|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3090
   |
Posted - 2012.02.06 08:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Okay lets go hypothetical and I am not an idiot bot programmer and let my bots do something a person cant.
I have 100 bots and I sync them to dscan one ship every 1/100th of a second from the next one and have them setup to talk to each other. The moment one of them sees +1 more ship than them theyll cloak up. Only thing a bot needs to do is count dscan results not much different from current bots.
Now you might be smart enough to smash dscan as soon as you jump in and before you decloak/recloak to go hunting but in tha t one instance you pop up on overview, boom they're gone.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Razin wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Okay lets go hypothetical and I am not an idiot bot programmer and let my bots do something a person cant.
I have 100 bots and I sync them to dscan one ship every 1/100th of a second from the next one and have them setup to talk to each other. The moment one of them sees +1 more ship than them theyll cloak up. Only thing a bot needs to do is count dscan results not much different from current bots.
Now you might be smart enough to smash dscan as soon as you jump in and before you decloak/recloak to go hunting but in tha tone instance boom they're gone. IMO your mistake is in looking for a flaw in the current d-scan that works with current local. Granted, CCP is known for taking the easy way out (see WTZ); however there is hope that d-scan gets some severe updates if and when delayed local is implemented.
Agreed but if they keep it the same, the status quo is almost not going to change that much. And killing one of them isnt going to do much to stop them as on person stated, say hi to my bomber and Im like dude you need an entire wing of bombers and chances are not all of the bots are in the same area.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 16:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:Andski wrote:seany1212 wrote:Except the bots are never going to know when you left, or if you logged, or if you jumped an alt in then logged, or whether they should log back in if they logged off. You can come up with a million counters, or counter-counters but the cloak will be the number 1 thing cried about if local went. I hope it goes go, null has it on easy mode for any alliance that has enough space and enough members to patrol and fill it. With the exception of wars of course  it's almost like an alliance and its members work to achieve this level of security but no let's throw away all of that because a few guys can't figure out ways to kill ratters Instant local, cloaks and nullifier t3s, its almost like you dont need to be at the keyboard to rat at all  instant local is a two-way street nobody uses cloaky nullified t3s to rat cripes stop being dumb
are bots people too?
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Andski wrote:Nova Fox wrote:are bots people too? that's one hell of an existential question
I know, I mean is it right to call them nobody? or its just the limits of thier natures to exist as such? One must ponder more about it.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Hi,
Can I just join in and call everyone dumb in this thread. I feel so excluded.
Yes you may.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Spurty wrote:ROLLS EYES ACROSS THE TABLE
So many Assumptions, so few working prototypes and proofs.
And you think having bots talk to each other is a technnological imposisbility? Software is capable of doing alot of things the programmers tell it to do.
Bots are mostly AI scripts put together to THEN interact with a client. There does come a point where bots may be utterly confused about how to play a game but with time and investment you can make a near player like bot easily enough and script him to have an entire week scheduled. If you dont belive me then you need to take a look on how Halo's AI operate, and how obiliviion and skyrim schedules thier npcs.
Also It be horrible if whoever ever built these bots how to analyze a pvp situation and engage a hostile player especially if you show up in one bomber and they have 8 officer fitted and jacked piloted tengus.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Didn't bother reading anything other than the OP, but...
1) dscan doesn't tell you when a cloaked ship is 10km from you
2) dscan doesn't tell you if the ship warping to you is firendly
Removing local won't kill the bots (other than shortly afterwards when they need to be redone), but it will make them supremely easier to kill.
It was establised that the bots dont have to register as freindly it only has to register +1 descan results because of that vunerable transition period for that umph of a seconds you are recloaking up at the gate.
Also inversly if the number of established bots goes down by -1 then it would and should go into panic mode again.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:removing local not only is a stupid solution but also very easy to get around. Scan probes will be deployed by Bots easy. It would be like having local. Its actually easy to implement. Not to mention gate activation, which i am sure can also be done.
Yeah gate activation makes an audible noise just having a afk velator would give the bots an advanced warning to cloak up before even the inbound hunter has a chance to throw a dscan out.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Valei Khurelem wrote:Removing null has nothing to do with bots, I don't know where you got this idea from, what it would fix quite a lot is ganking because it would force the lazy EVE PvPers to actually have to look for you in the system rather than just go "Oh look! Someone just jumped in! Let's get those bubbles up so he can't go anywhere!". It was brought up in another thread a while back that removing local would deter bots since pretty much every bot program currently relies on local and the intel gathered from local to flee to safety when someone comes in system. The idea being that if local were to be removed it would be much easier for legit players to get the jump on and kill bots. This would still be the case even if bots spammed the D-Scan as D-Scan (you would know this if you ever used it) can only be used once every 5 seconds or so. Unless said bots were constantly aligned out to a safe this would make it much easier to get in and tackle bots for the kill. As it stands the best chance to capture a bot is to put bubbles around it's safe POS and leave system. Come back in a couple minutes later and hope you get lucky with your little trap.
So with 100 bots it would be one dscan every 0.05 of a second if you stagger the cycles out.
And being honest, no I never had to spam d-scan, I only uesd it to check gates before I warp to them as some camps are particiularlly nasty to get though if they're expecting you.
|
|
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets
In a counter attack pvp ship you can back hand most cloaking ships fairly easily, even the stealth bomber is all bite and no skin. As long as you keep your ship cheaper than thiers you should come out on top of the war of attrition.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ilany wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but how does a bot spam the D-scan faster than the fixed limit? I'm not saying the limit on (or the range of)the D-scan is correct - higher would be better - but it's certainly not 100ths of a second.
And how does an NPC-ratting bot cloak if it is ratting?
And why are people saying removing local has nothing to do it? Bots have used local (or the feed that supports it) for at least 7 years. It would be easy to kill bots by cloaking up in the system and waiting at a belt if they didn't have something telling them someone was in the system with them.
And finally how will this affect the forum bots that post crap in every thread?
You network the bots together to put it plainly, thought its very likely it will pita to get a clock they can all count on to script and sequence thie dscans then talk to each other out of the game (hell ingame have the bot that finds something spam fleet channel) the resource of 5 multiplies 100 times over which is a bit large for a ratting bot fleet in null but they do get that larget according to more recent reports last Ive seen them was 30 strong about.
Ask the null bot hunters for specifics on how these bots do it. Most of the time I hear they get mostly fustrated by the time they arrive the bots are gone and cloaked and/or safed somehwere behind a deathstar pos.
I am advodcating that removing local could potentially make the problem worse. However... it may give ccp an edge of finding these days as I am sure spamming dscan is going to lag out the system every 5% a second. Which doesnt say much for our paranoid human playes who refresh d-scan more often that I care to do.
What I am really surpised is as many numbers they have now why havent we seen them primary things to death? They're probably afraid of the jump portal or cynos.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tian Nu wrote:if you removed local from 0.0 you will stuck many solo players from going to 0.0 again the chat give alot of intel to solo players ofc blobers well are blobers. If one day CCP remove local it will do alot of bad to EvE.
Hmm no. if you said this about low sec I be more inclined to belive you.
However local with no intel replacement would be bad for player empires in general having a very weak idea of who is moving where and when without having to recuit a several dozen sit here and press this button people.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:06:00 -
[14] - Quote
Fredfredbug4 wrote:D-Scan is only effective up to 21 AU give or take for most ships. In larger null-sec systems, there are areas that are 70 AU apart.
So if you are say, in a big fat miner and you see a few ships suddenly appear on your scanner, you have maybe 5 seconds at best to align and warp out.
In an area without local, the only way to truly know what you are dealing with in a system is to have a designated scanning ship.
Which is entirely possible, somone proved some time ago that bots are able to scan down sites as well which is rather distrubing becuase the amount of visual feed involved and some though process has to be made about the resulting in scan results.
However with 8 probes it be very hard to have full system coverage.
Probes show up on the hunters dscanners at first if the bots are stupid and abandon the probes there.
The hunter would then liklely know the system is occupied with bot ratters if the probes are a bit thick on coverage and no ships are on his scans.
Either way this is all a big if as well considering we have no idea how ccp is going to get rid of local and what to compensate with.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ilany wrote:Nova Fox wrote:
You network the bots together to put it plainly, thought its very likely it will pita to get a clock they can all count on to script and sequence thie dscans then talk to each other out of the game (hell ingame have the bot that finds something spam fleet channel) the resource of 5 multiplies 100 times over which is a bit large for a ratting bot fleet in null but they do get that larget according to more recent reports last Ive seen them was 30 strong about.
Yikes. That many? Is it even economical? (I guess it must be if they do it, but even so.)  Nova Fox wrote:Ask the null bot hunters for specifics on how these bots do it. Most of the time I hear they get mostly fustrated by the time they arrive the bots are gone and cloaked and/or safed somehwere behind a deathstar pos. Okay, that was in response to your original post. I was imagining bots trying to cloak in situ with rats locking on to them etc.
Hmm understandable its okay to ask questions we all get to learn something. Im no expert myself but I do understand that local getting removed may make things harder, more typically finding where the botters are if ccp decides they need to get rid of other free intel tools like map statistics.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:11:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets no way, people are going to line up to rat in space far more dangerous then wormholes for income 10% higher then l4 missions
what about incursions?
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Metesurena wrote:If it goes thru, youll make more isk camping ratting systems in cloakers than actually ratting until every1 figures out its no longer worth it and go make missions/incursions into hisec.
Then you can join your lowsec brosefs and start complaining about lack of targets no way, people are going to line up to rat in space far more dangerous then wormholes for income 10% higher then l4 missions what about incursions? I'm sure an incursion lobbyist will tell you of the danger of running incursions, hazards like not bringing enough logi ships but trying to run the mission anyway, or forgetting to fit hardeners on your billion-isk faction bs and warping into a site, or some villain flipping your loot can. Scary stuff that keeps null players PvEing where they are, and definitely not just moving alts over for 2-3x the income. Not when the risk I just described looms over their heads.
Brick Squad is going around trying to kill the sansha carriers so they close out the incursions.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3092
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
Hauling Hal wrote:So much debate from so many incorrect 'facts'.
you could start stating facts.
As another scary aspect with the website update around the corner is the bot using that as intel tools as well Im sure if you made a script smart enough you can track everyship signature in new eden (though I am sure high sec would be the hardest to count for ship volume) that can only go about gate traveling using doltan maps. espeically lower traffic areas such as null.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 00:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
Either way it seems the concensus is we need to relook at how we find each other in space or try not to be found probably from ground up.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 01:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
NPC traffic?
|
|
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 01:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Nova Fox wrote:NPC traffic? More like fake player traffic. As in only CCP and the player being duplicated know better. Bring on the bot owner tears.
Be funny if they started to recycle all the unused alts names or everyone thats ever been biomassed. :P thought its more a of a server load issue I guess as you really cant have a fake player you need a phsyical presence of some sort. Dunno make yatchs or something that cannot be fired on for these guys.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 06:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:Nova Fox wrote:They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.
That is all.
edit
I guess its not all
1 I am not advodacting against the removal of local just trying to counter one argument for local removal. Its neary stupid to remove a 'feature' because of botting alone. reworked local for null would bring in a new level of thinking to null but it be much better if it brought a new level of stratagey.
2 I agree D-Scan needs to be fixed severly possibly made funner or infinitely much more useful.
edit 2
for those not wanting to read the whole thread
D-Scan of course doesnt tell hostiles from freindlies, however proves that bots are more than capable of counting +1 to scan and then set panic mode. Where as you may forget to hit dscan before transition cloaking (to prevent from getting nailed yourself) and may not catch anything in local when they cloak up. The entirety of your post makes no sense. It doesn't matter what happens with D-Scan. A cloaked ship can't be detected, regardless of how fast you scan. The issue is LOCAL, and showing up in it, not showing up on D-Scan. Furthermore, if you show up on D-Scan because you're warping in on a target and the bot cloaks, it's already too late. They're dead at that point if they immediately cloak up where they are.
read thread.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
you start inisisting girls exist on the internet?
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 07:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
I have to aggre anything we could ponteially come up with t o counter bots would only work to a short amount of time before the bots figure away around it IF we keep making the game interesting for players and not ruin thier experince in the same manner.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3094
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 02:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
Had to edit the op again trying to spell it out for some people as I have to aggre thread is getting a bit long to read to pick up on things that have been figured out, known currenlty true, hypothetical and theorietical potentials, and to the current argument.
I have to agree the more stationary the bots are the more safer they will be.
iHubs could be constellation wide to start hampering with the bots efforts make it so it is possible to wipe out all sites in one system as others begin to get a bit denser.
|
|
|
| |
|