These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Regarding AFK Complex Farming

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#241 - 2012-08-09 17:47:15 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
The solution of course is to implement an "raw ISK hold" similar to the ore holds on barges. Once you generate a certain amount of ISK, you have to dock up and refine that raw ISK into ISK.

They did this for Sleepers. They do not have bounties but blue loot items you need to loot, take to high sec and sell to NPCs.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#242 - 2012-08-09 17:55:16 UTC
War Kitten wrote:

A challenge!

Accepted - where's your reference to the "actual sequence of events"? I'll take a look at your sources and gladly reconsider my standpoint.

I found out from one of the people who got the false positive.

The sequence of events was they received an automatic botting infraction. They petitioned, describing precisely what they'd done and how no bots or macros were involved and explained this was a clear false positive. They were told (by team security) this was not a false positive: as they were making money afk they were enough like botting that it was the same as botting.

Needless to say they felt this was...not correct, and continued to argue the position (and spread the word, so other people would go "what the **** is going on here"). Then, and only then, is where anyone not from Team Security got involved in order to bless the fait accompli that Team Security was now exercising control not over bots, but over things that Team Security decided were exploits. At no point before this is there any indication that GMs or game design was involved. To be honest there's not even any real indication they will be involved in the future: the false positive will simply now be declared to be enforcing the "no afking in a complex" rule as well that Team Security declared and enacted.
GFL Kalor
Shadow Council
#243 - 2012-08-09 17:57:25 UTC
Glad my account expires in 4 days so this won't effect me. I remember going and setting yourself up to mine an asteroid for a few hours while you did something else. Now exploits bots, farming, etc.

CCP can pack sand on the new rules.
Aura of Ice
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2012-08-09 18:05:01 UTC
Quote:
...if they enforce that penalty on AFKing a complex then they must do the same with any other form of AFK actions which is just too much ******* monitoring IMHO...


Looks all of you AFKing freighter/indy pilots...

Blink
Stigman Zuwadza
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#245 - 2012-08-09 18:08:09 UTC
lulz Big smile

Good for you CCP, you get my thumbs up.

Reading over a few of the posts it appears that some people are missing the point about this activity being a 'set & forget' action that will continue from uptime to downtime. No other PURE ISK generating activity springs to mind so I can see why CCP has honed in on this one.

Fly safe. o7

It's broken and it's been broken for a long time and it'll be broken for some time to come.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#246 - 2012-08-09 18:08:25 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Ghost Frog wrote:
At the risk of escalating this into a shitstorm, I'd like to get clarification about freighters. I have done quite a bit of AFK freighter piloting. In fact, I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of EVE players do freighter runs 100% AFK. Will you be ******* with us as well? Because the core of the logic being applied here would seem to fit my situation.


No, the core of the logic that's being attributed to it would :)

The core of the logic that's actually being applied here is that this only applies to fringe cases and anyone engaging in normal gameplay is completely unaffected.

Clearly the news item wasn't clear enough about that so I've had it edited.

CCP Sreegs, a question: Which came first, the realization people were farming this way, or those people getting caught by the bot catcher? That is:

Did some of these people get caught, petition the action, and then you realized they were not using a bot program? And CCP decided; "We will just say that AFK farming is botting. Problem solved."

OR: Did CCP decide that AFK farming was bad, and adjust the bot detector to find and stop them?

I ask because many think this ruling was made simply so you could say the bot detector has a low false positive rate. Instead of having to admit you banned people who were not botting, you just re-defined botting.

Or was it sort of a mixed up process, where you were catching these farmers, then realized what they were doing, then had a big internal discussion as to what direction to take?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#247 - 2012-08-09 18:12:09 UTC
Legiolith wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
They do this exactly to avoid "BREAK THIS GAME".
COSMOS code is older than a dinosaur, it's some of that stuff you don't ever want to look at it again, and changing a *comment* in the source code might suddenly bug a random part of the game and make Avatars look like a giant phallus. Oh wait...


Haha, well I am happy that you spend most of your time messing with your avatars looks and that it's of a big concern to you. However for the rest of us that don't play "Dress Up My Little Pony" during downtime, "BREAK THIS GAME" means CCP telling us how to play a SANDBOX game. And old code is no excuse...


Dude Avatar with the capital A is a BIG ship Ugh

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#248 - 2012-08-09 18:14:20 UTC
Damion Rayne wrote:
I don't do afk plexing anymore, the last time I did was almost a year and a half ago when Dark was in TEST. Or however long ago it was, if you feel froggy, come to Vale. I've got plenty of guns and ammo with your name on it if you wanna be an internet badass and think I care.


Wow, really Dark Rising joined TEST? I thought they were somewhat on an opposite side of CFC.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#249 - 2012-08-09 18:21:10 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Mistakes happen in development. Developers have to correct them. Sometimes, the mistakes are abused and players should be policed as to not abuse those mistakes as they are not intended to be there in the first place.


They should have reverted the change, or disabled plexes until it was fixed.............


The COSMOS sites were added years ago, its not a recent change. Disabling them would punish those players who do them legitimately. Why should those players suffer? Better to just tell those few who do the afk thing to stop until ccp gets time to change how fixed site complexes work.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Damion Rayne
Panoptic
#250 - 2012-08-09 18:22:17 UTC
I wonder when Sreeg's is going to release that this has been handled very very badly.

ROA
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#251 - 2012-08-09 18:27:41 UTC
CARB0N FIBER wrote:
How do you know I'm AFK?

Are you hacking my web cam?

Is there a time limit on how long I can play?

What is this time limit?

Will this time limit be like other rules, where we don't know what it is till we are banned?


Since playing 23 hours a day is now a bannable offense will we be getting a dicounted rate?

So we pay for 720 hours of game time, in which we can play 690 hours. So how many of the 690 hours of the 720 hours we pay for can we play without getting banned?

Another thing, ALT's. Obviously if you have multiple accounts logged in one is AFK. So should you banned if you have multiple accounts?

I know you saying something like I'm not AFK, I have a screen and keyboard for every account. How do we know that?


This is a very old, old issue.

I have proof of people getting banned and sent a GM message stating they did not detect any botting software but their "too regular and prolonged gameplay" flagged them as bots.

This is why in the past I always asked CCP Sreegs for ways for players to defend and prove their innocence.

This is why I created multiple in game tickets about the same matter and all of them got a "players cannot defend themselves, they will be banned with no ability of recourse" reply.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Shi Xia
Killing With Kindness
#252 - 2012-08-09 18:29:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Shi Xia
Screegs,

Don't be so lame, and effing lazy. Penalizing us for using the mechanics that were designed by the devs is a lazy. The players of Eve are smart, and we will use every little mechanic to our advantage. You should be thankful that we are so industrious. It's what separates this game from the rest (for me). Our nature should not bring us under fire. Rather, maybe you should fix the mechanics that make this 'exploit' possible. (Seems to me anyone running low sec/nul sec plexes afk is also under risk of being scanned down and popped.)

Why should the players, who pay your salary have to be penalized for CCP's lack of insight and forethought? At the very least (I believe someone already mentioned) disable the plexes that are providing us with this opportunity that has been created until said problem has been fixed--ON YOUR END.

Let us PAYING subscribers have fun, and get off our backs.
Damion Rayne
Panoptic
#253 - 2012-08-09 18:30:28 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
CARB0N FIBER wrote:
How do you know I'm AFK?

Are you hacking my web cam?

Is there a time limit on how long I can play?

What is this time limit?

Will this time limit be like other rules, where we don't know what it is till we are banned?


Since playing 23 hours a day is now a bannable offense will we be getting a dicounted rate?

So we pay for 720 hours of game time, in which we can play 690 hours. So how many of the 690 hours of the 720 hours we pay for can we play without getting banned?

Another thing, ALT's. Obviously if you have multiple accounts logged in one is AFK. So should you banned if you have multiple accounts?

I know you saying something like I'm not AFK, I have a screen and keyboard for every account. How do we know that?


This is a very old, old issue.

I have proof of people getting banned and sent a GM message stating they did not detect any botting software but their "too regular and prolonged gameplay" flagged them as bots.

This is why in the past I always asked CCP Sreegs for ways for players to defend and prove their innocence.

This is why I created multiple in game tickets about the same matter and all of them got a "players cannot defend themselves, they will be banned with no ability of recourse" reply.


Which in fact proves that this entire thing is being handled in an entirely incompetent manner. Let's just remember, big brother Sreegs is watching us and if we play for more than a few hours straight and we're not actively pushing buttons, it's best to just log off. Oh and that will eventually go to hauling, mining, salvaging, PI, day-trading, and mission running.

ROA
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#254 - 2012-08-09 18:32:08 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
War Kitten wrote:

A challenge!

Accepted - where's your reference to the "actual sequence of events"? I'll take a look at your sources and gladly reconsider my standpoint.

I found out from one of the people who got the false positive.

The sequence of events was they received an automatic botting infraction. They petitioned, describing precisely what they'd done and how no bots or macros were involved and explained this was a clear false positive. They were told (by team security) this was not a false positive: as they were making money afk they were enough like botting that it was the same as botting.

Needless to say they felt this was...not correct, and continued to argue the position (and spread the word, so other people would go "what the **** is going on here"). Then, and only then, is where anyone not from Team Security got involved in order to bless the fait accompli that Team Security was now exercising control not over bots, but over things that Team Security decided were exploits. At no point before this is there any indication that GMs or game design was involved. To be honest there's not even any real indication they will be involved in the future: the false positive will simply now be declared to be enforcing the "no afking in a complex" rule as well that Team Security declared and enacted.


Regarding your bolded information above: If they petitioned, then GMs were involved.

This is still the order of events as I understand it too.

The rule, as you dubbed it, is misleading. They didn't declare "no afking in a complex". Go reread the news item.

I don't give a damn whether those particular few were deemed false-positives or not, but that seems to be your main point. Either way, false positives would appear to be low no matter which side you count these couple of people on.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Suqq Madiq
#255 - 2012-08-09 18:35:01 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
There is, according to everyone involved, no bots involved here. This is not botting. It never has been botting. It never will be botting.


Since it's WAY easier for me to quote CCP to tell you where you're wrong, here you go:

CCP Sreegs wrote:
The activity itself falls within the same philosophical context we place botting within.


CCP Sreegs wrote:
Nothing has changed about our philosophy as regards what we are or aren't looking for behavior-wise.


If you look like a bot and you act like a bot, chances are you'll be identified as a bot. It's really not that difficult a concept to wrap one's head around.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#256 - 2012-08-09 18:35:54 UTC
War Kitten wrote:

The rule, as you dubbed it, is misleading. They didn't declare "no afking in a complex". Go reread the news item.

There is no actual rule here. There is a "if you get detected as a bot, because you do this, you will be banned. This probably applies anytime you get detected as a bot, regardless of what you were doing" statement but no actual rule that I can apply.

And there was no GM intervention because GMs do not respond to petitions regarding botting bans: those are directly shunted to Security.
Ajit Kumar Bhattacharya
DEEP-13
#257 - 2012-08-09 18:37:52 UTC
Zwo Zateki wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Zwo Zateki wrote:
WTF seriously?

Drones were designed to switch targets automatically. I reckon the difference between AFK farming and legitimate plexing is whether you are staring at nebulae or not.

Bullshit.


I'm fairly sure that the game designers didn't intend for these two particular things (complexes that continuously spawn rats in a given room + aggressive drones) to work together in such a way that it allows completely and utterly AFK ISK farming.

Then FIX it. Set time limit for drone aggressive mode. But do not threaten players. This is the SANDBOX ffs.



Simple, elegant solution. Everyone holster yer pitchforks and put out the damm torches.


“How Earth-like? 'Temperate and able to sustain life' Earth-like or 'completely overrun with self-absorbed assholes' Earth-like?”
Pakokkie
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#258 - 2012-08-09 18:39:11 UTC
Poor game design attracts poor use. CCP should be permabanned for this.Idea
Tyke Orlieveit
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#259 - 2012-08-09 18:43:01 UTC
Poor Sreegs, getting so much abuse.

The issue is simple.

The behaviour taken by players, whilst within the technical bounds of the game, is an unintended gameplay mechanic, and as a result is impacting the economy unfairly. ( Significant isk income to one or several players with no risk. - No, I'm not getting into the fight over Moon Goo, or market trading, they are different mechanics and systems entirely! )

This specific method of generating large amounts of isk is not intended gameplay, and thus has been called out on as an exploit effectively.. As an example of this happening before: The players who, whilst technically within the mechanics of the game, were able to avoid CONCORDOKEN via gameplay mechanics.

It wasn't intended for a player to be able to print isk in this manner. I imagine they are looking at ways in the backend to fix this case.

Unfortunately, Sreegs couldn't anticipate the outcome of the wording of his post, and despite explaining and confirming that no other mechanic is affected by the call made, people are still running pitchforks at shadows in a blind, unwarranted rage.

CCP is NOT coming after you as AFK miners, AFK hauling, autopiloting to anywhere, market trading, or to go have a crap or do the laundry.

As long as you come back to your computer to interact with it eventually, ( Arrive at your destination, cool! / unload a jetcan into an Orca/ dock up and unload / complete your market trades ), and aren't showing bot-like behaviours ( Being able to mine 23.5/7 constantly, or using unintended game mechanics that are declared as against the rules! ), you have nothing to care about.

This has been called as an unintended gameplay issue, and has fallen under his jurisdiction as mentioned before, as it's close to bot-style behaviour. Sreegs has said that GM's have looked over this, as have other members of CCP, and all agree with the call.

Put the pitchforks away already, and keep playing as you always have. Just don't AFK drone in complexes and you'll be fine.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#260 - 2012-08-09 18:44:40 UTC
Suqq Madiq wrote:

Since it's WAY easier for me to quote CCP to tell you where you're wrong, here you go:

CCP Sreegs wrote:
The activity itself falls within the same philosophical context we place botting within.


CCP Sreegs wrote:
Nothing has changed about our philosophy as regards what we are or aren't looking for behavior-wise.


If you look like a bot and you act like a bot, chances are you'll be identified as a bot. It's really not that difficult a concept to wrap one's head around.

Wrong. CCP admits that it is not a bot there. They admit they misidentified a non-botter as a botter: they then refuse to correct that mistake. It is the last part that is at issue here. Nobody, besides you and the algorithm, believes this player was an actual botter.