goes straight to the CCP's security guys without going trough the overloaded petition system. I will see if I can get him to make a forum on there, maybe we will be able to organize hunting packs I'll help out as much as I can while I'm state side.
Tried using that reportbots site, and its criteria is too strict. Had 1/3 of the options checked that would mark a bot, and that isn't enough to be suspicious? :huh: ! |
Whoooaaa
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:22:00 -
[520]
Originally by: Vonlutt
Originally by: Whoooaaa
Good topic NinjaSpud! I just hope CCP is serious about this and it is not just a PR stunt. Bots in empire are nuisance, in 00 they rake in some serious isk, and market bots...that's just downright scary! A "normal" player (how normal most of us are is a discussion for another time) has no way to compete with botters unless they too start using bots. In lieu of that I would give boters one warning to change their ways and after that a permanent ban. Really,no need for two slaps on the wrist.
A friend of mine started this this http://www.reportbots.com recently, it was also mentioned in the EVE Fanfest 2011 video. Best part about it is that anyone reported goes straight to the CCP's security guys without going trough the overloaded petition system. I will see if I can get him to make a forum on there, maybe we will be able to organize hunting packs I'll help out as much as I can while I'm state side.
Tried using that reportbots site, and its criteria is too strict. Had 1/3 of the options checked that would mark a bot, and that isn't enough to be suspicious? :huh:
I guess they have to limit it to certain criteria so CCP doesn't get flooded right away...focus on the hardcore ones first I presume
|
|
Chesty McJubblies
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:59:00 -
[521]
In related news, the 6 accounts that I petitioned at the start of the weekend, and that were gone shortly thereafter, are back. I saw them online, so went to their system again. I warped immediately to their POS, and saw them all warp back to the POS. Within a few minutes they had logged off.
Looks like it's time to afk them again. ----------------------------------------
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 16:07:00 -
[522]
Originally by: Vonlutt Tried using that reportbots site, and its criteria is too strict. Had 1/3 of the options checked that would mark a bot, and that isn't enough to be suspicious? :huh:
Which indicators did you confirm, and more importantly which indicators did you not verify?
They are not "options" they are indicators or evidence. If you don't have enough evidence to reliably predict that someone is a bot, why should the site accept your report? -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:54:00 -
[523]
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. |
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 19:26:00 -
[524]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs 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.
Do you want to detect more bots or are you saying that you want to detect heroism in petitions? |
NinjaSpud
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 19:38:00 -
[525]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
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.
I can mostly verrify this. One of the macro miner bots that I've been reporting on, 'EP' aka "Website A" has a market macro. Remember that they're the ones that have deleted all bot tears on their forum, but they are getting hit. From my initial google reports, they're one of the only bots that isn't a scam.
Basically, CCP is detecting the program that EP makes, and that includes the market bot.
No real noticeable news to report on today guys. I'll keep my eyes open for ya'll.
|
Darkendedfold
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 20:09:00 -
[526]
Edited by: Darkendedfold on 27/04/2011 20:09:53
Originally by: Lord XSiV
Originally by: Pserad Pserad Edited by: Pserad Pserad on 04/04/2011 23:03:13 .
I'm also concerned that overzealous punishment of suspected botters is going to drive away innocent miners. I can't think of how many times I've setup 2 or 3 computers for some long-term mining in a quiet spot while I worked, and don't bother checking local or replying to convos for hours at a time. It's easy, boring as hell, and doesn't require much attention as I'm taking care of business. I can see how some people would assume I was botting and probably petitioned, and if I ended up getting a 14 day ban without any chance to plead my case or defend myself, I would certain cancel all 6 of my accounts. It's a slippery slope, and CCP needs to make sure they know where the line is.
Just make sure you pay with a credit card - if banned then perform your rightfully given chargeback to be refunded the funds for failure of CCP to provide services.
Happens all the time in the entertainment industry and, especially in particular, online gaming.
And before you get all giddy happy about some bs EULA that only has the authority in a domain that runs a bunch of pixels, contact your credit card company yourself and ask them about how to deal with merchants who fail to provide services. Regardless of what CCP says, or any other merchant for that matter, if they fail to provide exactly what they are selling to the satisfaction of the customer then the customer is entitled to a refund.
It's the beauty of the credit system; the customer is always right especially these days. The credit card companies are more interested in keeping the card holders rather than the merchants seeing as it is the card holder they make more money off of. No merchant is going to risk losing their ability to accept credit cards online as that would be suicide.
Also, with how the chargeback system is set up the more chargebacks a merchant has filed against them, the higher their processing fees will be. Most likely CCP is only testing the waters out here with plex botters and not real paying customers so the risk is relatively low as plex players have no recourse. Hence the reasoning to protect yourself by using a credit card to pay for your time. Ninja, you may want to add that as a statistic to find out - how many banned pay via plex.
Not correct I am afraid, company I work for has a clause within the terms of service stipulating that any charge back issued whilst an account is in contention or within breach of the terms of service will be met with a punitive charge and/or (depending on account size in terms of rental) pursued within the courts. Albeit, we are not talking about small figures such as ú20 per month, however the principal remains.
You have effectively signed an agreement with CCP to the effect that you are utilising this (EVE) service within the constraints of their acceptable use policy. I would be EXTREMELY suprised if a CC company or paypal would not lend its support to the merchant on proof that the end user was in breach of the terms of service. Granted, however from a time perspective, paying somone to check chargebacks and actively pursue them may not prove cost viable; however again, from where i work - even on lower ticket values the threats of balif action has actually proven cost effective purely on the basis that it doesnt ever get to that stage - the threat of action is usually enough to prompt a reaction and payment. If not in the terms of service for EVE (charge backs) I would, if in charge be definately looking to add a clause there within - If a charge back is issued a punitive charge of "X" will be levied.
|
Darkendedfold
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 20:27:00 -
[527]
Originally by: Lord XSiV
Originally by: Aiko Zan
First, how is it not fraud? Really it is a rhetorical question i am not looking for your rhetoric here. You agree to play EVE on CCPs terms, if you violate that contract then they ban your account. You then go to your CC company saying you are not receiving what you payed for but happily leave out the part where you violated the contract and the reason for getting your account banned in the first place. Thus committing fraud..
Honestly though, I don't think many, if any, people give a F*** about what you have to say in this thread. Stick to the topic at hand.
Oh and when your account gets banned let us know how you chrageback works out for you.. Because, from my point of view you seem to be squirming like you did, are doing, something that will cause you to get your account banned. To which, you think you found some loop hole that will allow you to recoup some of the money you are about to loose. Move on, you are only making yourself look worse, whether you are right or wrong.
OP, good work!
and
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
CCP provides its service as advertised. If you break the EULA, you get banned. They advertise this many times.
I also called my credit card company (merely curious) and they said in this hypothetical situation they would deny the CC as you have violated a contract and the company is following the contract in terms of removal of service. You do not have the right to breach a contract free of penalties.
Neither have a clue about contract law which is fairly obvious. First, the so called 'loophole' you reffered to is a protection mechanism. I hihgly doubt the second responder called his credit card company since he mentioned ToS which credit card companies couldn't care less unless it was their own. The only contracts that are legally enforceable in this 'scenario' (if you want to name it something) is that 'between the card holder and credit card company' and the one between CCP (the merchant) and either the credit card processing entity or the credit card companies they have a merchant account with.
The EULA is an 'agreement' not a contract. Contracts require signatures; CCP's EULA does not. CCP expects no one to challenge it and it serves its purpose as a tool to keep people from taking any kind of recourse since the majority of people are ignorant and don't know any better. These so called 'agreements' are refuted regularily; just look it up yourself.
Anyhow continue to be ignorant and act as if you are a poor defenseless consumer. Corporate entities bank on that fact to increase their profits.
And one last question for the Aiko Zan monkey - why would my account be banned for explaining consumer rights? Like seriously are you that stupid? If CCP were to ban a user for posting information that is common knowledge how would the reflect on them? Maybe, just maybe, there is something in their contract with their credit card processor that says something about not taking action to impede consumers rights....
Then again I wouldn't expect you to know that since you obviously don't know what fraud is either.
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.
|
Vonlutt
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 22:08:00 -
[528]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Originally by: Vonlutt Tried using that reportbots site, and its criteria is too strict. Had 1/3 of the options checked that would mark a bot, and that isn't enough to be suspicious? :huh:
Which indicators did you confirm, and more importantly which indicators did you not verify?
They are not "options" they are indicators or evidence. If you don't have enough evidence to reliably predict that someone is a bot, why should the site accept your report?
Well I guess always mines solo, always online, ignores bumps, ignores chat requests, mines specific ores, and stays in one system aren't enough? ! |
|
CCP Sreegs
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 00:31:00 -
[529]
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. |
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 01:39:00 -
[530]
Originally by: Vonlutt
Well I guess always mines solo, always online, ignores bumps, ignores chat requests, mines specific ores, and stays in one system aren't enough?
You practically described most of the legitimate miners around New Eden. To me, I go more in depth than that.
Is the character still in the same "starter" NPC corp for at least one and a half to two years straight without changing to any other corp? If you spot multiple toons together, do their names seem "copy-pasted"? Do they generally look the same? Do they even have the same birth date?
Generally these are the red flags I look for. If I ever see an Orca with 8 Hulks next to it with suspiciously similar toons, then the pilots are potential bots.
|
|
Florestan Bronstein
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 04:56:00 -
[531]
Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 28/04/2011 05:04:18
I was wrong, forget this post.
|
Lisa Valenheim
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 09:12:00 -
[532]
Edited by: Lisa Valenheim on 28/04/2011 09:12:20 To remove mining bots why not make mining hard - make some terrorist group defend belts with sleeper style rats that will wtf pwn a non human player. This means miners would also need defence from combat corpies. It gives more to do in PvE, and makes mining worthwhile. If there is a danger of mineral starvation then increase yield/minute to balance.
|
Mikk36
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 10:04:00 -
[533]
Originally by: Lisa Valenheim Edited by: Lisa Valenheim on 28/04/2011 09:12:20 To remove mining bots why not make mining hard - make some terrorist group defend belts with sleeper style rats that will wtf pwn a non human player. This means miners would also need defence from combat corpies. It gives more to do in PvE, and makes mining worthwhile. If there is a danger of mineral starvation then increase yield/minute to balance.
Ie, put a ratter bot next to the miners to counter this?
|
Lisa Valenheim
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 10:33:00 -
[534]
I would hope the devs can make a group of rats smart/powerful enough to defeat the average rat-bot.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 10:38:00 -
[535]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
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.
I wonder how much of that is due to them being less common or your detection bad.
How about the spam bots?
|
Mikk36
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 10:46:00 -
[536]
Edited by: Mikk36 on 28/04/2011 10:46:14
Originally by: Lisa Valenheim I would hope the devs can make a group of rats smart/powerful enough to defeat the average rat-bot.
It just doesn't work that way. Easy counter would be grouped ratting-characters. And adding that kind of "preventions" don't remove the root problem: the bots themselves.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 11:54:00 -
[537]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 28/04/2011 11:54:46 Since I forgot them in last reply:
Quote: Capping the ISK/mineral faucet is only a stop-gap measure. However, flagging bots for legitimate ganking (without the Concordoken) will be epic.
That is ******ed, if someone is detected as bot he should be permabanned.
Quote:
Someone once suggested punishing the bot users by taking away skill points from their respective fields. I could see that working.
Same for this, they should be banned, not allowed to continue.
|
Wyke Mossari
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 12:17:00 -
[538]
Originally by: CCP Sreegs
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.
Trade-bots have been regularly discussed in MD and they simply cannot compete against an even half way skilled trader.
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 14:04:00 -
[539]
Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 28/04/2011 11:54:46 Since I forgot them in last reply:
Quote: Capping the ISK/mineral faucet is only a stop-gap measure. However, flagging bots for legitimate ganking (without the Concordoken) will be epic.
That is ******ed, if someone is detected as bot he should be permabanned.
Quote:
Someone once suggested punishing the bot users by taking away skill points from their respective fields. I could see that working.
Same for this, they should be banned, not allowed to continue.
I may not have said that they should be permabanned, but I also didn't imply that they shouldn't be either in addition to the flagging. Think about it. They should be flagged on the first offense (no notice, no warning) and then get legally ganked and then they try to figure out why Concord didn't come to the rescue (in addition to skill point losses for their respective fields). If they still haven't learned their lesson after the first obvious wild-west-style message, they get permabanned on the second offense.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 14:26:00 -
[540]
CCP should put some bots of their own into the game. If people love chasing after them then CCP should encourage this behaviour. --
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |