These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#281 - 2014-05-17 23:23:08 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:

Congratulations on putting words in to everyones mouths I guess.


I'm only kind of unsure what you mean, as he has opposed mine and Mr Epeen's opinions that CCP should target botting in all areas of New Eden equally.


This is what we call being inefficient.

A thought experiment

Number of bots per sec area (85 : 5 : 5 : 5) (high : low : null : wh)

CCP has 100 resource units to spend combating this and for the simplicity of the math 1 resource = 1 bot banned.

CCP spends equal resources per sec area which means 25 units per area leaving us with

(60 : 0 : 0 : 0)

With a waste of 60 units and total bots banned 40; CCP wasted resources that could have been used dealing with bots. Should these resources have been used appropriately more bots would have been banned and a greater benefit been had by the player base.

Back to the original spread (85 : 5 : 5 : 5) (high : low : null : wh)

CCP has 100 resource units to spend and spends porpotionally via demographics.

CCP spends 85 units on highsec, 5 units on lowsec, 5 units on nullsec, and 5 units on wh leaving us with

(0 : 0 : 0 : 0)

CCP wastes no resources and bans 100 bots, considerably more than they did with an even spread. The resources were more properly used and the maximum amount of bots possible to be banned were banned. This is of greatest benefit to the player base.

Before you go off on some dumb tangent, no area was ignored in favor of others.

If this doesn't get the concept of resource allocation efficiency across to you I highly suggest you go visit your local church of scientology and join up.


So, since you just showed CCP must have banned all bots from high sec(look at the numbers after all), why are you still arguing that they should be focusing their resources so heavily there? Since they're gone, it's probably best if they spread their resources out so that they don't miss new bots popping up in other areas, right?

But honestly, you can't really believe that is how things work, can you? You just made up a few arbitrary numbers and then subtracted them. That isn't what I would call comprehensive science. After all, I can do it too.

CCP has 500 resource units to spend, and for simplicity's sake we'll say 1 unit = 1 bot banned. With a spread of 2222:543:657:78(High:Low:Null:WH), how should CCP spend their resource points? (Bonus points for showing your work)
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#282 - 2014-05-17 23:25:23 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Create untraceable account.
Purchase Mission running toon
Run HS Missions for x hours per day in NPC corp and Concord Protection
Earn Isk + LP
Launder Isk LP
x amount of time later account is banned

Create new untraceable account
Purchase Mission running toon
Run HS Missions for x hours per day in NPC corp and Concord Protection
Earn Isk + LP
Launder Isk + LP
x amount of time later account is banned

Rinse and repeat.

You know a very simply way to stop most HS botters, simply make it a requirement that you must be in a player run corp to run Level 4 missions.

Watch those numbers tumble Big smile


How do you purchase a mission-running character on an untraceable account? Where did the ISK come from to do that?

How can a large proportion* of bots be in the one alliance if simply making it a requirement to be in a player run corp is supposed to reduce the number of bots?

* 21%, "From Evidence to Bans" presentation at FanFest 2014

Day 0 Advice for New Players
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#283 - 2014-05-17 23:28:50 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


CCP spends equal resources per sec area


Why do you think that the CCP Security team operates on this basis? I think it's by far more likely that they allocate resources per bot program, and that they could care less about which sec area any specific individual using the current primary targetted botting application is operating in.


I don't but, there are people in this thread advocating for it, I'm trying to explain efficiency to a person that doesn't seem to get it. You can exchange sec area's with various programs and its the same idea.

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
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#284 - 2014-05-17 23:31:47 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


CCP spends equal resources per sec area


Why do you think that the CCP Security team operates on this basis? I think it's by far more likely that they allocate resources per bot program, and that they could care less about which sec area any specific individual using the current primary targetted botting application is operating in.


I don't but, there are people in this thread advocating for it, I'm trying to explain efficiency to a person that doesn't seem to get it. You can exchange sec area's with various programs and its the same idea.


In your equation you can exchange sec status with anything(SP in Exhumers, time spent ship spinning, ISK lost on SOMERblink) and it still ends at the same meaningless conclusion: that is not how it works, and since it doesn't work that way it should not be used as an argument for CCP to spend 85% of their time and effort looking at high sec and only 5% of their time and effort looking at each of the other sec statuses.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2014-05-17 23:33:19 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:

So, since you just showed CCP must have banned all bots from high sec(look at the numbers after all), why are you still arguing that they should be focusing their resources so heavily there? Since they're gone, it's probably best if they spread their resources out so that they don't miss new bots popping up in other areas, right?

But honestly, you can't really believe that is how things work, can you? You just made up a few arbitrary numbers and then subtracted them. That isn't what I would call comprehensive science. After all, I can do it too.

CCP has 500 resource units to spend, and for simplicity's sake we'll say 1 unit = 1 bot banned. With a spread of 2222:543:657:78(High:Low:Null:WH), how should CCP spend their resource points? (Bonus points for showing your work)


It isn't science its a thought experiment designed to show you why focusing equally on things that are not equal in distribution is inefficient. While doing some sort of proportional distribution of resources based on whatever botting metrics they have is a much better idea because resources aren't being wasted and they are achieving the maximum amount of bot banning they can.

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
Josef Djugashvilis
#286 - 2014-05-17 23:34:46 UTC
Let me guess, this has turned into another null versus hi-sec flame war?

I base my guess on seeing La Nariz and Kaarous having posts on the same page, all we need is Baltec 1 and we have the full set :)

This is not a signature.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#287 - 2014-05-17 23:34:56 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
In your equation you can exchange sec status with anything(SP in Exhumers, time spent ship spinning, ISK lost on SOMERblink) and it still ends at the same meaningless conclusion: that is not how it works, and since it doesn't work that way it should not be used as an argument for CCP to spend 85% of their time and effort looking at high sec and only 5% of their time and effort looking at each of the other sec statuses.


That isn't what he is suggesting, it just seems that way. I'd try to explain it but the truth is that he is far more intelligent than I am & I don't really know what quirky little spin he's going for right now.

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.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#288 - 2014-05-17 23:36:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Let me guess, this has turned into another null versus hi-sec flame war?

I base my guess on seeing La Nariz and Kaarous having posts on the same page, all we need is Baltec 1 and we have the full set :)


What we really need is Dinsdale & Gevlon on the same page, posting about the same topic with wildly different conspiracy theories about cartels & the science behind not playing a game for fun because that doesn't make any sense.

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.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#289 - 2014-05-17 23:36:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
La Nariz wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


CCP spends equal resources per sec area


Why do you think that the CCP Security team operates on this basis? I think it's by far more likely that they allocate resources per bot program, and that they could care less about which sec area any specific individual using the current primary targetted botting application is operating in.


I don't but, there are people in this thread advocating for it, I'm trying to explain efficiency to a person that doesn't seem to get it. You can exchange sec area's with various programs and its the same idea.


No it's not the same idea. Not in the least.

Stringing up bots based on logic as opposed to based on some arbitrary anecdotal information is about as far apart as it gets.

Mr Epeen Cool
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#290 - 2014-05-17 23:36:23 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Number of bots per sec area (85 : 5 : 5 : 5) (high : low : null : wh)

CCP has 100 resource units to spend combating this and for the simplicity of the math 1 resource = 1 bot banned.


Your misunderstanding of the information presented to you by CCP security teams over three contiguous years is very sad.

CCP has repeatedly pointed out that they ban based on identifying bots. They identify bots by looking for suspicious behaviour. The suspicious behaviour shows up in logs, or is identified through player reports.

La Nariz wrote:
CCP spends equal resources per sec area which means 25 units per area leaving us with

(60 : 0 : 0 : 0)


That's not how it works. If the 5 null sec bots in your example were removed with 5 units of effort, why would CCP keep trying to remove bots that aren't there? Are you making the assumption that CCP identifies bots by sitting in space watching people?

Here are some ways to identify bots:

  • Look for behaviour that is repeated over a long period of time
  • Frequency analysis of keystrokes
  • Look for behaviour that doesn't belong to a particular type of ship (e.g.: warping to belt and sitting there for five minutes in a pod)
  • Investigate player-generated bot-reports for evidence of botting


None of these discriminate based on security status. All of them are much more effective at locating bots than having CCP staff watch a particular area of space looking for odd behaviour.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#291 - 2014-05-17 23:36:33 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


I don't but, there are people in this thread advocating for it, I'm trying to explain efficiency to a person that doesn't seem to get it. You can exchange sec area's with various programs and its the same idea.


In your equation you can exchange sec status with anything(SP in Exhumers, time spent ship spinning, ISK lost on SOMERblink) and it still ends at the same meaningless conclusion: that is not how it works, and since it doesn't work that way it should not be used as an argument for CCP to spend 85% of their time and effort looking at high sec and only 5% of their time and effort looking at each of the other sec statuses.


Looks like its time for another yes/no question for you. Are various botting problems the same thing as SP/ship spinning/gambling losses?

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
#292 - 2014-05-17 23:38:20 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Number of bots per sec area (85 : 5 : 5 : 5) (high : low : null : wh)

CCP has 100 resource units to spend combating this and for the simplicity of the math 1 resource = 1 bot banned.


Your misunderstanding of the information presented to you by CCP security teams over three contiguous years is very sad.

CCP has repeatedly pointed out that they ban based on identifying bots. They identify bots by looking for suspicious behaviour. The suspicious behaviour shows up in logs, or is identified through player reports.

La Nariz wrote:
CCP spends equal resources per sec area which means 25 units per area leaving us with

(60 : 0 : 0 : 0)


That's not how it works. If the 5 null sec bots in your example were removed with 5 units of effort, why would CCP keep trying to remove bots that aren't there? Are you making the assumption that CCP identifies bots by sitting in space watching people?

Here are some ways to identify bots:

  • Look for behaviour that is repeated over a long period of time
  • Frequency analysis of keystrokes
  • Look for behaviour that doesn't belong to a particular type of ship (e.g.: warping to belt and sitting there for five minutes in a pod)
  • Investigate player-generated bot-reports for evidence of botting


None of these discriminate based on security status. All of them are much more effective at locating bots than having CCP staff watch a particular area of space looking for odd behaviour.



Okay and if you read the past 10 or so posts you'd see I'm trying to explain resource efficiency to someone who doesn't quite get it.

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
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#293 - 2014-05-17 23:42:05 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Okay and if you read the past 10 or so posts you'd see I'm trying to explain resource efficiency to someone who doesn't quite get it.


That's a losing fight. You made the classic blunder of "arguing with an idiot." They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#294 - 2014-05-17 23:43:43 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Let me guess, this has turned into another null versus hi-sec flame war?

I base my guess on seeing La Nariz and Kaarous having posts on the same page, all we need is Baltec 1 and we have the full set :)


It's the fault of high sec. Always.

And Baltec has made his appearance with the posts you'd expect of him. No need to look them up. You already know what they say.

Mr Epeen Cool
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2014-05-17 23:46:17 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Okay and if you read the past 10 or so posts you'd see I'm trying to explain resource efficiency to someone who doesn't quite get it.


That's a losing fight. You made the classic blunder of "arguing with an idiot." They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.


I've educated people before and its worth a try.

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
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#296 - 2014-05-17 23:48:35 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Number of bots per sec area (85 : 5 : 5 : 5) (high : low : null : wh)

CCP has 100 resource units to spend combating this and for the simplicity of the math 1 resource = 1 bot banned.


Your misunderstanding of the information presented to you by CCP security teams over three contiguous years is very sad.

CCP has repeatedly pointed out that they ban based on identifying bots. They identify bots by looking for suspicious behaviour. The suspicious behaviour shows up in logs, or is identified through player reports.

La Nariz wrote:
CCP spends equal resources per sec area which means 25 units per area leaving us with

(60 : 0 : 0 : 0)


That's not how it works. If the 5 null sec bots in your example were removed with 5 units of effort, why would CCP keep trying to remove bots that aren't there? Are you making the assumption that CCP identifies bots by sitting in space watching people?

Here are some ways to identify bots:

  • Look for behaviour that is repeated over a long period of time
  • Frequency analysis of keystrokes
  • Look for behaviour that doesn't belong to a particular type of ship (e.g.: warping to belt and sitting there for five minutes in a pod)
  • Investigate player-generated bot-reports for evidence of botting


None of these discriminate based on security status. All of them are much more effective at locating bots than having CCP staff watch a particular area of space looking for odd behaviour.



Okay and if you read the past 10 or so posts you'd see I'm trying to explain resource efficiency to someone who doesn't quite get it.


You need to understand it yourself to effectively explain it. Throwing out words to create a straw man is not explaining anything. It's a good way to bamboozle the masses though.

Mr Epeen Cool
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#297 - 2014-05-17 23:48:55 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


I don't but, there are people in this thread advocating for it, I'm trying to explain efficiency to a person that doesn't seem to get it. You can exchange sec area's with various programs and its the same idea.


In your equation you can exchange sec status with anything(SP in Exhumers, time spent ship spinning, ISK lost on SOMERblink) and it still ends at the same meaningless conclusion: that is not how it works, and since it doesn't work that way it should not be used as an argument for CCP to spend 85% of their time and effort looking at high sec and only 5% of their time and effort looking at each of the other sec statuses.


Looks like its time for another yes/no question for you. Are various botting problems the same thing as SP/ship spinning/gambling losses?



In your equation? Most definitely. Arbitrary information can be construed in any manner, sorted in any order, defined in any way you want, and it is still arbitrary. Since the sec status where a bot is currently located is a variable that is completely arbitrary, it follows no plan, purpose, or pattern, using it to define search and/or detection patterns for said bot is pointless. At any moment, that bot can change sec statuses. You're predicating the success of banning bots on their being located in high sec, which means you're going to miss the vast majority of bots in null sec, low sec and wormhole space. Thank god CCP doesn't think like you, or else they'd have announced at FanFest that they intended to stop pursuing bots outside of Caldari high sec, since that was where the largest majority of bots were at when they were detected. Of course, using your logic they might have also announced that they intended to weight their detection algorithms to favor finding players that chose Caldari, since most bots were Caldari characters. Or perhaps they should be targeting that one alliance that is able to claim 21% of all bots banned, weighting their algorithms to favor tracking and detecting botting activity in players that are apart of that group due to their predisposition towards botting.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2014-05-18 00:04:34 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:

In your equation? Most definitely. Arbitrary information can be construed in any manner, sorted in any order, defined in any way you want, and it is still arbitrary. Since the sec status where a bot is currently located is a variable that is completely arbitrary, it follows no plan, purpose, or pattern, using it to define search and/or detection patterns for said bot is pointless. At any moment, that bot can change sec statuses. You're predicating the success of banning bots on their being located in high sec, which means you're going to miss the vast majority of bots in null sec, low sec and wormhole space. Thank god CCP doesn't think like you, or else they'd have announced at FanFest that they intended to stop pursuing bots outside of Caldari high sec, since that was where the largest majority of bots were at when they were detected. Of course, using your logic they might have also announced that they intended to weight their detection algorithms to favor finding players that chose Caldari, since most bots were Caldari characters. Or perhaps they should be targeting that one alliance that is able to claim 21% of all bots banned, weighting their algorithms to favor tracking and detecting botting activity in players that are apart of that group due to their predisposition towards botting.


How do you screw up answering a yes/no question? There are literally only two answers to it and even guessing has better than vegas odds.

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
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#299 - 2014-05-18 00:19:37 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:

In your equation? Most definitely. Arbitrary information can be construed in any manner, sorted in any order, defined in any way you want, and it is still arbitrary. Since the sec status where a bot is currently located is a variable that is completely arbitrary, it follows no plan, purpose, or pattern, using it to define search and/or detection patterns for said bot is pointless. At any moment, that bot can change sec statuses. You're predicating the success of banning bots on their being located in high sec, which means you're going to miss the vast majority of bots in null sec, low sec and wormhole space. Thank god CCP doesn't think like you, or else they'd have announced at FanFest that they intended to stop pursuing bots outside of Caldari high sec, since that was where the largest majority of bots were at when they were detected. Of course, using your logic they might have also announced that they intended to weight their detection algorithms to favor finding players that chose Caldari, since most bots were Caldari characters. Or perhaps they should be targeting that one alliance that is able to claim 21% of all bots banned, weighting their algorithms to favor tracking and detecting botting activity in players that are apart of that group due to their predisposition towards botting.


How do you screw up answering a yes/no question? There are literally only two answers to it and even guessing has better than vegas odds.


It amazes me how vacuous you are, as I clearly did answer your question. I'm sorry if I'm too verbose for you. Here, let me put it a bit more simply, in order that you might finally understand: YES! SHIP SPINNING, SKILL POINTS AND GAMBLING LOSSES ARE JUST AS SIGNIFICANT TO FINDING BOTS AS THE SEC STATUS OF WHERE A BOT IS LOCATED AT THE TIME IT IS DETECTED. Sorry that I had to yell, but I didn't want you to miss anything. Let me ask you a yes or no question now: Do you want me to simplify all of my future responses so that you might keep up? If your answer is no, then why do you keep demanding that I simplify my answers now?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2014-05-18 00:25:07 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:

In your equation? Most definitely. Arbitrary information can be construed in any manner, sorted in any order, defined in any way you want, and it is still arbitrary. Since the sec status where a bot is currently located is a variable that is completely arbitrary, it follows no plan, purpose, or pattern, using it to define search and/or detection patterns for said bot is pointless. At any moment, that bot can change sec statuses. You're predicating the success of banning bots on their being located in high sec, which means you're going to miss the vast majority of bots in null sec, low sec and wormhole space. Thank god CCP doesn't think like you, or else they'd have announced at FanFest that they intended to stop pursuing bots outside of Caldari high sec, since that was where the largest majority of bots were at when they were detected. Of course, using your logic they might have also announced that they intended to weight their detection algorithms to favor finding players that chose Caldari, since most bots were Caldari characters. Or perhaps they should be targeting that one alliance that is able to claim 21% of all bots banned, weighting their algorithms to favor tracking and detecting botting activity in players that are apart of that group due to their predisposition towards botting.


How do you screw up answering a yes/no question? There are literally only two answers to it and even guessing has better than vegas odds.


It amazes me how vacuous you are, as I clearly did answer your question. I'm sorry if I'm too verbose for you. Here, let me put it a bit more simply, in order that you might finally understand: YES! SHIP SPINNING, SKILL POINTS AND GAMBLING LOSSES ARE JUST AS SIGNIFICANT TO FINDING BOTS AS THE SEC STATUS OF WHERE A BOT IS LOCATED AT THE TIME IT IS DETECTED. Sorry that I had to yell, but I didn't want you to miss anything. Let me ask you a yes or no question now: Do you want me to simplify all of my future responses so that you might keep up? If your answer is no, then why do you keep demanding that I simplify my answers now?


I'll repost the question and let you have one more chance at answering it.

La Nariz wrote:
Looks like its time for another yes/no question for you. Are various botting problems the same thing as SP/ship spinning/gambling losses?

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