EVE Search - The REAL reason CCP doesn't ban as many botters as you would like...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The REAL reason CCP doesn't ban as many botters as you would like...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1374	Posted - 2012.02.06 02:40:00 - [1] - Quote Shukuzen Kiraa wrote: Remove local from null, players can then clean up the bot problem themselves. As for high sec botters, I can't really think of a solid idea for them...make missions hard/more unpredictable and or unscripted so they are not always the same. Make it harder for programs to play for you. No idea how to disrupt mining bots though. I've heard rumors (unsubstantiated as yet) of bots operating in WH space that are able to (on some sort of timer) click a certain button that allows them to detect incoming threats. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1374	Posted - 2012.02.06 03:56:00 - [2] - Quote Widemouth Deepthroat wrote: You can just google for bots and look at their websites, manuals etc to see that you're wrong. All the popular bots use local chat to detect hostiles. In fact I couldn't even find one that uses another method of detecing hostiles. You really think they wouldn't be able to adapt? Botting adapted to get around Blizzard's Warden which is incredibly invasive. And you think that just changing from check Local to Pres DScan>Check DScan is going to be impossible for the botters to adapt to? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1374	Posted - 2012.02.06 03:59:00 - [3] - Quote Widemouth Deepthroat wrote: You never heard of a covert ops cloak? Ever heard of keeping someone cloaked on gate? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1374	Posted - 2012.02.06 04:23:00 - [4] - Quote Widemouth Deepthroat wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Widemouth Deepthroat wrote: You never heard of a covert ops cloak? Ever heard of keeping someone cloaked on gate? I'd love to see how this would work. Would the bot just shutdown for the day if one hostile passed it's cloaky eyes? What a great money maker! Dunno, doesn't change that bots can watch DScan better than people. Second, if you keep Null based on Anoms (scannable without probes) and get rid of local, nobody's going to rat there to begin with, so getting rid of local necessarily means removing the isk generation to probing sites. Third, anything people can do, Bots can generally do better. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1379	Posted - 2012.02.06 12:14:00 - [5] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Amsterdam Conversations wrote: Rek Seven wrote: I don't think manpower is the issue. Most bots use the local intel channel to operate, right?! So change local, simple. No. Don't try to cure the symptom, cure the disease itself. It's like when your corn field has been destroyed by millions of crickets, you don't just plant more corn. No you spray your field (the game) with insecticide (gameplay changes) to kill off the crickets (botters). It's ridiculous to expect CCP and the players to actively seek out, identify and then punish the botters. They will just create another account. You have to change the game mechanics to make it more difficult for the bot programs to work. Sure they will adapt eventually but that's what humans are best at. Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1379	Posted - 2012.02.06 12:17:00 - [6] - Quote Florestan Bronstein wrote: The client has to be hardened and even if this results in an arms race (ISXStealth & RedGuard might be seen as evidence for this) the case of WoW shows that at some point the botting community becomes so secluded that "casual" botting is greatly reduced while the larger RMT outfits guard their private bots jealously from each other. The biggest thing that WoW did to combat bots was make gold fairly worthless by making the good loot impossible to trade. Untradeable loot => No incentive to RMT => Less RMT Problem is, doing that to EvE would be terrible. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 12:58:00 - [7] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: If a bot is programmed to dock when someone is in local... Always have someone is local... This could be an npc that players could identify but bots couldn't. Just of of the many ways to combat a simple problem. If a player can immediately identify you ghost local, then so can a bot. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:00:00 - [8] - Quote Tippia wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions. Totally awesome? Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus. Null needs a whole bunch of changes before removing Local wouldn't be massively harmful (you think it's depopulated since the sanctum nerf...), though I'm cautiously in favor of the idea. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:20:00 - [9] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Buruk Utama wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Tippia wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions. Totally awesome? Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus. Null needs a whole bunch of changes before removing Local wouldn't be massively harmful (you think it's depopulated since the sanctum nerf...), though I'm cautiously in favor of the idea. Removing local only affects the human players and will have no affect at all on the bots as stated before, they have direct feed into the interface and will recognize the forced client update everyone gets when someone new comes into local. So CCP could randomly update the client with a fake reading and the problem would be solved? So then we **** off the human player with false data. Unless the client has some way to figure out which data is fake, in which case so does the bot. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:43:00 - [10] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Why would the player even know about the false data. it's just code, right? If the false data is identifiable by the client as false and not meant to be displayed, then the Bot who's looking at said data can also identify it as false and not meant to be displayed and promptly ignore it. If the false data is not identifiable by the client as false, then the client will display that false data and **** off the real players. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:46:00 - [11] - Quote Buruk Utama wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Tippia wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions. Totally awesome? Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus. Null needs a whole bunch of changes before removing Local wouldn't be massively harmful (you think it's depopulated since the sanctum nerf...), though I'm cautiously in favor of the idea. Removing local only affects the human players and will have no affect at all on the bots as stated before, they have direct feed into the interface and will recognize the forced client update everyone gets when someone new comes into local. Yeah, duh. This was about possibly removing local (with a host of other null changes) for reasons entirely unrelated to botting. On that note, I'm still torn about the idea off removing null local. Done wrong it would be massively bad, done right, it would be a little improved. I don't know if the payoff is worth the risk when advocating it. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 14:11:00 - [12] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Why would the player even know about the false data. it's just code, right? If the false data is identifiable by the client as false and not meant to be displayed, then the Bot who's looking at said data can also identify it as false and not meant to be displayed and promptly ignore it. If the false data is not identifiable by the client as false, then the client will display that false data and **** off the real players. Are you talking about a bot that is looking at the code and also has the reasoning capabilities to visually determine if a profile picture or character name displayed in local was legitimate or not? If the false data is displayed, there would certainly be an instantly recognizable way for a human to tell that it's false. Most likely that would manifest itself as a certain name or coloration in order to prevent abuse. The bot would likely be able to notice that flag, either through reading the code or combining injection and OCR. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 14:26:00 - [13] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Rek Seven wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Why would the player even know about the false data. it's just code, right? If the false data is identifiable by the client as false and not meant to be displayed, then the Bot who's looking at said data can also identify it as false and not meant to be displayed and promptly ignore it. If the false data is not identifiable by the client as false, then the client will display that false data and **** off the real players. Are you talking about a bot that is looking at the code and also has the reasoning capabilities to visually determine if a profile picture or character name displayed in local was legitimate or not? If the false data is displayed, there would certainly be an instantly recognizable way for a human to tell that it's false. Most likely that would manifest itself as a certain name or coloration in order to prevent abuse. The bot would likely be able to notice that flag, either through reading the code or combining injection and OCR. That's scary stuff man. Why don't Russian rots rule the world then? ... or do they? One thing to consider tho... i doubt all bots are this sophisticated, therefore you would certainly disable a fraction of the botters. Most bots use OCR which would be exactly as easily fooled as the average human player (which should hopefully be not at all since we don't want to alienate people). Bots will be exactly as complex as they need to be. Look up some of the steps glider took as Warden grew in complexity. EDIT: I really don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that any given nationality is more or less likely to bot. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1385	Posted - 2012.02.07 05:31:00 - [14] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: The OP is pure balderdash. If CCP wanted no botting, CCP could code for no botting. It wouldn't take an army of enforcers to monitor the server night and day. If they wanted to close the hole, they could close it. A first-year computer science student could. No...what you fail to mention is members of CCP are botting as players. They're also in cahoots with friends of theirs in other corps and alliances who bot. It's, after all, their sandbox first and foremost. The rest of us? They just want our money so they can keep the servers up and running...since all botters pay in PLEX. It's not rocket science. Tell that to Blizzard. They spent buckets of money and manpower on Warden and... surprise... the botters got around it. If you had any evidence to back up your outlandish claims about CCP employees running (or knowing of) botting operations, I'm sure you'd have posted it, but just in case; Do you have any evidence to back up your outlandish claim that CCP employees run (or have knowledge of) active botting operations? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1385	Posted - 2012.02.07 07:12:00 - [15] - Quote Soon Shin wrote: One way to annoy RMT botters is to carry out DDOS attacks on their websites and disrupt their services. I would like to see them effectively counter that. If the RMT sites are operated in the US, it would be trivially easy. Press charges in Federal Criminal court against CCP for participating in an illegal DDOS attack (afaik this is still a thread about ways for CCP to combat bots). You do realize that participating in or organizing a DDOS attack is a Felony, right? And that RMT Sites are doing nothing illegal (against the EULA, sure, but that just serves as grounds to sever the contract). Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1390	Posted - 2012.02.08 01:30:00 - [16] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Every now and then something comes up as being simply impossible because of similar issues. I think POS code is mentioned every now and then. There are some fantastic dev quotes regarding POS code. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1392	Posted - 2012.02.08 03:53:00 - [17] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Serene Repose wrote: The OP is pure balderdash. If CCP wanted no botting, CCP could code for no botting. It wouldn't take an army of enforcers to monitor the server night and day. If they wanted to close the hole, they could close it. A first-year computer science student could. I assume, then, that you're a first-year (at least) CompSci student, and are willing to instruct a group of professional programmers with nearly a decade of experience on how to do this? Even if they won't take your advice, please do enlighten us proles, for the sake of knowledge. You so funny GI. I love you long time. So either you are (or have been) a first year Comp-Sci Student and can explain how to do this, or you have no idea what capabilities a first year Comp-Sci student has and likely have no idea of the complexity of the problem you say is trivial. Serene Repose wrote: No...what you fail to mention is members of CCP are botting as players. They're also in cahoots with friends of theirs in other corps and alliances who bot. It's, after all, their sandbox first and foremost. I'll ask again: Do you have any evidence to back up your outlandish claim that CCP employees run (or have knowledge of specific) active botting operations? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1394	Posted - 2012.02.08 08:06:00 - [18] - Quote Hakaru Ishiwara wrote: ]Wow. As if a Red Alliance aligned entity has any ground upon which to stand when it comes to botting discussions. Your space is filled with tengu and machariel bots that consistently produce 5k+ NPC kills per system, daily. Revel in the ISK that you are making [for now] and stop pretending to own the high-ground in this thread. Yeah, I've played this game before ad nauseaum, but, What evidence do you have to back up your claims? Furthermore: A thread where another EvE-O regular and I tried to get someone making similar claims to back them with evidence for ~20 pages and he tried to weasel his way around the fact that he had none. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1399	Posted - 2012.02.09 01:18:00 - [19] - Quote Hakaru Ishiwara wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Hakaru Ishiwara wrote: ]Wow. As if a Red Alliance aligned entity has any ground upon which to stand when it comes to botting discussions. Your space is filled with tengu and machariel bots that consistently produce 5k+ NPC kills per system, daily. Revel in the ISK that you are making [for now] and stop pretending to own the high-ground in this thread. Yeah, I've played this game before ad nauseaum, but, What evidence do you have to back up your claims? Furthermore: A thread where another EvE-O regular and I tried to get someone making similar claims to back them with evidence for ~20 pages and he tried to weasel his way around the fact that he had none. Not going to fall into that trap. Trolling 9/10. CCP, as owner of the EVE IP and service systems, has all of the data available it needs to observe, document and take action on large-scale botting networks and yet they persist across vast regions of space and over the course of many years. It is CCP's choice whether or not they take action. From my perspective, it is clear what choice they have made: let the bot managers rule supreme. What experience or evidence do you have to back up those claims? For instance, do you know how to discern between a bot and a farmer with certainty given limited data (not everything can be logged because of server and data storage issues)? Do you have evidence to prove that those RA aligned systems you mention are generating those 5k kills illegitimately? It's not a troll nor is it a trap when I simply ask why you have come to a certain conclusion. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox. 5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes.