In absolute numbers or in percentage per population?

Once again, a waste of electrons.

The cartels will not allow CCP to go after null sec bots.

oh ****, the tin man is here.

fun fact: if you're botting, ccp will ban you; they don't care who you are.

have you ever seen a parent's half arsed attempt at a tin man costume for a school play? basically sending their child to school mummified in tin foil with a watering can helmet?

that's basically the mental image i have when people mention dinsdale.

Most caught botting*

It could still be the case, or it could be that null-sec botters are better at their craft, not sure.

This "proof" is a load of ****. If you are only making 69 mil isk per hour ratting anoms in nullsec, you either 1) suck or 2) dont know how to rat. Please have someone with "skills" and knows how to "iskperhour" do it. Then go to Highsec and run LVL 4 missions and compare the two. Your "proof" will be a joke, like everyone knows it is.

kaarous...you should not bother replying to anything I post as you have been blocked for a while now. I seen you replied from one of my other accounts, but not to worry that has be rectified as well.

You sir have been weighed and measured and found to be a troll.

I know, right? I tried to reply, but I couldn't think of anything to say that wasn't just laughter.

One simple question: Prince Kobol, La Nariz, why the hell are you guys defending botting in null sec?

Where did the OP say anything about the CFC?

The OP didn't mention anything about highsec botting being controlled, rather only stating(though he didn't clarify that it was merely his opinion) that mining bots were on their way to being controlled or eliminated. He even goes so far as to mention both null sec and high sec in his statement. As for Doc Fury's post, if you can somehow connect the blue doughnut to RMT conspiracies... well I don't know what to suggest about that, because that is one hell of a stretch. I still haven't seen you guys come out against botting in null sec though.

We have seen a lot of work done to ensure that perceived 'mining bots' have been reduced or removed entirely by a sustained campaign of AFK cloaking camps in null and suicide gankers in highsec. These benevolent efforts have gone a long way towards ensuring the players who actually play the game are not ripped off by those who use more nefarious means (botting / automation)

However we still lack adequate means / efforts to reduce the impact upon the economy made by ratting bots. How can it be fair to the people who actually play the game to have their profits reduced by those who afk farm rat belts and anoms afk for 23 hours every day...

So you're argument is that it's worse in high sec, so botting is all good in null sec? I guess I'm just not understanding your argument. You keep talking about the "ignorance, hatred of success, and factionalism(which is something that is really confusing to me. what contentious minority are you talking about?)" and yet the only example you've give is Doc's comment about the blue doughnut and Dinsdale. Doc's comment about the blue doughnut is something I still cannot connect to any of those three things you're so adamantly opposed to, and Dinsdale is a great example of his own ignorance and hatred, but not such a great example of anybody else. The part of the paragraph you emphasized is clearly pertaining to the part of the paragraph you didn't emphasize, where the OP clearly states he's talking about his perception that mining bots have been reduced in number and efficacy due to AFK cloaking in null and suiding ganking in high sec. Furthermore, you're still arguing that because botting takes place more often in high sec, null sec should be left alone. I didn't see any place in his post where it said that botting in high sec should be ignored while botting in null sec should be focused upon, while your posts are full of deflections about how it's "worse in high sec." And you still haven't come out against botting in null sec.

Where are these comments that are "dogwhistle" language? I see Dinsdale's typical conspiracy crafting, and Jaun Pecht-Feng who I've seen before, but never paid any attention to. Other than that, I don't see anything that talks about "nullsec RMT doughnut cartels" except your posts. I don't care where botting occurs, it should be punished immediately with a full IP ban as well as a block placed on the credit card or whatever kind of monetary account used to purchase the game. I don't see it as some kind of anti-CFC conspiracy to target botters in null sec, just like I don't see it as some kind of pro-CFC conspiracy to target them in high sec. Just because mining happens in high sec, doesn't mean botting doesn't happen in null. Perhaps you should stop seeing everything as "us vs. them" and instead see the fact that botting is a huge problem in this game, and should be stomped out where ever it occurs. Your argument that because this one guy made a suggestion on how to counter bots in null sec it means that there is some kind of systemic issue where people think botting no longer occurs in high sec is childish and rather paranoid. A suggestion on how to combat botting in null sec can be made without also making a suggestion to deal with botting in high sec, and there is no super secret level 8 decoder ring lone ranger language that somehow translates the OP's suggestion on how to deal with botting in a very specific part of EvE that translates it into an attack on the CFC.

Any other questions? Oddly, you still haven't come out against botting in null sec.

Edit: And to be clear, nobody needs to refute Dinsdale or the other guy that posted, they do a dang good job of refuting themselves.

Where have I said that botting shouldn't be combated where ever it occurs? Can you quote me so that I can see it more clearly, because I've looked and I can't find any place where I said that botting in high sec should be ignored. And you're not refuting Dinsdale and the other guy when they hadn't even chimed in with their pointlessness until after you had made your first post stating that "it's worse in high sec." And I still don't understand why Dinsdale or Juan matter when it comes to combating botting in null sec. What bearing do they have on botting be just as much of a problem when it occurs in null sec as when it occurs in high sec?

The guy's suggestion being terrible doesn't somehow mean that botting in null sec isn't a problem. That has been the entire problem with the thread, with a bunch of people chiming in to say, "there's more bots in high sec so leave the bots in null sec alone until you deal with all the evil high sec bots." I'm, still, unclear as to why the number of bots being greater in high sec has any bearing on trying to combat bots in null sec. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

It took you this long to finally say that you're against botting in general. Was that really so hard? Now how about we get this over with, and you can clarify that it doesn't matter if it's worse in high sec, botting in null sec should be fought against with just as much fervor, energy and effort from CCP and the playerbase as botting in high sec. After that, we can walk away friends.

The only thing I've seen you say in this thread is that it's worse in high sec, and that you're countering Dinsdale's :goonspiracy: crowd(of one). As for the argument of limited resources, I think they should focus those resources they have ear marked for botting on, get this, botting. You're still arguing that, because it's worse in high sec and all, high sec should get the anti-botting treatment first and then null sec can get it once all those evil high sec botters have been taken care of. I'm arguing that New Eden should get the anti-botting treatment, and then when the botters are handled in New Eden, they should retreat New Eden with the anti-botting treatment. Doesn't it make more sense to target botting, instead of targeting high sec botting. Then again, maybe it doesn't for you. Perhaps you've become so accustomed to the "us vs. them" mentality that for you it makes more sense to target one portion of EvE first, and since that portion of New Eden is the part you care least about it's even better. Those high sec carebears deserve it, right? Oddly, I just don't see it that way. To me, their limited resources should be spent on combating botting in general, and not on focusing on one part of space(which makes it easy for botters to avoid detection by simply moving). And once again, just because most of it occurs in high sec doesn't mean that they shouldn't combat botting in null sec.

Actually, the logic is "Poster said they were explicitly against botting in high sec, and when asked if they were supporting botting in null sec they said botting is worse in high sec so they're against botting in high sec." I asked you about 5 times if you were against botting in null sec, to which you replied it's worse in high sec until 2 or so posts ago.

The next bit of logic is "Poster spoke out against botting in high sec in response to OP's suggestion on how to counter one kind of botting in null sec. Poster then said how there is a :goonspiracy: that's behind people saying there is botting in null sec and reiterated that it's worse in high sec."

And as for your illustration on how they should spend their limited resources, it's a great example of why it seems strange that you're saying you're against botting in null sec, and yet you want to make null sec a haven for botters. Since botters would know that CCP doesn't really do much checking for botters in null, all the botters would move to null. Not to mention, picking a single statistic and arguing that is where they should be focusing their efforts is just plain dumb. Why not focus 70% of their resources on Caldari, since over 60% of banned accounts have Caldari mains? Or they could focus most of their resources on players with just rookie ships and/or capsules, since the vast majority of accounts banned have those ships. Or perhaps they should focus their attention on that single alliance that has 21% of all botting bans attributed to them? Anybody know which alliance that is? If we could see which alliance that was, we'd be able to say CCP should just target them, right? I mean my god, we could eliminate 21% or more of all botters if CCP would just ban everybody in that alliance. One fell swoop, boom, a huge chunk of the problem gone. I'd argue that CCP should focus their resources 70:20:10, 70% on [that certain alliance guilty of far more botting than the rest of us, 20% on all other alliances and 10% on NPC corps.

I disagree. It makes sense for CCP to focus on certain types of behaviour. There is no reason to discriminate based on what area of space a certain behaviour is being exhibited in. Does CCP care whether you're in a large null sec alliance when they are pondering whether to ban you for injecting code into the EVE client? I certainly hope not! Should CCP care whether you're in a large null sec alliance when they're pondering banning you for running a market bot?

The way CCP has been running their anti-botting campaign makes perfect sense: identify a type of behaviour that is clearly a bot, then ban everyone using that bot.

Yes and no. The core of a bot will be the same but the one running in null will probably have something along the line of a "check local" option enabled while the one in high sec won't. Behavior typical of a bot will be similar from one sec to another. Same delay between end of a cycle and reactivation of a module on a target, same delay between rock targetign for mining. Same delay for emptying ore hold and undock back to go mine.

Are the behaviours of ratting bots in null sec easier to distinguish from the behaviours of exuberantly ratting/missioning players in hisec? How many players will head in the opposite direction of a mobile warp disruption bubble even when they're in a POS? That kind of behaviour isn't displayed in hi sec (because no bubbles), but in null sec it's very visible, and easily detectable.

Once any kind of bot is identified and a reliable test with low false positives has been developed, CCP will likely get many more bans in hi sec than anywhere else.

But don't get distracted by the reward. You need to know what the effort is too.

If the effort of detecting a bot reliably is about one day of work, and you can ban 200 bots, is that better or worse than a more sophisticated bot used by 2000 players which requires 10 days of fine tuning your detection system? I suspect that a missioning bot is much more difficult to positively identify when the water is muddied by so many missioning players. Don't let the order of magnitude increase in reward distract you from the effort/reward ratio which is exactly the same for both cases due to the order of magnitude increase in effort. Now ask yourself which bot is most worth banning, when the smaller population bot is also so easy to detect that it only takes half an hour to get a test that doesn't produce false positives?

I Googled EVE bots and checked some stuff out. They said a lot of stuff, but there's one thing they didn't say.

What they didn't say is that these programs somehow differentiate between high,low and null sec. It's the same damn program used in all of EVE.

So if CCP takes care of it then botting in all space will be reduced.

But keep up the blame game. It's a fun read.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if the (mostly null) whiners want to declare they are better because there is less overall botting in their nearly empty space as long as CCP is doing something to make detection and deletion of the accts responsible for screwing the economy. Wherever these players are locating their bots.

Now back to our regularly scheduled hyperbole.

Mr Epeen

I'll bow to your expertise on the subject since I don't bot. Funny though that you seem pretty knowledgeable about it and at the same time are attempting to deflect attention away from null.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Mr Epeen

A police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost.

GÇ£No,GÇ¥ is the reply, GÇ£I lost the keys somewhere across the street.GÇ¥ GÇ£Why look here?GÇ¥ asks the surprised and irritated officer. GÇ£The light is much better here,GÇ¥ the intoxicated man responds with aplomb.

Sometimes you look where the light is better. If there are keys all over the place then you look where you know the most keys are. Funniest thing is asking yourself WHO the botters are. Who is behind the machines? Are they players? Or people farming our game for RMT and for the associated credit card scams? The Fanfest session was fun, worth watching if you haven't seen it yet. Do you honestly believe that hisec PLAYERS and Lowsec PLAYERS are responsible or is that just where the action happens to be.

Enough with the finger pointing and Grr Goons and Carebear epithets.


Botting is bad. It has some harsh effects on any part of spaces economy.

If missions had some more random to them then maybe they would be less botted.

If mining was less mechanical and mind numbing . . . and I run missions and mine.

m

You're pretty much only seeing what you want to see. Nothing I wrote supports your argument.

Well you could begin to show where I have come out and supported botting let alone botting in null sec.

Oh that's right you cant because I haven't

I am probably the hardest on CCP and botters when it comes to botting and RMT.

I have said numerous times in various other posts over the years that CCP are part of the reason why we have issues with botting and RMT because it is too damn easy to create untraceable accounts.

Also I would have a 1 strike rule... get caught once and your banned.. no exceptions but that is me.

What I hate is people like Dinsdale who have such a blind hatred of any null sec alliance that they keep this ridiculous narrative that we are all evil and we all bot and we all RMT and that we somehow control CCP, which actually detracts from the discussion about how is best to eliminate botters/RMT'ers.

The facts are pretty damn simple.

CCP have limited resources.
Most Botting occurs in HS.

With those two facts it doesn't take a genius to concentrate your efforts in eliminating as many of those bots that operate in HS as that will have the greater effect.

Its a numbers game. Why ban a handful of people when you can ban hundreds or even thousands?

The great thing with low and null sec is that we the players can actually do something about botters as they do not have concord to protect them and bubbles are a wonderful thing, again another reason why they chose HS.

Also logistically, HS is a much easy place to operate out of then null sec.

On top of that you will actually find most null sec alliances, including Goons will not have botters in their corps.

I actually know a lot about the most of the botting problems work because I have obtained copies of them and looked at the code that drives them. I often visit their forums often to see how people are using them and what kind of technical issues they are having.

That helps me understand where they are being used and how to combat them in game if I see somebody I think is botting.

The fact is botting problems DO NOT differentiate what space they are being used in. The more advances programs use local if you so chose to, so if a red enters system your ship will automatically warp to a safe spot and will stay there until local is clear.

The thing is you have to ask yourself, where will I make the most isk if I am botting. HS will always win.

Why kill a few rats in null sec when you can run mission indefinitely, earning both isk and lp and do not have to worry about who is in local or bubbles?

You know you are going to get caught at some point so you want to maximise how much isk you can earn in that time with as little effort as possible and since CCP have made so damn easy to simply create account after account after account, then HS is the place to be.

Create untraceable account.
Purchase Mission running toon
Run HS Missions for x hours per day in NPC corp and Concord Protection
Earn Isk + LP
Launder Isk LP
x amount of time later account is banned

Create new untraceable account
Purchase Mission running toon
Run HS Missions for x hours per day in NPC corp and Concord Protection
Earn Isk + LP
Launder Isk + LP
x amount of time later account is banned

Rinse and repeat.

You know a very simply way to stop most HS botters, simply make it a requirement that you must be in a player run corp to run Level 4 missions.

Watch those numbers tumble

Goons win the war on highsec, watch subscription numbers fall.....
All your proposed anti bot measures like banning level 4's will do is cement your place as untouchable. People need to be able to make a good income to even consider starting to challenge a dug in group. Null is better income, the fact 72% of NPC ships killed are in Null, meaning at least 72% of bounties come from null, meaning at least 50% of the isk faucets come from Null says so.
Quit the war on highsec, it utterly destroys your credibility when every post you make is about nerfing highsec because you want it to be nerfed.

fine by me
so long as your prepared to add the same mechanism to all other forms of activity with a similar interaction
(which means activities that involve lock target, press F1)

you still think it's a good suggestion ?

What do you mean "grr goons?" I'm merely quoting CCP's own numbers where it shows that 21% of all botters come from one alliance. They didn't name that alliance, so I have no clue which alliance it might be. Someone with more experience in botting and botting friendly alliances would have to make an informed decision as to which alliance has harbored 3,000 plus bots in the past 16 months, and that person most definitely is not me. The only alliance I've been a part of is a tiny one with less than 50 active members. However, targeting high sec makes no sense. It just doesn't make sense to try to sift through hundreds of thousands of players in order to catch a few thousand. It makes far more sense to target the tens of thousands of players as part of those bot friendly alliances in order to catch the bots that are infesting said alliances. Where the botting takes place is immaterial. It's far more important to target those groups that are promoting and condoning botting such they represent the vast majority of bots. By targeting the alliance(s) or coalition(s) that has created a bot friendly environment CCP can nip this problem in bud and stop the proliferation of bots everywhere instead of targeting a huge portion of the playerbase and being unable to stop botting anywhere. As for your assumption that 85% or more of all botting takes place in high sec, I couldn't find any information to back it up. Will you please link or quote where CCP provided this information? Thanks man.

I still can't find where that number comes from, please provide a link so we can clear this up.

You'll be sorely disappointed to know that I don't have any goonspiracies. Kaarous, however, seems to think targeting bots in null sec means your targeting goons, so you might want to ask him about his goonspiracies.

And as for aggregation of all high sec bots, I'm still not finding that information. Are you just making a guess, or do you actually have some information regarding bots?

I never mentioned blue doughnut except in response to your assertion that blue doughnut was a code word for anti-goon. If you'll just look back, you'll see it was Doc Fury making a joke about the blue doughnut that seems to be one of the reasons you went on your "leave null sec alone cuz it's worse in high sec" crusade.

And why wouldn't I mention that a certain alliance accounts for 21% of all bots? That's not some made up number like your 85%, that comes straight from CCP's presentation. Go ahead, I'll give you a moment to check these things.

I can't compare that certain alliance to anything, since CCP didn't release the name of the alliance. I'm not sure why you feel it's the goons that are responsible for 21% of all bots, but I haven't made that assertion and I'll advise you of the same thing that I advised Kaarous: accusing an alliance of being infested with bots(over 3,000 in the past 16 months) is a very serious thing and you should have proof before you go doing so. Also, you shouldn't be making these accusations in GD, but instead you should be getting in touch with CCP directly and providing them with the proof that you have so that they may deal with it. It's against the forum rules to rumour monger.

Edit: And it's strange that you're accusing your own alliance of such heinous actions. Shouldn't you be leaving in protest?

What do you mean I made an assertion that it was goons? I made sure not to imply it was anybody, since that'd be unfair to them as nobody knows who it is except CCP and the members of the alliance. And the fact still remains that focusing resources on any one part of space leaves all other parts of space vulnerable to botting activity. Falsely stating that I asserted it was goons doing 21% of all the botting, when I made sure I wasn't falsely accusing anybody of botting, doesn't somehow change the fact that if CCP were to responsibly focus their attention on any one aspect of EvE in regards to botting, it would be in the best interests of the playerbase as a whole to focus their attention on those alliances guilty of promoting botting and harboring botters.I, however, don't think they should do that at all. Instead they should be focusing their limited resources on botting in general, where ever it might occur, who ever might be doing it. You, Kaarous and Prince Kobol are the most vocal people arguing that CCP should be splitting their attention unevenly across New Eden, and you're all in favor of a method of enforcement that would ensure bots in low, null and wh would have an easier time escaping punishment than bots in high sec. I'm still not sure why you support a system that would make botting in null sec easier to get away with, or why you keep assuming that goons are guilty of 21% of all botting, but that's your prerogative.

Reading is hard, I know. So let me break it down for you.

You keep saying I'm the one asserting that goons are guilty of 21% of all botting.

I did not actually say this.

I was careful not to imply which alliance it might be.

You and Kaarous are the ones that think it's goons doing 21% of all botting.

You want CCP to focus on high sec for botting, even though you thinks goons are doing nearly 1/4th of all botting.

This means botting in other areas of space would be easier since CCP wouldn't be paying attention, which means the 21% of botting you think goons are guilty of would be less likely to be discovered.

I don't know why you want botting to be easier in null sec.

I don't know why you think it's goons that are guilty of 21% of all botting.

I don't know why you're in an alliance that you think is responsible for 21% of all botting.

Edit: And, just so you know, a paragraph is split when the subject matter changes. Since the subject matter of my paragraph never changed, it would make no sense to double space it like I had to do here. Are you reading this on a half inch screen or something? Maybe try increasing the size of the text? I'm not sure what to tell you if you're struggling so much.

You keep calling me a goonspiracist. What is it about not wanting null sec botting to go unpunished that is conspiratorial against goons? How do you get to goons from me quoting CCP about a single alliance being guilty of 21% of all botting? This is utterly baffling to me. Is there something you might want to admit to us? Maybe a bit of guilt, where you hear that number, 21%, of a pang of remorse goes through your gut? You keep bringing up goons every time I talk about CCP's revelation that 21% of all bots came from one alliance, and I just don't know why.

And yes, focusing resources on high sec would mean botting would be easier in other areas of space. After all, if less Team Security members are watching null sec, and less automated programs are monitoring activity in null sec, and less time is spent looking for bots in null sec, and less effort is put into finding bots in null sec, and less energy is expended on monitoring botting activity in null sec... guess what happens? It's easier to bot in null sec.

Now, please tell me what it is about botting and goons that makes it a conspiracy to not want botting in null sec to be less important than botting in high sec? Why is it so important to you that CCP focus most of their attention on high sec and only focus a tiny fraction of their attention on null sec? Why wouldn't CCP just target botting as a whole, instead of splitting up their resources, losing efficiency and risk missing the activities of a number of bots due to their inattentiveness on some parts of space?

It was a rhetorical question, I've looked, it isn't there.

This is one thing he is expert at.

You're still not saying where you see a goonspiracy in my belief that botting should be targeted everywhere. Why should CCP target most of the bots in high sec, some of the bots in low sec, a few of the bots in null sec and a couple of the bots in wormholes instead of targeting all of the bots in New Eden? That is neither efficient, nor sensible since it would promote botting in the areas of least enforcement. If they're getting caught in high sec, they're not going to stay in high sec. And actually, their resources might be limited but they aren't necessarily finite. CCP doesn't only have 12 GB of bandwidth to dedicate to finding bots, nor do they have only 5 minutes to spend finding them. Every day, the team members can wake up, go to work, and their work day has "respawned" just like an asteroid belt. With your method, their resources would be even more limited, since the moment a botter moves from high sec to null sec you want them to stop chasing them and refocus their attention on another bot in high sec if they've already spent 10% of the day working on a bot in null.

What happens if it would take 20% of their day to prove someone is botting in null? Should they only half punish them? Or should they just forgive them and punish a random high sec player instead? It's worse in high sec after all.

Now please, quote my goonspiracies so I can be discredited. Stop just claiming that I'm a part of some goonspiracy and prove it. Or is my participation in the goonspiracy some kind of highsecspiracy that you're spouting?

What you refuse to see, because it is past your own nose, is he is suggesting that instead of making it based off space to make it based off players and those players already caught botting and where they are from and whom they align with and what alts they have or had and where that botting money gets sent.

Make it player profiled not base it off the demographics.

I have been accepted into BNI 7o please feel free to look for me there. I am moving my stuff around to avoid the wardecs. Once home I will accept my invintation.

If you dont care where the main botter lives then why imply its hi-sec people doing the botting?

Because you guys are blinded by your own stupidity and hate you want others to jump on your kill hi-sec bandwagon and cant admit botting is a global problem that could be ran by any player from any where in the game.

I'm not making up that a "certain alliance" is responsible for 21% of all banned bots. How is it a conspiracy to quote CCP's security presentation? You're seeing things that just don't exist. You think blue doughnut is a code word for "bring down the goons because I hate them for their success, and because I'm ignorant, and because I'm a strong believer in factionalism!" You think quoting CCP regarding the fact that 21% of all bots came from ONE ALLIANCE is super secret level 8 illuminati free mason christophoro columbo secret society 55th degree there are pentagrams in the streets of Washington DC! code for "goons." You're the one with conspiracies, not me.

Second, if CCP has 100 units to spend combating botting, they should spend it like so: 100.... That's it, real simple. They should spend 100% of their anti-botting resources combating botting, no matter where it occurs. In your example CCP could be expected to catch* 4900 bots in high sec, but only 100 bots each in low, null and wormholes. That means 4,800 bots get away with their activity, 900 bots go scot-free in null, 900 more in low and another 900 in wormhole space all because you don't want CCP fighting botting there as much as they fight it in high sec. How is that more efficient than making sure bots everywhere get caught and punished?

No, CCP does not have infinite resources, just like nobody else has infinite resources, but what does that have to do with your desire to police high sec more strictly than policing null sec? You want 90% of all bots outside of high sec to be left alone, and 70% of all bots in high sec to be punished. Why do you want null sec to have a more open and accepting environment for bots? Why do you not want bots everywhere to be punished fully and equally?

*Statistics based on the assumption that CCP employees have 100% efficiency and 100% accuracy in their efforts on detecting, proving and then punishing bots. Since this is unlikely, the concentration of resources being so heavily targeted on high sec would likely lead to fewer than the estimated numbers of bots being caught. Nobody is perfect, after all, and we cannot expect that the bot owners would make it easy for CCP. It can be expected that upon realization that less than 10% of all bots in null sec are being caught, botters would move there and we would see a huge drop in bots being banned, while seeing a huge increase in the actual number of bots being used.

I'll say it again. Really slowly for you this time.

It....doesn't...matter...where...they...are.

It's the same program. Effective detection algorithms will find the botters wherever they are. Period.

Stop trying to justify leaving your null bots alone. They all need to go.


Mr Epeen

Hint: I answered your question.

Hint2: It was answered in with a yes or no.

Hint3: Do I have to start double spacing everything for you again?

You're not going after them all if you're focusing on one area where bots exist over another area where bots exist... If you can catch a bot, you should catch a bot, no matter where that bot might be operating.

Why did NPC alts turn this thread into some nonsense highsec versus nullsec crap again?

I'm only kind of unsure what you mean, as he has opposed mine and Mr Epeen's opinions that CCP should target botting in all areas of New Eden equally.

Why do you think that the CCP Security team operates on this basis? I think it's by far more likely that they allocate resources per bot program, and that they could care less about which sec area any specific individual using the current primary targetted botting application is operating in.

So, since you just showed CCP must have banned all bots from high sec(look at the numbers after all), why are you still arguing that they should be focusing their resources so heavily there? Since they're gone, it's probably best if they spread their resources out so that they don't miss new bots popping up in other areas, right?

But honestly, you can't really believe that is how things work, can you? You just made up a few arbitrary numbers and then subtracted them. That isn't what I would call comprehensive science. After all, I can do it too.

CCP has 500 resource units to spend, and for simplicity's sake we'll say 1 unit = 1 bot banned. With a spread of 2222:543:657:78(High:Low:Null:WH), how should CCP spend their resource points? (Bonus points for showing your work)

In your equation you can exchange sec status with anything(SP in Exhumers, time spent ship spinning, ISK lost on SOMERblink) and it still ends at the same meaningless conclusion: that is not how it works, and since it doesn't work that way it should not be used as an argument for CCP to spend 85% of their time and effort looking at high sec and only 5% of their time and effort looking at each of the other sec statuses.

Your misunderstanding of the information presented to you by CCP security teams over three contiguous years is very sad.

CCP has repeatedly pointed out that they ban based on identifying bots. They identify bots by looking for suspicious behaviour. The suspicious behaviour shows up in logs, or is identified through player reports.



That's not how it works. If the 5 null sec bots in your example were removed with 5 units of effort, why would CCP keep trying to remove bots that aren't there? Are you making the assumption that CCP identifies bots by sitting in space watching people?

Here are some ways to identify bots:

• Look for behaviour that is repeated over a long period of time
• Frequency analysis of keystrokes
• Look for behaviour that doesn't belong to a particular type of ship (e.g.: warping to belt and sitting there for five minutes in a pod)
• Investigate player-generated bot-reports for evidence of botting

None of these discriminate based on security status. All of them are much more effective at locating bots than having CCP staff watch a particular area of space looking for odd behaviour.

That's a losing fight. You made the classic blunder of "arguing with an idiot." They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

In your equation? Most definitely. Arbitrary information can be construed in any manner, sorted in any order, defined in any way you want, and it is still arbitrary. Since the sec status where a bot is currently located is a variable that is completely arbitrary, it follows no plan, purpose, or pattern, using it to define search and/or detection patterns for said bot is pointless. At any moment, that bot can change sec statuses. You're predicating the success of banning bots on their being located in high sec, which means you're going to miss the vast majority of bots in null sec, low sec and wormhole space. Thank god CCP doesn't think like you, or else they'd have announced at FanFest that they intended to stop pursuing bots outside of Caldari high sec, since that was where the largest majority of bots were at when they were detected. Of course, using your logic they might have also announced that they intended to weight their detection algorithms to favor finding players that chose Caldari, since most bots were Caldari characters. Or perhaps they should be targeting that one alliance that is able to claim 21% of all bots banned, weighting their algorithms to favor tracking and detecting botting activity in players that are apart of that group due to their predisposition towards botting.

It amazes me how vacuous you are, as I clearly did answer your question. I'm sorry if I'm too verbose for you. Here, let me put it a bit more simply, in order that you might finally understand: YES! SHIP SPINNING, SKILL POINTS AND GAMBLING LOSSES ARE JUST AS SIGNIFICANT TO FINDING BOTS AS THE SEC STATUS OF WHERE A BOT IS LOCATED AT THE TIME IT IS DETECTED. Sorry that I had to yell, but I didn't want you to miss anything. Let me ask you a yes or no question now: Do you want me to simplify all of my future responses so that you might keep up? If your answer is no, then why do you keep demanding that I simplify my answers now?

Looks like its time for another yes/no question for you. Are various botting problems the same thing as SP/ship spinning/gambling losses?

You're really struggling with this, aren't you. The answer is in all caps, just think of it as a game of hide and seek. It's just that in this game intelligence is the one hiding, you are the one seeking, and intelligence always wins.

You've gotta be kidding, I answered it twice for you. Yes, skill points, gambling losses and ship spinning are all just as significant to finding bots as the sec status of the system where a bot was detected is.

I'm sorry, it took me awhile to realize that you weren't asking in regards to the discussion we've been having, and instead are seriously asking if they're the same thing. How foolish of me to think you actually knew what botting was, and it was presumptuous of me to assume you also knew what ship spinning, skill points and SOMERblink are. I profusely apologize for jumping to conclusions and neglecting you in your time of obvious need.

So, to answer your question: No, ship spinning, skill points and SOMERblink are not the same thing as botting.

I hope that clears it up for you. Again, I am truly sorry for being so obtuse and not recognizing that you were honestly distressed over the fact that you had no clue whether or not those were the same thing. I hope you can forgive me for not coming to your aide sooner, and that we can move on from here with the understanding that ship spinning, skill points and SOMERblink are all separate and unique things, and that they are not code words for botting or in any way to be confused with botting.

Let me restate it for you, just in case you're still confused: Botting, ship spinning, skill points and SOMERblink are all different and distinct from each other.

I hope I am not making things more difficult by typing all of these words around the answer. That seems to have confused you in the past, and I must say that your confusion and distress are not my goal. It is merely my goal to get you to understand that focusing attention on one specific part of EvE leaves the other parts of EvE not under such scrutiny vulnerable to botting(as well as other forms of abuse). I feel really bad now, though, having left you in such clear distress for so long. I apologize again, and any time you become confused please, just let me know. I will immediately do everything in my power to explain things to you again and try to get you back on track with the discussion. Let me know if this is enough to clear things up. If it's not, we might just have to stop the argument. I don't want you to become too upset.

Looks like its time for another yes/no question for you. Are various botting problems the same thing as SP/ship spinning/gambling losses?

No.

No.

No.

And like I said, it's okay to be confused La Nariz. You did an amazing job of finding the information without getting too upset that time. You still seem a little upset, but hopefully we can work on that more. You're doing great, keep up the good work.

Not at all, I think you're just confused again. The presentation clearly showed that the most bots were banned in high sec. The presenter never said anything about the amount of botting that was occurring anywhere in EvE. Would you like a link to the YouTube video so that you can reacquaint yourself with reality?

Marsha Mallow, I'm not smacking him. For one, that'd be quite difficult to do over the internet. I guess I could be smacking my screen, but I don't know why you'd think I was doing that. And clearly, he gets confused easily and often. Just notice that a moment ago he became confused over what CCP presented at FanFest, believing that they had released information about where, and how many, bots are active in New Eden. This, of course, is not at all what they presented. The information they provided was how many bots they had banned, as well as a heat map representing general location of those bots when they were banned.

If you'll look back a few posts, you'll also see that he became confused as to the meanings of botting, ship spinning, SP and SOMERblink. He had to ask me if they were the same thing. Then, he became confused about whether or not CCP has finite resources, and again needed me to inform him that they did not, in fact, have infinite resources.

No.

No.

Yes

Yes

No, we established that more bots were banned in highsec according to the data CCP presented in their FanFest 2014 presentation. You're applying a statistical syllogism, in that you're arguing because more bots are banned in high sec, more bots MUST be active in high sec. While this is probably true, CCP has never stated that the number of banned bots is indicative of the number of active bots. Due to this, you cannot argue that they have.

From the looking that I've done, bots designed to operate in EvE Online are designed to operate in EvE Online. I've never actually used a bot in EvE Online, however, so if you have I'm willing to defer to your experience.

Why the hell does every argument in this forum always come back to Grr Goons?

Can we just all agree that botting is bad, period?

It doesn't matter if your in blue sec, low sec, or care-bear island If you get caught botting, you lose all your stuff and catch a rather lengthy suspension. I don't care if your in goons, or the loli-pop guild if you bot, GTFO of my EVE, we don't want you here.

Also, there is a difference between AFK play, and botting. Just because you throw sentries out change to aggressive and cut the lawn in a cap stable double rep domi doesn't mean he is botting. It just means that current game mechanics allows him to do so. These are the type of people who pad our killboards... Why nerf it?

or it's a weekday, and he has a job?

No, I'm more than willing to accept the fact that more bots are banned in high sec than any place else. The problem is that your confusing fact with conjecture.

Rumourmongering:


Uninformed (hint: you can sub via plex and mask your identity quite easily):

More uninformed comments:

To kick it off, I claim that some cartel folk have infiltrated the CSM just to be close to and to manipulate CCP to do, well, stuff which could really change the game for all of us.