These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Team Security - Banning Bad Guys and also Bad Guys

First post First post
Author
Gogela
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#61 - 2012-03-01 18:22:55 UTC
I like the part about locking all the botters accounts. Now I think I could see this working, or at least having an actual effect on botting. Good job CCP.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#62 - 2012-03-01 18:24:03 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names.


Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

Dalmont Delantee
Xoth Inc
#63 - 2012-03-01 18:26:56 UTC
Daedra Blue wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban!

That is a LOSE-LOSE scenario.

Because although illegal we still use the stuff they bot, and ccp still gets accounts payment. Turning them into legal players is a WIN-WIN.


And that is exactly how it would be sold to the board!
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#64 - 2012-03-01 18:28:21 UTC
CCP Sreegs, at the last fanfest you had a content person on your team. Do you still have such a person now? Any discussions on changes to game content to make botting either harder or less inviting?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#65 - 2012-03-01 18:31:35 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Sreegs, at the last fanfest you had a content person on your team. Do you still have such a person now? Any discussions on changes to game content to make botting either harder or less inviting?


The team you're referring to was the ESTF which was a multi-disciplinary group of volunteers working on the problem in our spare time. The team is now formalized as a part of the development process and while I don't have a "content" person per se on the team I do have an ESTF-ish stakeholder group that I reach out to if we need things.

What you're asking about as regards content does happen and actually works both ways, where sometimes if a content change is being made we'll be consulted to ensure that it's not enabling terrible things. Best answer I can give as I don't have anything right this second to point at, but I'll mention it when I do.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

Woo Glin
Perkone
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-03-01 18:32:17 UTC
It would be interesting to see the distribution of suspected bots/bans by profession (mining/ratting/market) and the system security status. It would tie in well to a lot of the current CSM issues like isk inflation, supercapital proliferation, and improvement of mining as a career choice.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#67 - 2012-03-01 18:34:16 UTC
Woo Glin wrote:
It would be interesting to see the distribution of suspected bots/bans by profession (mining/ratting/market) and the system security status. It would tie in well to a lot of the current CSM issues like isk inflation, supercapital proliferation, and improvement of mining as a career choice.


That'll be on my list for the graph elves to work on. I'm pretty surprised I've never built that chart before.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

eXeler0n
ZERO T0LERANCE
RAZOR Alliance
#68 - 2012-03-01 18:38:49 UTC
Good thing! It would be a nice idea to give them a -10 security status. So they have to work for the bad things they have done :) And everybody can shoot them ^^ And tag them as botters until they are outlaws :)

eXeler0n

============================

Quafe:  http://quafe.de

Blogpack:  http://eveblogs.de

Bagehi
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#69 - 2012-03-01 18:40:28 UTC
How many accounts did the largest botting network that received a ban have?
Devore Sekk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2012-03-01 18:42:44 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban!


Zero tolerance doesn't work anywhere, and it won't in Eve.

A warned player will either quit playing (so pointless to ban them) or start playing legitimately (a subscriber that would have been banned and probably wouldn't return). A small percentage will continue botting, and will eventually be gone. Many MMO players come from games where botting is officially against the rules, but seldom if ever enforced. No point dropping the hammer on them once they learn the lesson.
s1n1ster m1n1ster
Brutor Tribe
#71 - 2012-03-01 18:45:37 UTC
its all well and nice

BUT


preventive action so that botting isnt possiblt or atleast harder?

any news on that front?
Gevlin
Planned Obsolescence.
No Visual.
#72 - 2012-03-01 18:46:16 UTC
That is nice to see the all the accounts are being tagged if one account is being botted. The Boosting alts, though they do no botting they do multiply the mining bots reward. A boosting bot does take a bit to train.

Please keep moving forward.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships

Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#73 - 2012-03-01 18:47:46 UTC
Devore Sekk wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban!


Zero tolerance doesn't work anywhere, and it won't in Eve.

A warned player will either quit playing (so pointless to ban them) or start playing legitimately (a subscriber that would have been banned and probably wouldn't return). A small percentage will continue botting, and will eventually be gone. Many MMO players come from games where botting is officially against the rules, but seldom if ever enforced. No point dropping the hammer on them once they learn the lesson.


Zero tolerance works fine if it involves capital punishment. Exactly 0% commit the crime second time ;)

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-03-01 18:54:27 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names.


Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so.

Not trying to quibble here, but seriously - in game sanctions for in game actions.


Since you've locked the character to the account now, there shouldn't be any problem. Unless I've missed something (because naming (in-game) names surely *can't* be illegal)!.


TY - love the blog/action/picture.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#75 - 2012-03-01 18:55:20 UTC
I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#76 - 2012-03-01 18:57:33 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Sreegs
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I got a question as well. Isn't "1000 to 2000 bans" a bit too little? Considering people usually have 2 or more accounts that'd be like 500 unique botting people. Doesn't it sound a bit too low? Considering that in some systems there are 10+ bots?


There's really no way to answer this. It's something that will have to play out with time. The last time around we were seeing that 2k average on a bi-weekly or so basis with low levels of recidivism but I suspect that locking the character transfers and some other goodies we're working on will reduce that.

Really time will tell. The only psychic prediction I can make with any reasonable accuracy is that I will be drinking entirely too much at Fanfest!

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

Kane Hart
Sanitized Souls
#77 - 2012-03-01 18:59:46 UTC
Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.

I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.

I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.

As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
#78 - 2012-03-01 19:02:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tetragammatron Prime
Make it so 2nd warning they can no longer send isk, trade in station or create contract from the botting character!!

do botters receiving warning get their assest left untouched to encourage them to continue playing?? if so, that is bs
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2012-03-01 19:02:37 UTC
Such an awesome thing the picture says it all for me.

Feel like opening a bottle of champagne ;)

Great job, keep it coming.

.

CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#80 - 2012-03-01 19:03:19 UTC
Kane Hart wrote:
Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.

I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.

I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.

As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol


Sorry I keep missing this. It's not being ignored. It's also not my department. I'll follow up on it tomorrow.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012