These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Paranoid Loyd
#261 - 2014-05-17 21:14:39 UTC
Bot^ Lol

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Dave Stark
#262 - 2014-05-17 21:17:51 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Bot^ Lol

damn, you caught me.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#263 - 2014-05-17 21:41:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:

Do you have numbers that back up the assertion that bots are more prevalent in high sec?

Can you show how many bots there are in high sec as compared to null sec, or can you only show us what CCP tells us they caught?


Yes, I posted the video showing you this.

Again yes, I have already shown you this in the video I posted. I even linked you directly to the times they showed where the bots are located by region.


You're kidding, right? You cannot be serious with this. You can't honestly be that fatuous. Here, let me quote what I was replying to in the hope that you'll see why I was making that argument. I won't hold out much hope, but I will hope.

admiral root wrote:
Do you have numbers to back that up? Can you prove how many bots there are, as opposed to how many CCP tell us they've caught?


Now I don't see you arguing with him that bots constitute a tiny minority of players in high sec, so I'm going to have to assume you're being willfully obtuse in an attempt to inflate your own ego by "refuting" my arguments. Next time, however, I ask that you not cherry pick quotes in this manner and instead stick to only true statements.

Andski wrote:
"there's no evidence that highsec is home to most of the bots in the game because the only numbers show many bots have been caught, therefore, most bots operate in 0.0"


I'm going to have to ask you to do the same thing. Please try to keep up with the conversation, or at least read the post you are quoting instead of inserting your own twisted version of statements. It's quite childish of you, though it might help explain why you're proud of your Twitter account. Having realized that forming cohesive arguments greater than 140 characters was beyond your reach, you fled to a place where no one could argue against your fantasies in a meaningful way. Or, to put it in a manner you're most likely to comprehend:

u mad bro?

baltec1 wrote:
They wouldn't be ignoring anything.


Well they would have to be ignoring something at least some of the time, otherwise they wouldn't be able to spend the majority of their time and other resources watching high sec. You do remember that you've been arguing against mine and Mr Epeen's opinions that CCP should target botting across all of EvE simultaneously, right? You've been arguing this entire time that they should use the majority of their resources for high sec, which would require that they ignore at least some of low sec and null sec some of the time, otherwise they'd be monitoring everything concurrently and you'd be arguing the same point as we are. Have you suddenly seen reason and changed your mind to be in agreement with us?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#264 - 2014-05-17 21:52:29 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:

baltec1 wrote:
They wouldn't be ignoring anything.


Well they would have to be ignoring something at least some of the time, otherwise they wouldn't be able to spend the majority of their time and other resources watching high sec.


And now we get to the root of your misconception.

You're assuming that they already don't have their eyes on highsec.

We are maintaining that they already do. And that it should stay that way.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#265 - 2014-05-17 22:13:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:

baltec1 wrote:
They wouldn't be ignoring anything.


Well they would have to be ignoring something at least some of the time, otherwise they wouldn't be able to spend the majority of their time and other resources watching high sec.


And now we get to the root of your misconception.

You're assuming that they already don't have their eyes on highsec.

We are maintaining that they already do. And that it should stay that way.


Of course they should be keeping an eye on high sec. I've been arguing that they likely monitor botting in a general manner, and arguing that is how it should stay, the entire thread, and monitoring botting in a general manner means they're going to be "keeping an eye" on high sec. I'm glad you finally came to agreement with us that CCP shouldn't switch to applying enforcement for botting in a lopsided manner. Doesn't it feel good to finally take a stand against botting where ever it might occur, whether that be high sec or low sec or null sec? Welcome to the side of right! It took you a long time to get here, but the journey is half the fun I guess.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#266 - 2014-05-17 22:13:13 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:

baltec1 wrote:
They wouldn't be ignoring anything.


Well they would have to be ignoring something at least some of the time, otherwise they wouldn't be able to spend the majority of their time and other resources watching high sec.


And now we get to the root of your misconception.

You're assuming that they already don't have their eyes on highsec.

We are maintaining that they already do. And that it should stay that way.


The only misconception I am seeing is the moronic single minded belief that bot searches should be tied to location rather than doing it right. Blinding yourself to the obvious doesn't make you right. It just makes you blind.

Mr Epeen Cool
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#267 - 2014-05-17 22:19:53 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:

Of course they should be keeping an eye on high sec.


Glad you agree.
Quote:

Doesn't it feel good to finally take a stand against botting where ever it might occur, whether that be high sec or low sec or null sec?


You can't kill as many miners as I have without killing a crapload of bots into the bargain. So I've been doing that for years now.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#268 - 2014-05-17 22:31:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:

Of course they should be keeping an eye on high sec.


Glad you agree.
Quote:

Doesn't it feel good to finally take a stand against botting where ever it might occur, whether that be high sec or low sec or null sec?


You can't kill as many miners as I have without killing a crapload of bots into the bargain. So I've been doing that for years now.


Well until just now you've been adamantly opposed to CCP focusing their anti-botting efforts across all of New Eden, instead arguing that they should almost entirely focus their efforts on high sec and leave null sec free for botters, so I'd say you only took a stand against botting in high sec before. It's just great that you're finally willing to agree that CCP should be applying their enforcement across all of New Eden in a meaningful and efficient manner instead of applying it in a lopsided and backwards way like you were arguing prior. I'm truly proud of you, finally standing up and saying botting in null sec is just as serious an offense as botting in high sec. Congratulations. Like I said, it took a long time, the journey was arduous, but here we are. I didn't really believe you could do it. Not even a little bit. But it's good to be wrong once in a while. Keeps me humble.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#269 - 2014-05-17 22:35:24 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:

Of course they should be keeping an eye on high sec.


Glad you agree.
Quote:

Doesn't it feel good to finally take a stand against botting where ever it might occur, whether that be high sec or low sec or null sec?


You can't kill as many miners as I have without killing a crapload of bots into the bargain. So I've been doing that for years now.


Well until just now you've been adamantly opposed to CCP focusing their anti-botting efforts across all of New Eden, instead arguing that they should almost entirely focus their efforts on high sec and leave null sec free for botters, so I'd say you only took a stand against botting in high sec before. It's just great that you're finally willing to agree that CCP should be applying their enforcement across all of New Eden in a meaningful and efficient manner instead of applying it in a lopsided and backwards way like you were arguing prior. I'm truly proud of you, finally standing up and saying botting in null sec is just as serious an offense as botting in high sec. Congratulations. Like I said, it took a long time, the journey was arduous, but here we are. I didn't really believe you could do it. Not even a little bit. But it's good to be wrong once in a while. Keeps me humble.


Congratulations on putting words in to everyones mouths I guess.

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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#270 - 2014-05-17 22:46:06 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:

Well until just now you've been adamantly opposed to CCP focusing their anti-botting efforts across all of New Eden


Not in the slightest. That's just something Epeen makes up because he's categorically unable to actually address real positions taken by real people.

What I am arguing is that CCP is already focused on highsec, by virtue of highsec being the vast majority of botting. Some people on the other hand think that nullsec should get more than it currently does. People like the OP.

And I disagree with that, and the entire premise of the thread.

Now stop misconstruing things, kay?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#271 - 2014-05-17 22:49:54 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
What I am arguing is that CCP is already focused on highsec, by virtue of highsec being the vast majority of botting.


You know that CCP focuses on every area equally right? And you know that regardless of what anyone says they will continue to focus on every area equally right?

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.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#272 - 2014-05-17 22:50:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Xavier Higdon
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. He repeatedly argued that CCP should instead be splitting their attention up, focusing on high sec between 60% and 80% of the time and only giving null sec 10% of their attention. That would, obviously, leave null sec open to botters since they could operate knowing that they have only 1/6th to 1/8th, or less, the chance of being caught as they would have in high sec, where he has wanted CCP to focus almost all of their attention.

Now, to be honest, I am putting words in his mouth. He is still adamantly opposed to CCP targeting botters across New Eden in a manner that isn't lopsided and backwards. He, undoubtedly, still believes that CCP should spend nearly no effort on banning botters in null sec, and should instead focus almost all of their efforst on banning botters that only operate in high sec. I just couldn't help myself. Had you not come along, I'm sure I could have kept him going for at least another 5 or 10 posts. Which would have been fun. Congratulations on keeping me honest I guess.

Mallak Azaria wrote:
You know that CCP focuses on every area equally right? And you know that regardless of what anyone says they will continue to focus on every area equally right?


No, he seriously doesn't. That's been the focus of this argument since Mr Epeen stepped in. Well, that and the fact that he believes that if CCP doesn't focus their attention near exclusively on high sec now, they most certainly should. It's kind of ironic, though, that I've seen posts of his berating people for conspiracies, and yet here he is perpetuating one of his own. That being his notion that CCP actually thinks like he does, with a null sec vs high sec mentality, and that they side with null sec and therefore don't(or shouldn't) enforce their botting policies equally across all sec statuses.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#273 - 2014-05-17 22:54:51 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
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. He repeatedly argued that CCP should instead be splitting their attention up, focusing on high sec between 60% and 80% of the time and only giving null sec 10% of their attention. That would, obviously, leave null sec open to botters since they could operate knowing that they have only 1/6th to 1/8th, or less, the chance of being caught as they would have in high sec, where he has wanted CCP to focus almost all of their attention.


Ironically, CCP catch botters with an automated system that does not discriminate based on what area of space a person is botting in as does pretty much every large multiplayer game out there & this is unlikely to change. Also bot reports do actually work, but only if they can prove the person is actually botting.

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.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#274 - 2014-05-17 22:58:41 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
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. He repeatedly argued that CCP should instead be splitting their attention up, focusing on high sec between 60% and 80% of the time and only giving null sec 10% of their attention. That would, obviously, leave null sec open to botters since they could operate knowing that they have only 1/6th to 1/8th, or less, the chance of being caught as they would have in high sec, where he has wanted CCP to focus almost all of their attention.


Ironically, CCP catch botters with an automated system that does not discriminate based on what area of space a person is botting in as does pretty much every large multiplayer game out there & this is unlikely to change. Also bot reports do actually work, but only if they can prove the person is actually botting.


Maybe if he hears it from you, he'll be more likely to believe it. I haven't been able to make any headway with him in about 200 posts.
Mistah Ewedynao
Ice Axe Psycho Killers
#275 - 2014-05-17 23:01:37 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:


Ironically, CCP catch botters with an automated system that does not discriminate based on what area of space a person is botting in as does pretty much every large multiplayer game out there & this is unlikely to change. Also bot reports do actually work, but only if they can prove the person is actually botting.


And you know this how? Question

And yeah bot reports work eventually in high sec. Seems like to have to report them 10 or 12 times for something to happen though.

PLUS...botters are part time botting...they'll be semi afk monitoring their bots while not full on automating everything.

Nerf Goons

Nuke em from orbit....it's the only way to be sure.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#276 - 2014-05-17 23:04:49 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
What I am arguing is that CCP is already focused on highsec, by virtue of highsec being the vast majority of botting.


You know that CCP focuses on every area equally right? And you know that regardless of what anyone says they will continue to focus on every area equally right?


Yes. While I have little idea as to how their detection software actually works (possibly a system time input monitor), I am aware that it applies equally across all areas of space.

But when I say "focused" I mean this is where the majority of the bots are caught, where the bans are handed out, and where the bots that went under the radar still remain.

The majority of the bot detection and banning takes effect in highsec, by virtue of highsec being the culprit for most of the botting.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2014-05-17 23:15:56 UTC
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.

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
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#278 - 2014-05-17 23:18:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
What I am arguing is that CCP is already focused on highsec, by virtue of highsec being the vast majority of botting.


You know that CCP focuses on every area equally right? And you know that regardless of what anyone says they will continue to focus on every area equally right?


Yes. While I have little idea as to how their detection software actually works (possibly a system time input monitor), I am aware that it applies equally across all areas of space.

But when I say "focused" I mean this is where the majority of the bots are caught, where the bans are handed out, and where the bots that went under the radar still remain.

The majority of the bot detection and banning takes effect in highsec, by virtue of highsec being the culprit for most of the botting.


The only focused part about the whole thing is it focuses on bots. Where bots operate is interesting, but mostly irrelevant.

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.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#279 - 2014-05-17 23:19:30 UTC
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.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#280 - 2014-05-17 23:21:26 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.


Well I'm sure Dinsdale would disagree with this. Clearly CCP avoids banning botters that are members of the nullsec cartels that control CCP, as evidenced by the information provided during the Team Security presentation.

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.