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 [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Honnete Du Decimer 40	Posted - 2012.02.06 12:52:00 - [31] - Quote Florestan Bronstein wrote: It's sad that CCP doesn't want to implement proper behavioural analysis but I can imagine that this is not only a matter of false positives but also of server-side resources (when the bot detection takes more CPU cycles on the server than the bots cause, the whole unholy rage argument doesn't apply any more) If code good it do most of the work. Human check and ban. Also problem for way ban is only account. No machine profile or IP or Mac code. CCP also always make fat code. Need diet programmeur. PMS
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 4819	Posted - 2012.02.06 12:57:00 - [32] - Quote 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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 12:58:00 - [33] - 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 - [34] - 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.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 139	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:05:00 - [35] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: 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. lol
Buruk Utama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 80	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:08:00 - [36] - Quote 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.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 139	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:14:00 - [37] - 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. So CCP could randomly update the client with a fake reading and the problem would be solved?
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:20:00 - [38] - 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.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 139	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:22:00 - [39] - Quote Why would the player even know about the false data. it's just code, right?
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:43:00 - [40] - 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 - [41] - 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.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 139	Posted - 2012.02.06 13:58:00 - [42] - Quote 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?
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 14:11:00 - [43] - 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.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 139	Posted - 2012.02.06 14:14:00 - [44] - Quote 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.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1380	Posted - 2012.02.06 14:26:00 - [45] - 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.
Hakaru Ishiwara Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 70	Posted - 2012.02.06 14:29:00 - [46] - Quote Har Harrison wrote: 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. Why do people keep suggest this as a way to stop bots? It won't at all. Why? The reason is that the bots (sophisticated ones) are not just screen scraping the local window. They are performing python injection into the Eve client. This means they know what the client knows. What does this mean? The eve client has to know about people in local/on grid etc... even if they are not shown in local. We see this in effect in a wormhole. Therefore, the information is still there for the to access. Its the HUMAN player that cannot know what is in local as the client doesn't tell them unless they hack it. Do you know the last bit (bolded) for a fact? Is there a dev blog explaining this? Have you decompiled the client and analyzed the code? But what is more relevant is the bot not acting upon a person entering system and the local channel. Bot hunters might have a chance at capturing their prey if the tengu bots do not immediately warp to their safe POS. Once a player is on-grid, cloaked or not, it is probably too late for the bot. TBH, I believe that CCP pays bot hunting lip service and turns the other way regarding the truly large botting operations in null-sec. The amount of botting subscriptions, whether they are funded with RL cash fees or purchased PLEX, allows Hilmar and his executive cronies those really nice rims on their leased Land Rovers. Plus, those investors need feeding every so often... 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters ~~284~~286
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Project Wildfire 139	Posted - 2012.02.06 14:33:00 - [47] - Quote Well you seem to have all the answers and you make it sound like the only way to fix the issue is to change the game i a way that effects the normal player, and that's a decision only CCP can make.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx 231	Posted - 2012.02.06 15:02:00 - [48] - 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. There is no "forced client update"; there is no point in it for a regular (non dev/GM) client; it's absence was proven by the MonkeySphere exploit.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 1023	Posted - 2012.02.06 15:04:00 - [49] - Quote Dr Asimov wrote: I recently read an article on EvE-O forums called "The #1 reason why CCP will NEVER ban bots..." by Mai Khumm Answer: Money /thread EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!!
Serene Repose Perkone Caldari State 218	Posted - 2012.02.06 15:06:00 - [50] - Quote 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. Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold.
Landraar Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 2	Posted - 2012.02.06 17:44:00 - [51] - Quote Sorry for not sticking to the botting problematic, but since you've said the following: Dr Asimov wrote: I used to play a game before EvE called Freelancer. CCP in fact has modeled the market and the standings from that very game. Not wrong, but there are quite a few space trading/combat games that predate Freelancer by far, although none of them could be played online. They all had markets and sec status and some form of standings: People older than 30 will remember ELITE, a game in which you died more often when attempting to dock than from being shot (for childhood flashbacks watch ELITE docking sequence). And most will remember Privateer as well, out of the Wing Commander franchise, a game in which the station environments had more variety than EVE has to this day and which, like all the WC games, even had a damage model (What a thought! Ships that get destroyed subsystem by subsystem, could you believe it!). There's probably a ton of other games that people would like to point out here as well, but in any case, Freelancer certainly was not the only, or even primary, inspiration for EVE Online. Hell, ELITE even had slaves as cargo, if I remember correctly. EVE's mission system so much reminds me of Privateer, etc etc.
FloppieTheBanjoClown Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 819	Posted - 2012.02.06 17:47:00 - [52] - Quote Shukuzen Kiraa wrote: As for high sec botters, I can't really think of a solid idea for them... Make it untenable to keep bots in NPC corps for long enough to train them. Once they all filter out to one-player corps, wardecs will clean them up.
FloppieTheBanjoClown Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 819	Posted - 2012.02.06 17:50:00 - [53] - 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. 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.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1385	Posted - 2012.02.07 05:31:00 - [54] - 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.
Soon Shin Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck 51	Posted - 2012.02.07 07:00:00 - [55] - Quote 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.
RubyPorto Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion 1385	Posted - 2012.02.07 07:12:00 - [56] - 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.
Sarion Stormweaver Spectrum Solutions INC 12	Posted - 2012.02.07 12:24:00 - [57] - Quote Yeah .. it is an arms race after all. not sure how this would apply with eve client.. but as far as I understand ... If I had EVE and wanted to protect it against bots, I would do something like this. - have a small team 2-3 people to work on it. - monitor the main bot programs to understand how they work .. what eve client functions they hook into etc.... let's assume that the bots hooks into a theoretical (I have no clue how this is actually implemented however) ' cLocal->getList method' add a secondary clone function cLocal->getList2 and make the client use only this. Leave the main method there fully functional with an added call to CCP to log the account. Release patch. Wait for 1 month. Ban the accounts and all the related accounts. revert the changes. (because having methods named getList2342 is bad code :P) in first stage you'll only get the lazy people. that don't bother to check for new bot updates regularly. If not enough paranoia ensues after this ... Make a stealth patcher dedicated for this issue that patches your client on the run. o/ Massive paranoia ensues.
Degren The Scope Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2012.02.07 12:40:00 - [58] - Quote And here I thought they won't get rid of bots because 1) mining is boring and 2) bots pay subs
Sidus Isaacs Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 88	Posted - 2012.02.07 12:45:00 - [59] - Quote Shukuzen Kiraa wrote: Remove local from null, players can then clean up the bot problem themselves. Will not remove botters, jsut force them to adapt.
Cebraio Starfire Oasis 2	Posted - 2012.02.07 13:20:00 - [60] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: ... 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. It's not rocket science to understand that EVERY PLEX was paid for with real money that landed in the pocket of CCP. Yet people like you fail to understand it. Luckily that means I don't have to comment the rest of your post.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.