These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Update from Team Security (graphs within!)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#101 - 2014-07-29 17:30:04 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
Your graph is missing the absolute most important numbers: PLEX on banned accounts.


We have these numbers handy, PLEX is something we monitor very closely. As a result of this, we've found that most RMTers and botters tend to either sell or use their PLEX immediately.

I will discuss publishing these numbers in a future dev-blog, but for now they are actually included in the "ISK worth of assets located on banned accounts" graph shared here.

CCP Peligro - Team Security
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#102 - 2014-07-29 17:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Schmata Bastanold
I guess it was already answered somewhere in related devblogs but I will ask anyway: is there a chance of getting on your radar by normal innocent market transaction? I mean situation when I genuinely fit new ship for my lowsec derp and one or a few modules I buy happen to be sold by character on account connected to RMT/botting? I don't know if they actually sell something as ordinary as burst rigs and stuff like that or they go after high end items giving huge profits but what if? Or the hell with ordinary, what if I fit purple/green/blue golem?

On the other hand I can't imagine bot/RMT hunting without pretty solid automatic ways of minimizing false positives. And those market bots must make thousands of transaction per day so in short time you would get everybody flagged :) And you probably can't say much in this subject because that could reveal too much on your way of detection.

Invalid signature format
RomeStar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#103 - 2014-07-29 18:05:20 UTC
Just like Colombian cocaine CCP is only going to catch a small pct of RMT and in the end the cartel responsible for it will always come out ahead unless CCP can drain real bank accounts in RL.

Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
Reiisha
#104 - 2014-07-29 18:22:00 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:


Tippia wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
Greetings, honorable spaceship pilots,
I'm sorry, but I think you may have misposted.
This is EVE General Discussion… P

That aside, yay, graphs!


Shocked That 5-digit-liked posts count... o/ o/

Tippia is the General discussion logic automated defense system, or possibly a raptor of some nature that preys upon the belligerent misinformed.


Still only ranked #2....

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#105 - 2014-07-30 06:13:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Out of interest, are you able to tell if any if the chat spammers in Jita are bots? I'm thinking especially of those with perfectly consistent timing intervals. Just curious.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Anthar Thebess
#106 - 2014-07-30 10:44:26 UTC
Nemah Xadi wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Can you make information about what alliances are being in top 10 of RMT?
This could be very funny, and could persuade few people to check their members more often.


Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra (b0t) and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere will obviously be the top three. The largest rental alliances. How many normal players would pay billions/month for systems just so they can sit and rat all day...


Sorry but if you create alt alliance to hold renters - you are also responsible for their actions.
The moment you accept them to your alliance, the moment you get isk from rent.

I agree that disbanding main alliance is wrong , as those are totally different people.
If someone is giving place for someone else to use bots, or aquire isk for RMT and if this person/organization is gaining isk because of this.
Then i think this group can be held accountable at this level for other people actions.

If we have alliance that is constantly having issues with botting or RMT , and after a warning emails sent to whole alliance nothing changes . Then this alliance should be disbanded without possibility to recover all stuff connected to SOV ( if it holds sov).

CCP cannot favourite big alliances , or ignore some of them - as they are renter alliances.

RMT/Boting at high levels in alliance , after sending warnings , more or the same people still are doing RMT/Boting , next warning ... still issues.

"Because of braking rules (etc) this alliance is being disbanded ...now:

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#107 - 2014-07-30 11:03:33 UTC
inb4Tippia :)

Invalid signature format
ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
#108 - 2014-07-30 11:34:13 UTC
Over 7000 people got a first warning for ISK Buying, that's a lot. Do you not then see a problem with the game is so many people buy ISK? Risk v Reward perhaps?

Also why didn't you name and shame the alliances that were botting? (slide 34)
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#109 - 2014-07-30 16:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
ImYourMom wrote:
Over 7000 people got a first warning for ISK Buying, that's a lot. Do you not then see a problem with the game is so many people buy ISK? Risk v Reward perhaps?

Also why didn't you name and shame the alliances that were botting? (slide 34)






I think that boils down to accountability.

How would you feel if you were judged and vilified based entirely on the actions of a 3rd party ?
Actions that you possibly had no knowledge of.
Serene Repose
#110 - 2014-07-30 18:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Clicked expecting a CODE rant, left impressed.


Schmata Bastanold wrote:
inb4Tippia :)
very sly

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
#111 - 2014-07-30 18:23:38 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
ImYourMom wrote:
Over 7000 people got a first warning for ISK Buying, that's a lot. Do you not then see a problem with the game is so many people buy ISK? Risk v Reward perhaps?

Also why didn't you name and shame the alliances that were botting? (slide 34)







I think that boils down to accountability.

How would you feel if you were judged and vilified based entirely on the actions of a 3rd party ?
Actions that you possibly had no knowledge of.


I disagree entirely.

The eula got changed to make alliances accountable and those are significant percentages over just 2 alliances they should be called out.
Nemah Xadi
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2014-07-30 18:31:42 UTC
ImYourMom wrote:
I disagree entirely.

The eula got changed to make alliances accountable and those are significant percentages over just 2 alliances they should be called out.


Everyone knows who those two are anyway.

Not saying renter serfs and their masters should not be whipped...

Save Nemah!
Marc Durant
#113 - 2014-07-31 11:17:17 UTC
Lovely work although I'm not a fan of the new 3 strikes rule. 2 strikes should be enough; they get the message the first time, if they do it again they're obviously too stupid to poop and will do it a 3rd time anyway.

Yes, yes I am. Thanks for noticing.
Tantin Ra
Dark of Night Industries
#114 - 2014-08-09 09:28:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tantin Ra
Can a GM please clarify the strike policy. Does pre RMTing before the warning is it counted in strike one?
Anthar Thebess
#115 - 2014-08-09 10:51:18 UTC
Tantin Ra wrote:
Can a GM please clarify the strike policy. Does pre RMTing before the warning is it counted in strike one?

What is the difference?
Just don't do it.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Tantin Ra
Dark of Night Industries
#116 - 2014-08-09 18:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tantin Ra
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Tantin Ra wrote:
Can a GM please clarify the strike policy. Does pre RMTing before the warning is it counted in strike one?

What is the difference?
Just don't do it.


How it matters is if someone where RMTing before the first strike message stop in compliance to the first strike message and they don't count those pre RMting before that as part of the first strike then why give those players a hope that they can rectify their mistake?
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#117 - 2014-08-09 18:40:29 UTC
ImYourMom wrote:

The eula got changed to make alliances accountable and those are significant percentages over just 2 alliances they should be called out.


well, before you go on a witch hunt, there is additional info that would be needed:

1) How does the population of those 2 alliances compare to the other 8?
This is to make sure the equivalent of "This city of 20 million people has more crime than these 10 towns of 10k do, the city is much more dangerous" is not happening

2) of the 17000 bans for macro use, how many does that slide represent, as it does not seem to show the chars that are not in an alliance at all, so before the pitchforks get fired up, that would be useful.

3) Related to (1), what % of the alliance population does each of those segments represent. Take Alliance 8 for example: 4% of the alliance numbers, but, if that represents 20% of that alliances population then that is a significant number, and maybe the pitchforks should be waved at them, instead of if say, Alliance 1 (21% of the alliance related bans) bans only represent 5% of that alliances population.

Now, this information CCP has, but has not released in sexy graph form, although, I would like to see the "Not affiliated to any alliance" added to the Alliance bans graphic Cool

Fluffy Bunny Pic!