These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The REAL reason CCP doesn't ban as many botters as you would like...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#21 - 2012-02-06 10:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mai Khumm
Thanks for reading my post, it's good to see that it wasn't insta locked and filled with trolls.

I"d like to point out a thing on your post if you don't mind.
Dr Asimov wrote:
You guys come up with the solution to their manpower issue and how to pay for it without cutting into their bottom line, and I would bet they would at least toss the idea around for a few minutes.


I'll quote myself here from the forum post you're reffering to...

Mai Khumm wrote:

Now a very simple solution to how (in my view) to fix the problem. The problem rests with the game itself. Well, any game with a botting problem in general. If any game can be scripted to the point where a program can be written to play the game without fail. That's THE problem. The solution is very simple, randomize EVE. Don't have everything scripted. Not only would this kill the bot problem, but it would also bring new life into a boring game.

As you can tell, I already have come up with said solution.

Now let me explain on how easy this is to do. About 4 years ago, part of an old Networking class we had an assigment to build and maintain a server that would host a service of our choice. I decided to pick a WOW server. That was quite easy to run and setup, but having access and the ability to modify everything in the game was the fun part. After the project was comlpeted me and a IRL friend started playing with the coding a lil bit. After some tiral and error we learned how to control NPC movement. It took the 2 of us roughtly a weekend to "randomize" an instiance called "The Deadmines" We managed to setup 5 different NPC layouts and behaviour. So now whenever a player would start the instiance the server would randomly choose one of the NPC layouts.

The only hard part was figuring everything out, and since CCP made the game themselves from scratch. Well.....there goes the hard part!

On a finall note...
Dr Asimov wrote:
Now if CCP really wanted someone to help with alot of the issues that make this game less appealing and increase their subscriber base and do more to make their bottom line larger they know how to contact me via this account.

Kinda tooting your own horn there eh buddy?
I highly doubt anyone from CCP is going to contact you, a random player. No knowledge of your background whatsoever, yeah they'll come crawling to you to hear your EVE saving solution.
Now as you snap out of la la land, the only real way to get noticed is by applying for a job at CCP, or buying a seat on the CSM.
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#22 - 2012-02-06 10:32:57 UTC
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
Chribba wrote:
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
It's sad that CCP doesn't want to implement proper behavioral analysis but I can imagine that this is not only a matter of false positives but also of server-side resources (when the bot detection takes more CPU cycles on the server than the bots cause, the whole unholy rage argument doesn't apply anmyore)
There are ways to easily spot some of the bots anyway - Linkage

/c

How do you know they are bots.

It's impossible to prove!
One can only just assume based upon their behavior at times right?

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-02-06 11:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
I don't think manpower is the issue.

Most bots use the local intel channel to operate, right?! So change local, simple.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Amsterdam Conversations
Doomheim
#24 - 2012-02-06 11:36:38 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
I don't think manpower is the issue.

Most bots use the local intel channel to operate, right?! So change local, simple.


No.

Don't try to cure the symptom, cure the disease itself.

It's like when your corn field has been destroyed by millions of crickets, you don't just plant more corn.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-02-06 11:43:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
I don't think manpower is the issue.

Most bots use the local intel channel to operate, right?! So change local, simple.


No.

Don't try to cure the symptom, cure the disease itself.

It's like when your corn field has been destroyed by millions of crickets, you don't just plant more corn.


No you spray your field (the game) with insecticide (gameplay changes) to kill off the crickets (botters).


It's ridiculous to expect CCP and the players to actively seek out, identify and then punish the botters. They will just create another account.

You have to change the game mechanics to make it more difficult for the bot programs to work. Sure they will adapt eventually but that's what humans are best at.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-02-06 12:14:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:

It's also funny how people think that bots use some type of python injection. All the bot programs I've seen so far are useless screen readers.

You didn't look very hard, did you?

I am mostly interested in bots that can do complex tasks like mission running. OCR bots are notoriously buggy and a mess to maintain.

There's a mission bot based on ISXEVE, there's Questor/DirectEVE and there's Eve Grinder which is still under development.

None of these works via OCR, all of these hook into EVE to call the client's python methods.

Features like using scan probes would be nearly impossible via screen-reading but are very doable via python injections as evidenced by Probe Helper (you didn't believe CCP came up with Alt+Drag on its own, did you? they backported some of the features of a well-known python injection script).

CCP already has a "first strike permaban for client modifications" policy in place (compared to the 3 strikes solution for OCR bots/simple macros) which is nice but not enough.

The client has to be hardened and even if this results in an arms race (ISXStealth & RedGuard might be seen as evidence for this) the case of WoW shows that at some point the botting community becomes so secluded and paranoid that "casual" botting is greatly reduced while the larger RMT outfits guard their private bots jealously from each other.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#27 - 2012-02-06 12:14:35 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
I don't think manpower is the issue.

Most bots use the local intel channel to operate, right?! So change local, simple.


No.

Don't try to cure the symptom, cure the disease itself.

It's like when your corn field has been destroyed by millions of crickets, you don't just plant more corn.


No you spray your field (the game) with insecticide (gameplay changes) to kill off the crickets (botters).


It's ridiculous to expect CCP and the players to actively seek out, identify and then punish the botters. They will just create another account.

You have to change the game mechanics to make it more difficult for the bot programs to work. Sure they will adapt eventually but that's what humans are best at.


Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#28 - 2012-02-06 12:17:46 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:

The client has to be hardened and even if this results in an arms race (ISXStealth & RedGuard might be seen as evidence for this) the case of WoW shows that at some point the botting community becomes so secluded that "casual" botting is greatly reduced while the larger RMT outfits guard their private bots jealously from each other.


The biggest thing that WoW did to combat bots was make gold fairly worthless by making the good loot impossible to trade.

Untradeable loot => No incentive to RMT => Less RMT

Problem is, doing that to EvE would be terrible.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-02-06 12:19:02 UTC
Is botting that big an issue?

This game does lend it's self to hysteria rather well and although I've seen many (pretty much all) miners exhibiting botting type behaviour (to the extent that I've been accused in the past), when I've been on TS with them, they're all real and chatting\watching trash tv\doing thier thing.

I'm not saying their aren't bots, I'd just like some kind of proof\statistics.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-02-06 12:38:55 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
I don't think manpower is the issue.

Most bots use the local intel channel to operate, right?! So change local, simple.


No.

Don't try to cure the symptom, cure the disease itself.

It's like when your corn field has been destroyed by millions of crickets, you don't just plant more corn.


No you spray your field (the game) with insecticide (gameplay changes) to kill off the crickets (botters).


It's ridiculous to expect CCP and the players to actively seek out, identify and then punish the botters. They will just create another account.

You have to change the game mechanics to make it more difficult for the bot programs to work. Sure they will adapt eventually but that's what humans are best at.


Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions.


I never said remove local (not in this thread anyway).

If a bot is programmed to dock when someone is in local... Always have someone is local... This could be an npc that players could identify but bots couldn't. Just of of the many ways to combat a simple problem.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Honnete Du Decimer
#31 - 2012-02-06 12:52:56 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:

It's sad that CCP doesn't want to implement proper behavioural analysis but I can imagine that this is not only a matter of false positives but also of server-side resources (when the bot detection takes more CPU cycles on the server than the bots cause, the whole unholy rage argument doesn't apply any more)


If code good it do most of the work. Human check and ban. Also problem for way ban is only account. No machine profile or IP or Mac code.

CCP also always make fat code. Need diet programmeur.

PMS [:p]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#32 - 2012-02-06 12:57:28 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions.
Totally awesome?

Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#33 - 2012-02-06 12:58:45 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


If a bot is programmed to dock when someone is in local... Always have someone is local... This could be an npc that players could identify but bots couldn't. Just of of the many ways to combat a simple problem.


If a player can immediately identify you ghost local, then so can a bot.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#34 - 2012-02-06 13:00:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions.
Totally awesome?

Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus.


Null needs a whole bunch of changes before removing Local wouldn't be massively harmful (you think it's depopulated since the sanctum nerf...), though I'm cautiously in favor of the idea.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-02-06 13:05:43 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:


If a bot is programmed to dock when someone is in local... Always have someone is local... This could be an npc that players could identify but bots couldn't. Just of of the many ways to combat a simple problem.


If a player can immediately identify you ghost local, then so can a bot.


lol

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-02-06 13:08:45 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Tippia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions.
Totally awesome?

Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus.


Null needs a whole bunch of changes before removing Local wouldn't be massively harmful (you think it's depopulated since the sanctum nerf...), though I'm cautiously in favor of the idea.


Removing local only affects the human players and will have no affect at all on the bots as stated before, they have direct feed into the interface and will recognize the forced client update everyone gets when someone new comes into local.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-02-06 13:14:32 UTC
Buruk Utama wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Tippia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions.
Totally awesome?

Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus.


Null needs a whole bunch of changes before removing Local wouldn't be massively harmful (you think it's depopulated since the sanctum nerf...), though I'm cautiously in favor of the idea.


Removing local only affects the human players and will have no affect at all on the bots as stated before, they have direct feed into the interface and will recognize the forced client update everyone gets when someone new comes into local.


So CCP could randomly update the client with a fake reading and the problem would be solved?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#38 - 2012-02-06 13:20:22 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Buruk Utama wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Tippia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Removing Local from Null would be akin to hosing your cornfield down with Agent Orange in an attempt to kill a couple dandelions.
Totally awesome?

Anyway, local needs to go regardless, so if it accidentally kills a bunch of bots as well, that's just a bonus.


Null needs a whole bunch of changes before removing Local wouldn't be massively harmful (you think it's depopulated since the sanctum nerf...), though I'm cautiously in favor of the idea.


Removing local only affects the human players and will have no affect at all on the bots as stated before, they have direct feed into the interface and will recognize the forced client update everyone gets when someone new comes into local.


So CCP could randomly update the client with a fake reading and the problem would be solved?


So then we **** off the human player with false data. Unless the client has some way to figure out which data is fake, in which case so does the bot.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-02-06 13:22:59 UTC
Why would the player even know about the false data. it's just code, right?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#40 - 2012-02-06 13:43:38 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Why would the player even know about the false data. it's just code, right?


If the false data is identifiable by the client as false and not meant to be displayed, then the Bot who's looking at said data can also identify it as false and not meant to be displayed and promptly ignore it.

If the false data is not identifiable by the client as false, then the client will display that false data and **** off the real players.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon