Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:51:00 -
[61] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Andski wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation. I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting? So the flag would only be available upon application and not just generally to all CEOs? I may have missed that and this intrigues me. If CEO's are doing recruitment then they probably need to delegate roles a bit better. Anyone with roles to accept applications should be able to see it. But that isn't enough, most of the time people who apply have already been accepted because they went through the recrutiment process and were already accepted. The actual application is just there because it is necessary, but holds no substance in terms of the recruitment process. This info being avaliable through the API would be ideal because any sane corp who does recruitment uses the API to check things.
Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small. |
|
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:51:00 -
[62] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
673
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:52:00 -
[63] - Quote
As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:53:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS Where else would you envision seeing Scarlet Letters? I'm full of creativity and exceptionally thin semen this evening The only thing I can think of (as seems to be the general consensus) is allowing CEOs to realize that a botter has applied to their corp.
You may have spilt everything so to speak with your great feedback, but there's been other ideas I've heard and all I'm saying is that I don't want people to shy away because of it.
I can absolutely guarantee this as a thread where player opinion will find its way into a policy discussion internally so I want anything we can get. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:53:00 -
[65] - Quote
name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3484
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:54:00 -
[66] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all.
Absolutely not. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Tcar
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:54:00 -
[67] - Quote
Pedro Snachez wrote: People who are caught and shamed are probably more likely to just quit than to try to "become a better person". That or biomass the character.
Good, quit, or roll up a new toon. Either way works for me. They can play wow or spend more of some sort of subscription money while training a new character. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
447
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[68] - Quote
You have a point, Sreegs, about wanting to turn the player from bad to good, and would this instead make the player quit, which isn't good for any of us, if that player can be turned around.
What do we get out of it, some satisfaction for one, few people like the bots. We get a warm fuzzy "ccp hates bots too" from you guys, because now it is something we can see and "touch", and not some biannual dev blog of cold numbers and pretty graphs. We learn who we don't want to let into our corps and alliances, if they don't care enough about their own account, why they hell would they care about corp?
---
As I understand it, there is a three strike policy, 14 day ban, then something more nasty and then bye bye, banned. Perhaps the first instance does not tag one with the red letter, but the second one will. After a year is over or however long is deemed punishment, that letter is removed and the account goes back to only one strike committed, another year with out incident and they go back to zero strikes.
This way the player does get that second chance, CCP keeps a customer and life goes on. Once they're caught a second time they clearly don't care about their reputation and likely won't be turned around but they get one more chance to set things right.
One strike punishment should be enough for most people, if they're going to do it a second time with out the letter, chances are they'd do it with the letter too. But there might be one sliver of people that can be saved from the temptation if they can't be a secret cheat. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
673
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
Andski wrote:Jada Maroo wrote:As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all. Absolutely not.
Well surely Goons would never steal and would never receive such a tag so you needn't be worried. |
Liam Mirren
369
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[70] - Quote
Naming and shaming has several upsides to us as players, here's a few:
- it shows us that you're taking this stuff serious, which as PR moves go is a good thing
- it might prevent people who are thinking about botting to actually do it, as a "nah, I didn't have time to play this week" to them sounds far better than "yeah, I'm on that list and got suspended" when talking to corp members
- the person who actually reported that player gets a form of positive confirmation that his efforts have being appreciated, it's kinda like bug reporting; if you get the feeling it's a fairly useless thing to do you just stop reporting as it's wasted effort.
- it may remove or reduce our nregative views on certain entities ("all russians RMT"), then again it may also reinforce them. At any rate we'll have a clearer view of who's doing what, if a large number of members from a certain corp/alliance get caught we then know we shouldn't join them.
While I understand the "all actions towards our customers are on a confidential basis" I'm fairly sure the vast majority of (non-botting) players would agree to a EULA change where it would state "but if you get caught botting or RMTing we'll hang you out to dry" and mock you. APB started doing this a while back and it certainly helps would-be cheaters to reconsider. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS Where else would you envision seeing Scarlet Letters? I'm full of creativity and exceptionally thin semen this evening The only thing I can think of (as seems to be the general consensus) is allowing CEOs to realize that a botter has applied to their corp. You may have spilt everything so to speak with your great feedback, but there's been other ideas I've heard and all I'm saying is that I don't want people to shy away because of it. I can absolutely guarantee this as a thread where player opinion will find its way into a policy discussion internally so I want anything we can get.
Ah, I gotcha. I thought you meant more applications for such a mechanism |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.
Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.
In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency.
I'm just quoting this because I don't read the fiction but the idea of player consequences and being true to eve needs to be a factor and I'm just going to namesearch what I quoted later. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:57:00 -
[73] - Quote
Andski wrote:Jada Maroo wrote:As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all. Absolutely not. Don't assign hangar roles blindly and you won't have corp thieves to deal with.
Yeah don't worry I don't see that happening any time soon. ( not my department) |
|
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:57:00 -
[74] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.
Null bots are rare. I've done Null Mining Ops and 10/10 and there is no need to bot them. We could wipe a Plex belt in an hr or do a 10/10 in as much time. Everything is done in fleet out there. it's very efficient. |
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:59:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.
Just because corps are structured differently doesn't mean that some would see a large benefit from having API information knowing if someone was a botter. In terms of corp recruitment process, unless a corp has a specific open door policy, such as EVE UNI or Red vs Blue, then most likely there will be some sort of interview before hand.
Restricting how info about someone who is flagged as a botter will only make it harder for the people who recruit. If after a long interview process they were to only find out on their actual application that they were a know botter, that would mean a lot of wasted effort on recruiters part because some may have a strict no-botting policy. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3487
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:59:00 -
[76] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.
Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:00:00 -
[77] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote: Null bots are rare..
How coy
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[78] - Quote
Andski wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec?
Proportionally, yes.
Doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of them in 0.0 |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[79] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots
While I love the mythology that people have that they can remain anonymous on the internet it's a falsehood over time. The idea that, especially given EVE and all of the numbers involved, we can actually focus on this and any other *example here norms* apply is pretty silly.
The margins on one hand are completely different and we allow PLEX. We've shown at least three times in the early days that we can focus and completely shut down a bot developer because the margins frankly aren't there.
If you think this is some world where someone doing a bad activity we care about can just magically vanish those dog days are pretty much over. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
551
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
lol at fanfest they had a chart of bots by region
The Forge alone had more bots then all of nullsec rolled together |
|
Nambr1
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:name and shame wont help the problem
bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps
players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer
an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots
Lot of them are already in nps corp or small one with + standings with main alliance/corp. |
Revii Lagoon
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:02:00 -
[82] - Quote
Andski wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec?
Go to the drone regions before massive civil wars..... |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:03:00 -
[83] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.
Just because corps are structured differently doesn't mean that some would see a large benefit from having API information knowing if someone was a botter. In terms of corp recruitment process, unless a corp has a specific open door policy, such as EVE UNI or Red vs Blue, then most likely there will be some sort of interview before hand. Restricting how info about someone who is flagged as a botter will only make it harder for the people who recruit. If after a long interview process they were to only find out on their actual application that they were a know botter, that would mean a lot of wasted effort on recruiters part because some may have a strict no-botting policy.
I was referring more to your statement about whom was doing the recruiting. The rest makes perfect sense. |
|
Nemo deBlanc
Phoibe Enterprises
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:04:00 -
[84] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote:Revii Lagoon wrote:Sisohiv wrote: You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum. If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.
Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense. I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing. Null bots are rare. I've done Null Mining Ops and 10/10 and there is no need to bot them. We could wipe a Plex belt in an hr or do a 10/10 in as much time. Everything is done in fleet out there. it's very efficient.
Funny, care to explain my recent trip through deep Russian space then? ~10 systems in a row, each with Raven and Exequeror. The second you enter system, Raven heads to POS, Exequeror cloaks. Only characters in system, each made on the exact same day, all members of two different corps. But oh, I suppose that's perfectly normal, and those were all legit players, right?
All of this stuff is ******* pointless if CCP is going to keep failing so hard they can't even break injection bots. ******* Runescape has got everyone forced to work in Color and OpenGL now, yet CCP flails along paddling the fail boat trying to do resource intensive manual investigations and bans. If they'd actually just break bots and obfuscate their code better, they could stop paying us lip service and show real results. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
139
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:05:00 -
[85] - Quote
For punishment, first & second strikes. they should lose various ship privileges for an advanced time after unbanning like getting a DUI. A caught mining bot loses Barge skills for a month on first strike and 3 months on second. Caught ratting bots lose rights to BC and above for a month, then 3 month. Get a first strike as a miner bot and a second as a rater bot jump to 3 month ban on both trees. |
Benny Ohu
The Lazy Dragoons True Apathy
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:07:00 -
[86] - Quote
Hi, only read the OP
Sreegs said that most botters clean up their act once they'd been banned for the first time (a week?). With the removal of their botted ISK there's no reason to mark someone who didn't gain anything from it, isn't doing it any more, and is probably sorry they did it.
There might be a reason to mark someone who has been banned forever...
Also taking the opportunity to request the next botting devblog include an animated GIF of a Maller shooting at robots |
Tcar
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:08:00 -
[87] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:For punishment, first & second strikes. they should lose various ship privileges for an advanced time after unbanning like getting a DUI. A caught mining bot loses Barge skills for a month on first strike and 3 months on second. Caught ratting bots lose rights to BC and above for a month, then 3 month. Get a first strike as a miner bot and a second as a rater bot jump to 3 month ban on both trees.
Now that. . . that I like. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
786
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:09:00 -
[88] - Quote
Voith wrote:Name and shame.
I think that's a reasonable approach on the 3rd offense, resulting perma-ban.
Possibly a reasonable approach on the 2nd offense. Especially if they are warned after the first offense.
But naming / shaming or tagging with a scarlet letter for the first offense goes too far.
(For name/shame I want it at the corp/alliance level as well as information by region as to where people have been banned over the past 90 days. I don't think it needs to be finer-grained then that.) |
Pedro Snachez
The Rolling Clones
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:10:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tcar wrote:Pedro Snachez wrote: People who are caught and shamed are probably more likely to just quit than to try to "become a better person". That or biomass the character. Good, quit, or roll up a new toon. Either way works for me. They can play wow or spend more of some sort of subscription money while training a new character.
The problem with that is that it is redundant with what CCP is already doing with bots (bans). CCP Sreegs seems to be interested in a system to correct peoples' behavior via shame with the intention of them NOT quitting or rerolling a character. It's satisfying for those of us who don't bot to say GTFO to botters, but that doesn't seem to be what CCP Sreegs is aiming for here. With the reaction people have towards bots it is highly likely anyone caught would find quitting preferable to dealing with the malice they would undoubtedly experience. Therefore, shaming = self imposed banning. |
Ai Shun
419
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:10:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:What would you, the player, stand to benefit from being able to identify which characters had ever been caught botting, whether or not they were still engaging in this activity?
It would allow me to block those players, ignore contracts from them and generally ensure I don't need to interact with people that try to ruin EVE for the rest of us that play the game legitimately. This is not the same as scamming, can-flipping or similar but a deliberate breach of the EULA. I'd rather not play with those kinds of ass-hats and if I can prevent myself from actively interacting with them or supporting them through such interaction that would be great.
It does not matter to me if this is the first time they have been caught or not; the anti-botting stance is fundamentally entrenched in almost every single MMO out there. They cannot claim ignorance and I don't care if they repent or not - they actively chose to break that contract with CCP and the other players of EVE Online.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |