EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Begun, the bot war has

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Begun, the bot war has

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)

CCP Stillman C C P C C P Alliance 413	Posted - 2013.03.18 15:11:00 - [1] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: One part of the current policy that is missing (at least I hope its still part of policy) is removal of ill gotten ISK. Is that still being done? It absolutely is, and is done automatically in all cases where the amount can be determined by our backend system. It's rare that manual intervention is needed, but does happen. Just a random dude in Team Security.


CCP Stillman C C P C C P Alliance 413	Posted - 2013.03.18 15:12:00 - [2] - Quote spookydonut wrote: Secondly, does the 3rd strike represent rmt and client modication bans on the graph? No. The graph does not cover those bans. Those bans require more investigation than normal bots and are handled and tracked separately. Just a random dude in Team Security.


CCP Stillman C C P C C P Alliance 415	Posted - 2013.03.18 15:27:00 - [3] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: Gempei wrote: what exactly is "client modification"? thats a pretty important question, there is a bunch of tools out in the wild that can access some kind of cache. does that count as a client modification ? some kind of posting to clear that up would be greatly appreciated Our policy is that we do not make any guarantees about any tools being allowed and safe to use. We can't feasibly do that. But client modification right now are anything that injects/touches the running EVE process. That is, reads or writes memory into it, injects and executes code. Basically anything that modifies the client to change the client or extract information that's not normally accessible. That includes bots of course. Just a random dude in Team Security.


CCP Stillman C C P C C P Alliance 415	Posted - 2013.03.18 15:42:00 - [4] - Quote Inquisitor Kitchner wrote: CCP Peligro wrote: spookydonut wrote: Firstly, who the hell is CCP Peligro? Hi! That would be me. I've been at CCP since April 2006, but my work is done largely behind the scenes, so you might not have heard of me. My main responsibilities within Team Security is to analyze and act on data. In other words he's the brains of the outfit. And he does all the heavy lifting too. He is, after all, The Enforcer Of The LawGäó Just a random dude in Team Security.


CCP Stillman C C P C C P Alliance 418	Posted - 2013.03.18 17:10:00 - [5] - Quote Vera Algaert wrote: CCP Stillman wrote: But client modification right now are anything that injects/touches the running EVE process. That is, reads or writes memory into it, injects and executes code. Basically anything that modifies the client to change the client or extract information that's not normally accessible. That includes bots of course. that description also applies to widely used tool such as the Mumble/Teamspeak overlay and fraps To some degree, it does. But in some ways, it also doesn't. But do you really think we want to ban people using fraps or mumble/teamspeak? That'd be silly Just a random dude in Team Security.


CCP Stillman C C P C C P Alliance 418	Posted - 2013.03.18 17:21:00 - [6] - Quote Vera Algaert wrote: CCP Stillman wrote: Vera Algaert wrote: CCP Stillman wrote: But client modification right now are anything that injects/touches the running EVE process. That is, reads or writes memory into it, injects and executes code. Basically anything that modifies the client to change the client or extract information that's not normally accessible. That includes bots of course. that description also applies to widely used tool such as the Mumble/Teamspeak overlay and fraps To some degree, it does. But in some ways, it also doesn't. But do you really think we want to ban people using fraps or mumble/teamspeak? That'd be silly I don't know... after all you're not going to whitelist specific programs (with 100% less tongue-in-cheekness: I am a bit afraid that one day you will introduce a poorly tested client integrity check that accidentally flags tools such as the ones I mentioned and that getting the permabans undone will be a massive hassle.) I understand your concern. We'll address that concern in more detail in the possibly near future when it's relevant :) Just a random dude in Team Security.


CCP Stillman C C P C C P Alliance 418	Posted - 2013.03.18 17:59:00 - [7] - Quote mynnna wrote: Will you also address the concern I voiced on the previous page, namely the one where instances of innocent players being wrongfully banned was basically swept under the rug and ignored until loudly and publicly called on it? Because that past action makes Vera's concerns all the more troublesome. Discussing individual cases is not something we do. In the cases where we make a mistake, we do our best to correct that and make sure to compensate the player for time lost. It's really that simple. Just a random dude in Team Security.