These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Scarlet Letters and Botters

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2012-03-27 06:16:01 UTC
Alain Kinsella wrote:

You're making me wonder if you've attached internal UUIDs (a 32-bit serial number) to every PLEX ever created. If not, why not? And I understand fully if you cannot answer this, but as a SysAdmin its something I'd consider doing. Pirate


UUID's are 128-bits, not 32-bits, fyi. A 32-bit number would only have roughly 4 billion unique representations - that's not even enough to represent each person on this planet.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#142 - 2012-03-27 06:18:57 UTC
Flag them for all players to see and give the date they were caught. Then delete all assets and ISK on that account. If it can be known with certainty that other accounts are linked with the bot account apply the same to any of those as well.

Deliberately going out of your way to get third party software to cheat should be given no leniency when caught.
Alain Kinsella
#143 - 2012-03-27 06:21:07 UTC
D'oh, corrected, thanks. Been far too long since I dealt with SL (which used UUIDs for every object in game).

That said, if the column is not presented to the players, a UUID is still feasible.

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
#144 - 2012-03-27 06:29:42 UTC
Instead of name and shame they should recieve -25% sp on all character for each warning.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#145 - 2012-03-27 06:36:35 UTC
I think a temporary letter would be acceptable. This of course wouldn't be rolled back to apply to pre initiated botters. But if it was said that starting in one week, anybody caught botting would receive the scarlet letter and it be for 6 months from last violation, would be excellent.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#146 - 2012-03-27 06:37:32 UTC
Tetragammatron Prime wrote:
Instead of name and shame they should recieve -25% sp on all character for each warning.


Not sure on that one. If somebody is botting with supercaps, etc, the sp penalty will have a much lower effect.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Prince Kobol
#147 - 2012-03-27 06:39:29 UTC
The is only reason why I would be against any naming and shaming..

Do you trust CCP to get it right 100% of the time?

For naming and shaming to work CCP need to be 100% sure that the person who is being accused is a botter and there can be no room for error.

As much as I like CCP I do not honestly believe that they are able to claim that they will be 100% right every time and will not make any mistakes.
Largo Usagi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#148 - 2012-03-27 06:42:28 UTC
Oh Yea wrote:
Largo Usagi wrote:
Well as a former CEO and one who had logs of all of his corp members ratting I realized I had a botter in my corp. The pilot was on 14 Hours a day and brought a HUGE amount of ISK into the corp. That stated personally I feel that it adversely effects every one in the game but at the time my corp was befitting from the botter and shortly was removed.

I approve the scarlet letter with another side effect, removal of corp taxes yielded from the botter.

Here is some quick Math lets say a decent bot can get 80m an hour(this is not unheard of)
80m an hour
1.12b a day at roughly 14 hours a day with scheduled variance.

Now with 10% going to the corp that's
8m an hour
112m a day in the corp wallet.

In a 30 day cycle that's almost 3.4b isk

That immense amount of isk is seen by the corp that recruits a botter, and that is incentive to recruit botters and turn a blind eye if it is going on. Now if the corp lost 3.4b isk with the botter that isk is out of the economy and the corp feels the punishment too. If the scarlet lettering is in place and the player gets punished for botting the removal should be double that to server as a deterrent from recruiting players that have been flagged as botting. So if the player isn't a problem and isn't punished as a repeat offender then the corp has no issue but if they are then the corp has to feel the consequences of its risky decision.

This is real consequence already in play with new ones stacked to deter corporations from recruiting known botters.

Also a public list of the players who have been permaband from the game and bio-massed is useless, they are gone and never to be seen again.

A scarlet letter for a year of visibility is a fair idea because that allows for the possibility of oops i ****** up please don't perma ban me. I dont think a 3 strikes system should be in place here either, 2 is plenty, if you get a reprimand once then you now know the rules in this area. If you get a reprimand a second time then you deserve to get permaband for botting.

TL;DR

Make it publically shown if a pilot has been cought botting
Wrap corporate level punishments for pilots with Scarlett letters if they get banned again.


This is a concern that I would like to see addressed, as having bots in a corp and not knowing about it (or turning a blind eye) could put the corp unknowingly into hot water.


Hence why i said that a corp should only be punished if the character is scarlet lettered. This will hurt the corp if they only willing allow the actions to continue, couple that with a nice notification to every member of the corp of some one gets tagged and there is no excuse for a second time.
Also I am not aware of the technical limitations with python injection but if there is a way to monitor certain game objects and see if they are being illegally accessed(basically an anti cheat) to auto flag accounts that could significantly cut investigation time and serve as a deterrent if its announced in a patch note.

Just some ideas, I would love to see bots burn, the farms of bots add alot of isk to the game and it has been brought up a few times that the economy has to much isk in and not enough isk out. This could be just one more way of fixing that problem
WeRWatchingU
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#149 - 2012-03-27 06:44:49 UTC  |  Edited by: WeRWatchingU
One of the biggest problems with this entire idea, is the fact that I personally know of several accounts that have been banned for botting, but the person who owned the accounts never used a bot. He's disabled, mines to support his sons efforts in null sec

He's been band twice, just because he has auto reject on and doesn't talk to anyone in local. EVER. The pilots that gank him report him as a bot because he doesn't respond to their hails, nor does he cry in local when he gets poded. He's just dedicated to providing isk for his son in null sec

How would any of this be fair to a pilot like this? The fact that you can get baned just because you auto-reject convos, don't talk in local, but sit and mine for 16-18 hours a day religiously.... there are more pilots like this than you'd think. I personally know of several handicapped people that mine for hours on end, in the same manor, so that they can buy plexs' to play EVE.

Since mining is a simple repetitive task that takes little focus, there are actually several institutions that provide laptops for their residence to play EVE. What do they do? MINE. Yet their accounts get banned all the time, just because they auto reject convos and never talk in local

It's even more pathetic that when they do get banned, they can't petition it because they can't even get on the forum to start one. If their pilots get named, it makes them a target for the pilots that shouldn't even be able to get into a ship in high-sec to start with. The whole system of reporting someone as a bot-then them getting banned needs to be reworked, if your going to publish a list.

Being banned just because joe-the-ahole tried to convo you and you auto rejected it, so he reports you as a bot, is about as lame as as it gets. If your going to publish a list,
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2012-03-27 06:45:52 UTC
I say no marking the player

the person has been punished all goods removed from the bot, characters can't transfere,

I want to see something the an alliance who realizes they have a botter in their mists can protect them selves from the loss that will happen when they report him. All the ore that the person has contributed to the corp or the alliance. Before they report him

As you mentions a person who is caught once is most likely not going to repeat. Marking them just will cause a witch hunt! And the person you tried to sway away from the dark side and change their way will be hekkeld out of the game.

Want an example ----- Do you see what the mittani is going though currently.... you will see the same mob mentality.

This mob mentality is even worse because everyone is ananomys.

Trust me this scarlet letter is worse than 1 strike you are out!

If you want to mark them Make them -10 sec status... Concord hate botters too! So they can wallow in shame having to work there way back into society. But Scarlet letter.. Bad bad Idea

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Othran
Route One
#151 - 2012-03-27 06:48:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Othran
The only posts which make a good deal of sense to me are the corp application suggestions.

Perhaps implement that with a 3 month expiry for the first offence, 6 for second etc.

Also there is probably something to be said for flagging up people caught botting to CEOs, but obviously only after all the ban/appeal process has completed. That way CEOs can't absolve themselves of all responsibility for bots in their corp as many/most currently do.

So a +1 from me for a corp application triggering a warning for the CEO.

Perhaps Sreegs would also consider triggering a warning for CEOs that PlayerXYZ in their corp has been banned for botting.

Provided the account is also prohibited from any future character transfers I think that's about as far as I'd want to see things go. A public flag would be counterproductive IMHO.
Mallikanth
Wasters
#152 - 2012-03-27 06:49:17 UTC
I wouldn't bother.What?

I personally don't see any advantage in publicly identifying botters, as any mechanic would have sufficient disadvantages to make it worthless.

Let CCP do that and deal with the scum as they do now. Twisted

Believe in what they do, not what they say.
Sasha Khaine
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#153 - 2012-03-27 06:49:21 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Name and Shame. Do it!

Bot/Macros are fairly predictable, and once you observe them in action it becomes reasonably easy to gank them. If you identify botters, it would make vigilante justice easier, and players would know who to keep an eye on. I bet many of them are repeat offenders.

It would also act as a deterrent. Getting your account permanently marked as a 'cheater/botter' would allow us to avoid trading with those who have obtained their isk illegitimately.

It would also be useful for recruitment screening, helping to keep our corps bot-free.


Excellent post, agree completely! *tips hat*

[center]"The entire British empire was built on cups of tea... and if you think I'm going to war without one mate. You're mistaken."[/center]
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#154 - 2012-03-27 06:50:52 UTC
Just pointing this out since it seems to have been lost in the other chatter.

Terminal Insanity wrote:
Perhaps allow CEO's to flag their corporation as bot-free and then deny botters the abitily to even apply to those corporations. This way his bot status is private but players still have some control. Similar Bot-Free flags could be applied elsewhere. To fleets for example.


I'd love the ablility to not buy from the botters but that would make it easy to see who have been naughty by comparing the two lists. And that of course means a list forming somewhere. But the corp function sounds like a good idea. Of course the invisible mark needs to be applied to all of that players accounts, not just the ones botting.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#155 - 2012-03-27 06:52:07 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Neither of those companies makes a videogame so what is being botted? I'm missing you here and I really don't want to be.

They are botted all day long. Google's SERPs and data interfaces are botted constantly for scraping. People try to bot Google+. Facebook advertisers utilize submission bots to get past the manual reviewers (not all reviewers are equal). Then there are the click bots, the chat bots and the screen scrapers.

I've got a lot of experience with browser based botting. Happy to talk more about it off forum, needless to say a public thread is a hard place to have a conversation.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#156 - 2012-03-27 06:53:11 UTC
Why don't you give us the ability to delete our employment history and change the name of our character with no history?

Same reason to scarlet letter botters, CCP Screegs, same reason.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#157 - 2012-03-27 07:01:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Chokichi Ozuwara wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
But I could argue that there are plenty of other deterrents in place. This one has the additional negative of also providing a disincentive for turning into a Good Guy, which is something we've been trying to prevent.

This is a pipe dream, and you guys keep protecting and trying to reform criminals are doing it at the expense of existing players and future participants in Eve as well.

You know what Facebook does when they take action? No appeal.

Google? No appeal.

The evidence needs to be solid, but if someone is botting, they need to be thrown out of the game because they are potentially ruining the experience for thousands of other players (butterfly effect and all that jazz).



Neither of those companies makes a videogame so what is being botted? I'm missing you here and I really don't want to be.


Plus it's false, I am on the Google network and even in serious matters like breach of copyrights the defendant has a chance (or more) to recourse. Of course detected automated posting etc. has no "doubt" into it so it's dealt with immediatey.

Recourses, defense, appeals are all marks of communities / states / corporations who hold their citizens / customers rights in high regard. Leave the "no appeal, public execution with torture" to dictatorship and crap corporations who made billions yet are too cheap to implement a proper regulatory statute.


As for CCP, it's fairly simple.

If you give a guy 2 chances (then nuke) it means you proactively (want to) believe he can straigthen up.
Maybe if you get a SURE cheater (i.e. using an EXE injection thing) you could really flag him. But why... just perma ban and be done with it.

For the minor cases, expecially those who are not into RMT, you should cater to their salvation (else you would not implement multiple chances) and thus:

- don't flag them publicly, it's a litigation between a subscriber and a company, not between his in game character and the others.

- flag him for resale or just make impossible to sell the characters, so who is the future recipient knows better than to buy a tainted character.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#158 - 2012-03-27 07:02:14 UTC
With (or even without) the new crimewatch mechanic you could apply security hits to botters also.

If the majority use high sec to afford protection under Concord as way to avoid risk in their botting mechnics then apply a -10 for their security status on Botting. Principally this would mean players could enact their own brand of justice in Empire on them.

And if forced into the realms of null as a result then the mechanics there afford open season on the botters anyhow.

This is not to "push" a problem into null sec at all, so its not a political move, its to make the consequences of botting in all forms risky and open to players being able to effect them in their habitual daily practices.

So if its a 3 strike rule: 1st and 2nd strike: -10 security applied which can be managed. 3rd strike: perma fix them at -10, if needs be at this point apply a special -11 security so as not to confuse with genuine criminal playstyles?

So not to marginalise others or push a problem somewhere, but more to use the game's mechanics in a way to be preventative to botting.

If null sec players think this woould be too detrimental to have botting shifted in this way don't do it.

If criminals think the confusion or association is too detrimental don't do it.

Merely throwing it out at this stage as an idea.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#159 - 2012-03-27 07:06:45 UTC
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
CCP uses hardware fingerprints as well as IP's. But it's still quite the fallacy on their part to try and pretend like people don't fake that as well. They've said bans are also on actual people, not just an account. But even if so, nothing stops Russians who bot EVE for a living from just using their grandmother for billing.

I think I have said this before, and that is that the incentive to bot has to be diminished, because the botters will always be one step ahead of CCP.

Stuff like the scarlet letter will help disincentivize the marginal botter, who is concerned with being caught and wants to develop his character long term, but the guy who churns and burns new accounts isn't going to give a damn about it because it doesn't affect what he does the same way.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Emma Royd
Maddled Gommerils
#160 - 2012-03-27 07:07:20 UTC
TLDR

But, if you've got evidence that you feel makes a player a botter, then why not freaking insta ban their sorry arse.
Stuff name and shame, warnings, if people cheat, no warnings, just perma ban the account.

enough with the namby pamby 3 strikes rubbish!