These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tackling the problem of null-sec ratting bots.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marsha Mallow
#421 - 2014-05-19 21:33:43 UTC
***clear comms***
if you ignore it, no-one will come

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#422 - 2014-05-19 21:42:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
If they cant attack the message then they go after the messenger.


Such is the nature of the internet. The anonymity is what makes them brave, but they still want to be liked and accepted by others. The key is to just not care. I don't mean saying you don't care, and then getting upset when they make fun of you. I'm talking about actually not caring. Now, most people will argue that they don't care, but they're usually lying. Generally it's easy to tell who actually does care what people on the internet think of them, they're the ones that throw insults, like calling you autistic or a simpleton or implying that you might be mentally disabled, around. They become like small children in a playground, hoping that if they can call you a name that makes the other kids laugh everything will be okay again.
You seem to care, since you spend your time writign walls of text to tell us how much you don;t care.

And yes, In my previous post there were assumptions. Since I was suggesting an alternative for what might be the case, that was in fact on purpose. The point is there is a whole array of possibilities, and you telling us that they shouldn't focus on one area is founded on no information. You don't know if they are technically able to do that and you don;t even know if it would be as effective as a targeted approach. Most importantly though they don't tell us what the approach is, it's purposely hidden so botters can't abuse it.

Essentially what this whole debate boils down to is you telling someone else that their opinion based off of limited information is inferior compared to your opinion based off of the same information, and you attempt to ridicule them for it. Grow up kid.


I do care about EvE Online, yes. It's a very fun game for me and I don't want to see it go down hill in any way, and so here I am expressing my opinion that CCP should not cause undue harm to the game by following a plan that would leave large swaths of New Eden vulnerable to botting. What I don't care about is what you think of me. It's okay if you dislike me, or wish me ill, or find yourself hating me. Because of this, it's okay that you try to insult me, or try to belittle me. I find it to be hypocritical that you just whined about me supposedly ridiculing someone literally right before you attempted to insult me, but that's okay as well. I don't hate you, or dislike you, or wish you ill. In fact, if you weren't trying your darnedest to insult me right now we could be having quite the amicable conversation.

Is it an assumption on my part that they would do such a thing? Yes it is. I'm assuming that they would choose a method of enforcement based upon arbitrary information that has no bearing on the activity they are trying to prevent. Is it my assumption that this is how they actually enforce their anti-botting policies? No, it is not. I assume that CCP has a pretty good handle on how to detect bots. I assume that they don't care where you are when you turn on your botting program, or what alliance you're in, or what race you chose at character creation. I assume all of that information is interesting for them to look at and fun for them to share with us, and I assume that all of that information is utterly meaningless to actually enforcing their anti-botting policies. These assumptions, however, should not stop myself or anyone else from arguing against those that wish to see CCP switch to a method of enforcement that would potentially lead to them never being able to effectively combat botting again.

Arguments generally are between two or more people where the people are attempting to get the other(s) to switch to their point of view. So, yes, essentially what this whole debate boils down to is me telling others that their opinion is inferior compared to mine, and in turn they tell me that my opinion is inferior to their's. Thanks, kid, for making sure everybody knows what an argument is.
Marsha Mallow
#423 - 2014-05-19 22:02:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Arguments generally are between two or more people where the people are attempting to get the other(s) to switch to their point of view. So, yes, essentially what this whole debate boils down to is me telling others that their opinion is inferior compared to mine, and in turn they tell me that my opinion is inferior to their's. Thanks, kid, for making sure everybody knows what an argument is.

Thanks for sharing how forums and dialogue work.

Do you have anything else to say?

ed, I should clarify I mean on this topic in particular.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#424 - 2014-05-19 22:21:07 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Wall
That's great and all, but other people are not wrong just because you think you are right, and your assumptions are based on CCP being able to simply deal with the whole system overall, and that being in their best interest to do. I that were the case, and botters weren't more common in particular areas, then the map of bans should look a little more even. Now all I'm saying is that if they have limited scope for dealing with botters, be it staff, tech or whatever, they should focus on the area that gives the best yield. But honestly, I really don't care what way they deal with it as long as they deal with it. I just disapprove of people diving onto the forum and reaming off wall after wall of text as if their some sort of oracle spewing some pretty ludicrous arguments and patting themselves on the back.

To be honest though it's a waste of my time back and forthing with you. It's not like anything will change, and it's clear that you must be the smartest, greatest, bestest guy in all the world, and nothing anyone else says means a damn thing because you are always right, yeah? I think I'll just be the bigger man, walk away and leave you to wall o' text to yourself.

Oh and just FYI, healthy arguments and debates usually involve both sides learning from each other You'll figure that out when you start to grow up. When you so fixed on your position that every apsect of what you say must be more correct than anyone else then you learn nothing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#425 - 2014-05-19 22:42:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
wall of text


If you're going to argue something, please try to do at least a decent job of formatting your posts and not posting walls of text. Nobody can be bothered to read your replies when it is obvious you're just stroking your own ego.
Marsha Mallow
#426 - 2014-05-19 22:45:54 UTC
Ye but anyway, I can stroke him. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY?
Sorry for shouting. I saw you do it earlier, blaming you.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#427 - 2014-05-19 23:12:50 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Ye but anyway, I can stroke him. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY?
Sorry for shouting. I saw you do it earlier, blaming you.


Please, try to follow the forum rules. Not too long ago you were berating me for what you perceived to be my infractions, and now here you are doing the very thing that so upset you then. Specifically, your recent posts appear to be in violation of rules 2, 5, 22 and 26. If you have something relevant to the topic of CCP's anti-botting enforcement that you would like to discuss, I will gladly do so. I'll need you to actually tell me what it is you want to talk about, however, and to not beg me to talk to you like this anymore.

I'm going to suggest, however, that you take a break from the discussion before proceeding. You appear to be getting upset, and posting in such an agitated state may lead you to be unable to post in a constructive and on-topic manner. This isn't a competition, and there is nothing wrong with needing to take a break, get some air, rest for a bit, watch some TV and/or just calm down. This thread will be here when you get back.
Marsha Mallow
#428 - 2014-05-19 23:19:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Tbf if they aren't going to respond I don't see why I can't just join in. Shall we cavort together?

Or compete?

I have no problem begging. Keep reaching.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#429 - 2014-05-19 23:37:27 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Tbf if they aren't going to respond I don't see why I can't just join in. Shall we cavort together?

Or compete?

I have no problem begging. Keep reaching.


Please, take a break from this discussion. It's obvious that you've become perturbed, and I'm concerned that things may get worse if you continue. I don't know if it is something I have done that has upset you, so if it was just know that it was never my intention. I'm not a malicious person, and upsetting people is something I most definitely do not enjoy. So you have a good night, get some rest, and maybe tomorrow things will have calmed down.
IDGAD
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2014-05-20 00:34:27 UTC
Actually nullsec bot ratters are rare. I would LOVE for there to be more nullsec botters in stupid faction fit BS that can be tackled by short point bombers and blopsed on, that's my fetish! But sadly that just doesn't happen. The pilots for those stupid fit ships are not bots, they are people. Now, where there ARE a ton of bots is in highsec. I've ganked countless raven navy issues almost always the same fit roughly worth around 1.5 to 2 bill and they just undock in another one within the hour with the same fit. The real botting happens not in nullsec anoms or belts, not nullsec mining, but actually in highsec running missions. It's pathetic.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2014-05-20 04:03:37 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Well it would appear La Nariz has abandoned this thread,

or it's a weekday, and he has a job?


We have a winner here ES cells are very fickle and demand far more attention than everyone's favorite reality denier of the thread.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#432 - 2014-05-20 04:08:30 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
So you are unwilling to accept the facts. I am trying to educate you here using the simplest easy to follow method and that requires you being willing to accept the facts.


No, I'm more than willing to accept the fact that more bots are banned in high sec than any place else. The problem is that your confusing fact with conjecture.


Okay now that I'm here we're going to try a hard assignment this time an open ended question that must be answered in 4 sentences or less.

Why would more bots be banned in highsec than any other sec area?

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#433 - 2014-05-20 04:13:11 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Rumourmongering:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
And a large chunk of botting occurs in one alliance. Also, since CCP's pie chart didn't include coalitions, it's possible that almost all botting occurs as part of a single coalition. Since so much botting occurs as part of one alliance, and potentially most occurs as part of that alliance's coalition, it makes sense that CCP should focus the majority of their attention not on high sec, where the vast majority of players are innocent, but on this single group where so many are guilty. Obviously botting and that alliance go hand in hand, and something is very wrong with that alliance which obviously condones violating the EULA and TOS and it makes more sense to target them than it does to target such a vast area of space where so few are guilty.

As for being a part of player run corporations to run missions... well that's the damn problem. A player run alliance is infested with bots, not NPC corps.

Xavier Higdon wrote:
I've never actually used a bot in EvE Online, however, so if you have I'm willing to defer to your experience.

Uninformed (hint: you can sub via plex and mask your identity quite easily):
Xavier Higdon wrote:
I'm glad you're finally off the crap about targeting all of high sec just to catch botters that are probably a part of one alliance. However, you cannot buy EvE Online with PLEX, you need to purchase it with some kind of cash or credit. Since the only option to hide your information in that situation is to buy a hard copy, and I don't think most botters are all that smart(after all, they're gathering in a single alliance and keep getting banned from that single alliance at rates greater than other alliances), it's likely they have purchased a digital copy of the game through CCP directly or Steam.

More uninformed comments:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
You're right, it's been a long time since I had a trial account and I forgot the activation fee is waived for those paying with PLEX. But still, that PLEX comes from some place, not from the Aether. It was bought by somebody, even if it was only in game, and it's unlikely that there is some huge conspiracy where there are long chains of untraceable accounts all passing ISK and PLEX between them in order to hide that one 30 day old toon's RMT transaction.


This is some good work and deserves more recognition.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#434 - 2014-05-20 06:53:07 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Why would more bots be banned in highsec than any other sec area?


Because of nullsec RMT cartel CCP conspiracy. I heard it from Dinsdale so it must be true.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Lady Areola Fappington
#435 - 2014-05-20 07:00:27 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Why would more bots be banned in highsec than any other sec area?


Because of nullsec RMT cartel CCP conspiracy. I heard it from Dinsdale so it must be true.



Plz Mallak everyone knows the nullsec rmt cartel ccp conspiracy is just a false flag operation for your TRUE goals, the subversion and eventual takeover of the Brony fandom.

It's all right there, just study it out!

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#436 - 2014-05-20 07:14:48 UTC
wonderful. i was just thinking that the only thing that could make this thread worse was cartoon bloody horses
Josef Djugashvilis
#437 - 2014-05-20 07:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
I wish CCP and the 'null-sec cartels' were in cahoots together.

Think of the drama it would provide for the game.

The gradual leaking of information by disaffected cartel members, the denials, the attempts to cover it up, the questions about who is involved, how high up the food chain it goes, the what did you know and when questions, then, at last, the conspiracy folk manage to tie it all into the Kennedy assassination, the death of Marilyn Monroe, 9/11, Iraq, well you get the general idea.

Please let it be true.

To kick it off, I claim that some cartel folk have infiltrated the CSM just to be close to and to manipulate CCP to do, well, stuff which could really change the game for all of us.

This is not a signature.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#438 - 2014-05-20 19:22:21 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:

To kick it off, I claim that some cartel folk have infiltrated the CSM just to be close to and to manipulate CCP to do, well, stuff which could really change the game for all of us.


You must've attended our last townhall meeting.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133