These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

CCP kicked a plenty of BOTS last night. Is it true?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
leoplusma
Delfus Inc.
#1 - 2013-01-02 13:10:21 UTC

last night, home system infested by 40 retrievers
their pilot names were : "Replicant_****_01"
all way to "Replicant_****_40". they were behaving
in mining the ice belt like... bots. lol.

petitioned it. i guess many of us did.
no response yet.

today i realise that those users dont even exist
anymore in eve database! along with them, some
other Replicants too (i think Replicant Dew or something)
are too missing.

soooo i guess ccp kicked them out of the game.

any chance for an official validation of my assumptions?

thanks ccp

leo
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#2 - 2013-01-02 13:14:03 UTC
I highly doubt CCP will post details and specifics, but thanks from me for reporting them.

40 of them so obviously botting is almost an insult to everyone's intelligence.....as if they thought nobody would notice.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Adam Junior
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-01-02 13:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Adam Junior
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I highly doubt CCP will post details and specifics, but thanks from me for reporting them.

40 of them so obviously botting is almost an insult to everyone's intelligence.....as if they thought nobody would notice.


It's actually perfectly possible to play 40 characters with multiboxing tools if you're doing something as simple as ice mining. Multiboxing tools aren't against the EULA.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#4 - 2013-01-02 13:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Adam Junior wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I highly doubt CCP will post details and specifics, but thanks from me for reporting them.

40 of them so obviously botting is almost an insult to everyone's intelligence.....as if they thought nobody would notice.


It's actually perfectly possible to play 40 characters with multiboxing tools if you're doing something as simple as ice mining. Multiboxing tools aren't against the EULA.



Show me where I used the words multiboxing Shocked

I would find that even more disgusting, tbh. Sactioned economy-killing behaviour.

Sounds to me like you know about this group. You were...involved ?

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Dave stark
#5 - 2013-01-02 13:30:13 UTC
even without multiboxing, ice mining on 40 accounts wouldn't be particularly difficult.

open 1 client, ctrl + click, f1, f2.
repeat 39 times.
Yim Sei
Ontogenic Achronycal PLC
#6 - 2013-01-02 13:32:17 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Adam Junior wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I highly doubt CCP will post details and specifics, but thanks from me for reporting them.

40 of them so obviously botting is almost an insult to everyone's intelligence.....as if they thought nobody would notice.


It's actually perfectly possible to play 40 characters with multiboxing tools if you're doing something as simple as ice mining. Multiboxing tools aren't against the EULA.



Show me where I used the words multiboxing Shocked

I would find that even more disgusting, tbh. Sactioned economy-killing behaviour.

Sounds to me like you know about this group. You were...involved ?


Got to agree why try to defend them?

doesnt even make sense, moving the argument onto the EULA and multiboxing.

Post with my main? This is my main - I just overtrain and overplay my alts.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2013-01-02 13:34:29 UTC
Considering that Mackinaws with Orca/freighter support can mine ice indefinitely with only a few seconds of intervention needed every 20 minutes, it's really hard to distinguish between bots and enthusiastic multiboxers.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#8 - 2013-01-02 13:36:08 UTC
leoplusma wrote:


any chance for an official validation of my assumptions?

leo


None whatsoever. CCP does not comment on that stuff. The best you'd probably get is a generic "anti botting measures are continuously being undertaken" or something like that.


Anyway congrats if your story is true.
leoplusma
Delfus Inc.
#9 - 2013-01-02 13:45:48 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Anyway congrats if your story is true.


story is true (posted thread to local hoping that someone
will confirm this) but i dont think i deserve any congrats,
i didnt do anything apart from petitioning.

tbh, i wanted to gank all 40 bots lol but i dont want
retriever killmails in my main char, so i relogged as
my alt only to spend half an hour gathering stuff
and training skill for smartbomb lol so i failed, i guess
a killmail of one of the replicants could add validity to my post.

leo
Alara IonStorm
#10 - 2013-01-02 14:15:01 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

Show me where I used the words multiboxing Shocked

You didn't, he did, you said they were obviously botters and he said they could be multiboxing.
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

I would find that even more disgusting, tbh. Sactioned economy-killing behaviour.

I agree that that kind of Multiboxing should not be allowed but it is the nature of duel use vs simultaneous use alternate characters.

There is a difference between owning accounts to do separate things such as X character for PvP and X character for PvE and then there is owning seperate accounts to do things simultainously, such as mining, missioning, hauling, PvP and so on.

Where do you draw the line? Falcon Alts, Logi Alts, PvP / PvE, DPS Alts, Mining Alts, AFK Hauler Alts, PI Alts? Which gets the nerfs and which ones get to stay, ones where money making is involved, ones that give you an advantage, ones that work AFK.
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

Sounds to me like you know about this group. You were...involved ?

You are accusing him of something with no proof other then knowing about mechanics that could possibly be used. Lets not let a discussion thread degrade into finger pointing and blame without evidence.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#11 - 2013-01-02 14:17:30 UTC
I noticed a few months ago they did one of those mass bot bans. The system where I mine ice would normally have close to 100 people in it, not all mining ice of course, but anyway, the next day, the system had about 60 people in it on average, and only about a third of the ice miners. Was like that for a while, but now the numbers were creeping back up again. Will have to check to see if there are fewer in there now. Really cool when you see it happen.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-01-02 14:18:40 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
I noticed a few months ago they did one of those mass bot bans. The system where I mine ice would normally have close to 100 people in it, not all mining ice of course, but anyway, the next day, the system had about 60 people in it on average, and only about a third of the ice miners. Was like that for a while, but now the numbers were creeping back up again. Will have to check to see if there are fewer in there now. Really cool when you see it happen.


wow 40 in one system? I thought the eve-o forum alt pubbie consensus was that all bots were in nullsec

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Mag's
Azn Empire
#13 - 2013-01-02 14:20:07 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

Show me where I used the words multiboxing Shocked

You didn't, he did, you said they were obviously botters and he said they could be multiboxing.
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

Sounds to me like you know about this group. You were...involved ?

You are accusing him of something with no proof other then knowing about mechanics that could possibly be used. Lets not let a discussion thread degrade into finger pointing and blame without evidence.
Welcome to the world of Krixtal. Were reading, comprehension and fact based posting, is an optional extra. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-01-02 14:22:02 UTC
Andski wrote:
wow 40 in one system? I thought the eve-o forum alt pubbie consensus was that all bots were in nullsec


It's a proven fact, only null scum use bots!

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Dave stark
#15 - 2013-01-02 14:23:02 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
I noticed a few months ago they did one of those mass bot bans. The system where I mine ice would normally have close to 100 people in it, not all mining ice of course, but anyway, the next day, the system had about 60 people in it on average, and only about a third of the ice miners. Was like that for a while, but now the numbers were creeping back up again. Will have to check to see if there are fewer in there now. Really cool when you see it happen.


only takes about 8, maybe 9 days at most to get a fresh account in to a retriever with some ice harvesters strapped to it.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#16 - 2013-01-02 14:41:32 UTC
CCP has given some details about what they do. They get copies of the bot programs so they can see how they work. Then they can program the detection routine too find any new bot. The bot writers keep making changes so the bots are more human like. Eventually CCP feels the new detection routine is working and lets it lose. And we get a wave of bot bans.

CCP's stated goal is not so much to get rid of all bots, but to make it unprofitable to use them. In that goal I think they missed a step. They may be making it unprofitable to the bot user, but not to the bot writer. All the bot writer has to do is wait a bit for new players to join eve, then sell those new players bots. They will innocently use the bots until they get caught. Of course the bot writer will keep the money.

In order to keep new players from trying botting even once, CCP needs to have continuous and persistent information on what happens when you bot in front of the player's eyes. Something like placing on the log in page "This month we banned xx players for botting and confiscated yyyyy ISK".

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Yim Sei
Ontogenic Achronycal PLC
#17 - 2013-01-02 14:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Yim Sei
Why dont CCP add asteroid events to combat botting?

For instance every random number or roids part way through a mining cycle something like

" your mining laser has hit a vein containing a high amount of Bazingazine - please enter the laser focusing code to re-calibrate the lense. Warning not recalibrating your beam may permanently destroy the relevant module (50% chance)"

of course a random image code is generated, which must be input before continuing.


Heres another variation on the theme to only effect users of certain module types at the time of activation (ie mining modules)

"Ships carrying delegates from the ORE inspectorate have entered your system accompanied by Concord. You have been warp scrambled and must produce your charter code or your ship will be destroyed for illegally causing stress to asteroids - You have 180 seconds to produce your code"

Of course the 180s would be random.

I await the Thinking Players fine tuning of my ideas (and the botters attempt to belittle them).



...also 'Mining Charters' hhhmmmm...

Post with my main? This is my main - I just overtrain and overplay my alts.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#18 - 2013-01-02 15:00:36 UTC
Yim Sei wrote:
Why dont CCP add asteroid events to combat botting?

For instance every random number or roids part way through a mining cycle something like

" your mining laser has hit a vein containing a high amount of Bazingazine - please enter the laser focusing code to re-calibrate the lense. Warning not recalibrating your beam may permanently destroy the relevant module (50% chance)"

of course a random image code is generated, which must be input before continuing.


Heres another variation on the theme to only effect users of certain module types at the time of activation (ie mining modules)

"Ships carrying delegates from the ORE inspectorate have entered your system accompanied by Concord. You have been warp scrambled and must produce your charter code or your ship will be destroyed for illegally causing stress to asteroids - You have 180 seconds to produce your code"

Of course the 180s would be random.

I await the Thinking Players fine tuning of my ideas (and the botters attempt to belittle them).



...also 'Mining Charters' hhhmmmm...

Because bots use optical character recognition, and can just enter the code.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dave stark
#19 - 2013-01-02 15:04:46 UTC
Yim Sei wrote:
Why dont CCP add asteroid events to combat botting?

For instance every random number or roids part way through a mining cycle something like

" your mining laser has hit a vein containing a high amount of Bazingazine - please enter the laser focusing code to re-calibrate the lense. Warning not recalibrating your beam may permanently destroy the relevant module (50% chance)"

of course a random image code is generated, which must be input before continuing.


Heres another variation on the theme to only effect users of certain module types at the time of activation (ie mining modules)

"Ships carrying delegates from the ORE inspectorate have entered your system accompanied by Concord. You have been warp scrambled and must produce your charter code or your ship will be destroyed for illegally causing stress to asteroids - You have 180 seconds to produce your code"

Of course the 180s would be random.

I await the Thinking Players fine tuning of my ideas (and the botters attempt to belittle them).



...also 'Mining Charters' hhhmmmm...


in that case, i want concord ships to randomly attack mission runners unless they stop murdering innocent red crosses, randomly.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#20 - 2013-01-02 15:05:38 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

Show me where I used the words multiboxing Shocked

You didn't, he did, you said they were obviously botters and he said they could be multiboxing.
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

I would find that even more disgusting, tbh. Sactioned economy-killing behaviour.

I agree that that kind of Multiboxing should not be allowed but it is the nature of duel use vs simultaneous use alternate characters.

There is a difference between owning accounts to do separate things such as X character for PvP and X character for PvE and then there is owning seperate accounts to do things simultainously, such as mining, missioning, hauling, PvP and so on.

Where do you draw the line? Falcon Alts, Logi Alts, PvP / PvE, DPS Alts, Mining Alts, AFK Hauler Alts, PI Alts? Which gets the nerfs and which ones get to stay, ones where money making is involved, ones that give you an advantage, ones that work AFK.
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

Sounds to me like you know about this group. You were...involved ?

You are accusing him of something with no proof other then knowing about mechanics that could possibly be used. Lets not let a discussion thread degrade into finger pointing and blame without evidence.



Sounds like someone is defending the behavior utterly.


I find both botting and multiboxing abhorent.

They achieve the same destructive ends.

Also, an accusation is not a determination.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
123Next pageLast page