These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

I Know the main reason CCP will not touch the Bot monster.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shukuzen Kiraa
F4G Wild Weasel
#21 - 2012-02-01 03:14:21 UTC
Problem is people think CCP can just stop every bot ever from botting ever again. EVERY MMO has bot problems.
Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-02-01 05:25:36 UTC
Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:
Problem is people think CCP can just stop every bot ever from botting ever again. EVERY MMO has bot problems.



yes but ever other mmo is like

OMFG WE ARE HATE BOTS RAWR!!!!!!



CCPs like


meh yea we deal with em if we have to.
xarjin
International Speciality Machines
#23 - 2012-02-01 07:23:38 UTC
IMO legitimate multiboxing is not botting if the player is in full control of multiple game clients.

There are several hundred multiboxer's that do enjoy playing eve online utilizing legitimate hands on multiboxing utilizing multiboxing software such as pwnboxer, isboxer or "ghetto boxing" by controlling multiple accounts hands on.

Please do keep that in mind when passing judgment against botters who use automation tools to run accounts unattended Smile
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#24 - 2012-02-01 07:31:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
xarjin wrote:
IMO legitimate multiboxing is not botting if the player is in full control of multiple game clients.

There are several hundred multiboxer's that do enjoy playing eve online utilizing legitimate hands on multiboxing utilizing multiboxing software such as pwnboxer, isboxer or "ghetto boxing" by controlling multiple accounts hands on.Smile

Yes, we all know the story of the person who runs incursions with his 18 Apocalyse, 5 Basilisk and 1 Drake team. By himself.

He joined one of the unending gatecamps, and it was hilarious. Pity nothing major came though. Our rifter fleet suddenly turned into half rifter, half battleship.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
xarjin
International Speciality Machines
#25 - 2012-02-01 07:35:35 UTC
Just wanted to add a link and quote for historical reference Smile

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1291641

Quote:
Senior GM Lelouch verified that software and hardware multiboxing is indeed legal in Eve in this forum reply to my eve-o thread:

Posted - 2010.04.23 15:51:00

Hello there,

To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.

Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).

An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!

Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.

I hope this clears up this matter.

Best regards,
Senior GM Lelouch
EVE Online Customer Support
Zhade Lezte
#26 - 2012-02-01 07:52:25 UTC
Preeeeetty sure Mittens is discussing how nullsec ratting bots hurt pvp since their ability to automatically warp to a safespot/PoS and log off when a hostile enters local makes them uncatchable without awoxing alts, preventing the PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets from even starting.

For once I can't entirely fault someone raised on a healthy diet of tinfoil from coming to the OP's conclusion, as even I did a double take and had to think about it when looking at that particular point. If you're not that familiar with MIttens' platform you wouldn't be able to figure out whether the CSM is arguing that nullsec bots should be left alone because they're somehow benefiting PVP or if they need extra attention to be banned because they're actively harming PVP.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#27 - 2012-02-01 08:11:32 UTC
Zhade Lezte wrote:
PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets

Help, I am being tackled in the 4-2 belt by a Vagabond and Drake in HS-5F2 system.

I don't really know if homeland defense forms up to fight solo gankers hunting for cheap kills to improve their k/d ratio (an important statistic for all ~elite pvp~ comparisons).

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-02-01 08:33:00 UTC
Zhade Lezte wrote:
Preeeeetty sure Mittens is discussing how nullsec ratting bots hurt pvp since their ability to automatically warp to a safespot/PoS and log off when a hostile enters local makes them uncatchable without awoxing alts, preventing the PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets from even starting.

For once I can't entirely fault someone raised on a healthy diet of tinfoil from coming to the OP's conclusion, as even I did a double take and had to think about it when looking at that particular point. If you're not that familiar with MIttens' platform you wouldn't be able to figure out whether the CSM is arguing that nullsec bots should be left alone because they're somehow benefiting PVP or if they need extra attention to be banned because they're actively harming PVP.


Preeeety sure Mittens is working very hard to secure as much of a null sec monopoly as he can. Preeeety sure he doesn't give a rip about what it does to the game either.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2012-02-01 09:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Hainnz wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
ILikeMarkets wrote:
Bots pay subscription and/or buy up PLEX from the market, keeping PLEX prices nice and high. CCP benefits from both.
...

Actually if bots increase PLEX prices, that is worse for CCP.

3 PLEX cost more than a 3 month sub (most popular sub choice).

Lower PLEX cost would mean more people using it instead of subbing through CC which would mean more money for CCP.



That is if bots lead to an increase in PLEX prices. I don't have data to comment on that bit.


But PLEX enter the market because people want to sell them for ISK. I wouldn't buy a PLEX and sell one if they sold for 100m ISK. I would seriously think about it if they sold for 1b ISK.


true that is the side of seller..

former is an side of buyer..

thats how market works...
If seller chose price too high ... buyer will not buy it.. therefore seller got nothing in return .. and buyers will have to go for subscription.

Just to add something...
Players doing repetitive actions/ sitting infront of computer / clicking / again and again ..
Learn to play = become bot, no thought included, you memorized everything you doing it automatically..
Include PvP. you know what to do at any encounter, you dont come up with some awesome tactics while in engamenet, you learn from loses, and afterwards you know exactly what to do .. YOU ARE BOT.
WE ARE BOTS.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-02-01 09:55:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:
Problem is people think CCP can just stop every bot ever from botting ever again. EVERY MMO has bot problems.



yes but ever other mmo is like

OMFG WE ARE HATE BOTS RAWR!!!!!!



CCPs like


meh yea we deal with em if we have to.

Well, yes. That has an obvious reason too.

CCP is being more honest about it, while the others just say what people want to hear.

There is NO need to scream around "WE HATE BOTS" and whatever,
because it doesn't change anything. Believing that screaming "WE HATE BOTS"
changes anything towards the bots ... makes you a good target for every politician. :)
Zhade Lezte
#31 - 2012-02-01 10:10:59 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Zhade Lezte wrote:
PVP food chain of ratters being killed by gankers being killed by homeland defense gangs being killed by larger fleets

Help, I am being tackled in the 4-2 belt by a Vagabond and Drake in HS-5F2 system.

I don't really know if homeland defense forms up to fight solo gankers hunting for cheap kills to improve their k/d ratio (an important statistic for all ~elite pvp~ comparisons).


I can't handle all this helpful detail in your intel report, did you mean to just say "Halp, I'm tackled in ~the belt~"?

Most people would just try to avoid a single solo ganker and deny them kills, especially if they're cloaky. But if you get more non-bots you get more gankable targets, which means more solo gankers or gankers in small groups in the area, which gives targets for small homeland defense gangs, which give targets for larger roaming gangs...which gives targets for larger homeland defense gangs...

You're right that nullsec pvp has almost entirely been large gangs forming up to face each other for ~gudfites~, and certainly that will continue in the future, but that has been in many ways due to how stagnant nullsec was (and sort of still is, since CCP wasn't able to implement all of what they wanted to do to improve nullsec in crucible), especially right after the anom nerf when there was pretty much no reason to be out there when you could just run missions in empire.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-02-01 15:13:15 UTC
Quote:
CCP Sreegs assured the CSM that botting/RMT'ing is still being handled with the same frequency as it has been in the past, and in fact there is no significant increase (or decrease) in the frequency of bots.


Going to have to translate this for you guys since you're not quite on point with what is being indicated.

Translation: "We're able to regularly detect bots. Since we can distinguish between approved/non-approved bots we're able to control the frequency."

Quote:
CCP Sreegs did not dismiss the notion of prioritization of one bot over another, but he and CCP Unifex cautioned that relying on anecdotal data was dangerous. To properly prioritize bot-hunting, they argued, it would be necessary to better
quantify the effect of various bots.


Translation: "Absolutely we prioritize. If you're a bot in a big CCP approved null alliance then you have priority over everyone else. We can't rely on data from users indicating that someone is active 23/7 doing the same things all that time as proof since it doesn't distinguish between approved/non-approved bots. So, we need to quantify the amount of revenue a RMT cartel generates for CCP in order to determine if they should be hunted or not."

From Sreegs comments seem to indicate an "acceptable" relationship. I've embellished Sreegs comments with my "translations" but, can you really not see that those comments might indicate a profit motive between CCP and RMT'ers? Given the damage that illicit RMT has on GTC, Plex, Aurum, Character sales, etc, which vastly out compete subscriptions in profitability, why then is CCP indicating an acceptance of botting if it's not directly benefiting financially from RMT activity? I can't see any reason other than they are profiteering from it.

Don't ban me, bro!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#33 - 2012-02-01 15:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Mr Kidd wrote:
Quote:
CCP Sreegs assured the CSM that botting/Remitting is still being handled with the same frequency as it has been in the past, and in fact there is no significant increase (or decrease) in the frequency of bots.


Going to have to translate this for you guys since you're not quite on point with what is being indicated.

Translation: "We're able to regularly detect bots. Since we can distinguish between approved/non-approved bots we're able to control the frequency."

Quote:
CCP Sreegs did not dismiss the notion of prioritization of one bot over another, but he and CCP Unifex cautioned that relying on anecdotal data was dangerous. To properly prioritize bot-hunting, they argued, it would be necessary to better
quantify the effect of various bots.


Translation: "Absolutely we prioritize. If you're a bot in a big CCP approved null alliance then you have priority over everyone else. We can't rely on data from users indicating that someone is active 23/7 doing the same things all that time as proof since it doesn't distinguish between approved/non-approved bots. So, we need to quantify the amount of revenue a RMT cartel generates for CCP in order to determine if they should be hunted or not."

From Sreegs comments seem to indicate an "acceptable" relationship. I've embellished Sreegs comments with my "translations" but, can you really not see that those comments might indicate a profit motive between CCP and RMT'ers? Given the damage that illicit RMT has on GTC, Plex, Aurum, Character sales, etc, which vastly out compete subscriptions in profitability, why then is CCP indicating an acceptance of botting if it's not directly benefiting financially from RMT activity? I can't see any reason other than they are profiteering from it.



Wow, quite a stretch.

Currently they do not prioritize one TYPE of bot over another, they hunt them equally as the tools to detect various bots (and new variations on existing bots) become available.

While they might consider prioritizing one type in the future, such a decision would have to be based on hard data that the bot prioritized is more prevalent/harmful than others are.

There are several varieties of bots available each for missions (courier and/or combat), mining, and ratting... and they operate (and are detectable) by a variety of different means.

All this means is that CCP is not going on an unholy rage crusade against one type of bot in preference to all others at this time, but won't rule out the possibility if the data shows that it is necessary.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#34 - 2012-02-01 16:01:00 UTC
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Preeeety sure Mittens is working very hard to secure as much of a null sec monopoly as he can. Preeeety sure he doesn't give a rip about what it does to the game either.

There's used to be some big alliance or something that had something resembling a null sec hegemony.
Zhade Lezte wrote:

I can't handle all this helpful detail in your intel report, did you mean to just say "Halp, I'm tackled in ~the belt~"?

Which belt?

Zhade Lezte wrote:
You're right that nullsec pvp has almost entirely been large gangs forming up to face each other for ~gudfites~, and certainly that will continue in the future, but that has been in many ways due to how stagnant nullsec was (and sort of still is, since CCP wasn't able to implement all of what they wanted to do to improve nullsec in crucible), especially right after the anom nerf when there was pretty much no reason to be out there when you could just run missions in empire.

Yeah, it gets annoying sometimes. It feels like roams can turn into roving gatecamps, usually one encounters a few people by surprise.

Seems most of the ~gudfites~ appear at POS shoots.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Serene Repose
#35 - 2012-02-01 16:05:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Once you have an opening to insert code, code will be inserted. If CCP didn't want code inserted, there wouldn't be an opening. Since there IS an opening, obviously CCP wants it there. Once it's there, controlling the KIND of code inserted is like shoveling smoke with a pitchfork in the wind. One can assume CCP isn't bothering, and won't bother with it.

Putting up warnings of Don't insert code for this (or that) purpose is designed to create the impression they are against certain types of code. However, if they were, they'd close the opening, something they'll never do. So, one can safely assume, for whatever reasons CCP will never admit to, CCP wants the code in there.

Their actions are so purely indicting on this subject, it's not really a Sherlock Holmes mystery to be unraveled, and will avail nothing if "proved" using deductive logic. We know. They know. Given CCP's penchant for creating false impressions to mollify those they deem "uncool" or "unsophisticated" in their thinking, it's hardly a surprise they'd claim an all out effort to stop botting, but all the while botting increases.

Introducing PLEX into the game sort of speaks for itself. Ultimately, it's going to be the kind of sandbox CCP wants it to be. They're not known for significantly changing their minds. Even with the last uproar, they didn't really roll much back - just ship spinning. All the rest was more "trust us"...which anyone with any sense understands to mean, "Trust us to not be worthy of trust." Which they aren't.

The only thing I trust CCP to do is deduct from my credit card account once a month. They seem to be quite effiicient at that.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Aquila Draco
#36 - 2012-02-01 16:12:24 UTC
look at old forum.
there is on first page of GD thread about botting that was going on for months and months...
and thats not only thread about that problem.

that all tell us that CCP dont give a **** about actual players... only about money.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-02-01 16:35:09 UTC
CCP needs to make mining a valid afk way to make isk in eve and thus avoid the bots, kinda like the sitting semi afk in a badger with one mining laser while you are at work, only without the grey area of what afk is when doing such long slow tasks.

Im sure if mining was more automated so that one guy could run 10 accounts all day without hassle they would and not need to use illegal botting software etc.

Mining is super duper boring, its absolutly no supprise that in some cases players feel its okay to break the rules to do it.

Im one of the lucky ones who makes the isk i need to play wihtout having to do too much boring monotonous grinding, so naturally i dont care all too much about miners or mining - i did my time when i first started and id never consider doing it again, no matter HOW easy it was, even if it was extremly automated or even profitable for the time.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Amber Katelo
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-02-01 17:28:13 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:

It's not the bot that hurts the game...
the man behind, he is to blame.

If only their was a way to gank them.


I know, right?

Because you can't gank in hisec, after all...Bear

Ganking in realsec is generally frowned upon.
Iskawa Zebrut
Smoke to Train - Train to Smoke
#39 - 2012-02-01 19:47:10 UTC
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
While two-factor identification would be effective,
Sreegs noted that the EVE player base would be reluctant to give more information to CCP than
required, and such his solution is simply e-mail verification.

I'd be willing to provide CCP with a meaningful second factor, and I'm about the most ******* paranoid son of a ***** you'll find for miles.
Alara IonStorm
#40 - 2012-02-01 19:50:49 UTC
Amber Katelo wrote:

Ganking in realsec is generally frowned upon.

Yes but Concord is not as fast at responding.
Previous page123Next page