These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Reason Why Removing Local would not fix the null botting.

Author
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#81 - 2012-02-07 07:09:09 UTC
you start inisisting girls exist on the internet?

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#82 - 2012-02-07 07:09:51 UTC
Dscan has a limited distance of 14 AU and cannot detect cloaked ships. All the player has to do is warp to the anomalies using the built in ship scanner and having a covert ops cloak at a distance so he doesn't get uncloaked. Probes are not able to detect cloaked ships either.

Assuming the bot is using D-scan, how would it truly know if the ship has left, cloaked, or logged off?

Local is the way of letting the bot know that they player is still in system with them. Removing local will make bots much more vulnerable to being killed.

Another way to stop bots is to somehow remove the possibility of python injection. Lock down the client making it impossible to for macro programs to extract information.
Valei Khurelem
#83 - 2012-02-07 07:12:06 UTC
Quote:
Oh I absolutely agree that the botters will just find another way. That is a given. But in the meantime why not make it just that much harder for them?


Yeah, I agree too, make it harder for botters easier for players, I really do question the agendas of people who are against this sort of thing that's all :p

Quote:

You need to learn how to use foundation, proper lighting, and take the nuts out of those chipmunk cheeks you got going there (or did you just get a root canal?).



Please stop trolling people who come up with better ideas and debate than you.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#84 - 2012-02-07 07:17:35 UTC
I have to aggre anything we could ponteially come up with t o counter bots would only work to a short amount of time before the bots figure away around it IF we keep making the game interesting for players and not ruin thier experince in the same manner.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#85 - 2012-02-07 07:22:08 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Quote:
Oh I absolutely agree that the botters will just find another way. That is a given. But in the meantime why not make it just that much harder for them?


Yeah, I agree too, make it harder for botters easier for players, I really do question the agendas of people who are against this sort of thing that's all :p

Quote:

You need to learn how to use foundation, proper lighting, and take the nuts out of those chipmunk cheeks you got going there (or did you just get a root canal?).



Please stop trolling people who come up with better ideas and debate than you.


I'm trying to figure out if your first bit is serious or not, but I'm just too dang tired to deal with subtlety tonight.

Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots. There are a few general exceptions to this, usually involving solving some sort of cultural/interpersonal problem. Given a multinational, multilingual, and multicultural game play, using this to sort out bots is a bad idea.

If you were being sarcastic, I'm sorry, carry on while I continue getting ready to sleep (I already accidentally closed my EvE client once).

"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

Valei Khurelem
#86 - 2012-02-07 07:42:48 UTC
Quote:
Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots.


I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually drunk and not just tired coming up with that sort of logic, there are certain things human players can't do far better than bots and it would also be easier for players to which is why I said what I did.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#87 - 2012-02-07 10:34:17 UTC
It occurs to me that if you have a score of bots spamming d-scan regularly for hours on end, some over zealous CCP dev might notice it and come take a look-see. So go ahead. Spam d-scan.

The more advanced bots use python injection and read data from the server without using the normal client. This is ofc a huge EULA violation. But the types that use these bots don't care. This method means nothing shows up on local because there is no local. They are omniscient, and thus you will never sneak up on them because they always know who is in system.

For everyone else, there's OCR.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

My Postman
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-02-07 10:41:10 UTC
There is no need of bot mining in null. They perfectly do it in highsec.

When at work i use a crappy laptop for some mining, i wouldnt use for other things because of module lagging. Today i visited 12 belts, 11 of them outmined, even scordite. They are sitting there, having 3 warrior 1 out (lol) and are online 23,5/7. I will defenatly try out one or two of those T3 BC.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#89 - 2012-02-07 13:02:50 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Hikaru Kuroda wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan


Most of the time you'll be running cosmic anomalies (as in null), which don't require to probe. You can find them with the System Scanner even when you're cloaked.


I was under the impression most people ran Combat Sites (the probe required kind) in WH space. But it's been a while since I've been out there.

Thanks for clearing me up on that.


Heh. I knew you were talking out of your @ss. Thanks for owning up to it. Yes Anton's are the bread and butter of WH space.
Raneru
Blades of Dawn
Stribog Clade
#90 - 2012-02-07 13:32:55 UTC
This topic has been done to death and despite all the arguments against I still think local removal for 0.0 is a good idea. However it can't be done just on its own without a revamp to the scanning mechanics and probably the contents of 0.0 systems.

Personally I think the arguments against all boil down to a few people not wanting to work together to live in 0.0 and earn isk. PvP, Incursions and Wormholes have shown that working together provides a richer experience than grinding content on your own (In my experience, your mileage may vary).


Jhan Niber
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2012-02-07 14:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jhan Niber
If it's true that most of the bots are using Python Injection to get around whatever a player would normally be aware of, then removing local won't change a thing. That said, in all my years of running around wormholes, I've yet to encounter a bot except when I jumped into Russian 0.0 space. If the bots weren't dependent on local for their situational awareness I would think you'd find a lot more bots in W-space. There is a lot of money to be made in W-space but it comes with much higher risk, primarily from the fact that local is absent. Having lived dependently on the D-scanner, I can think of a dozen ways to hunt down bots or at least interdict their activities, because I've been on both the receiving end and giving end of stalking in W-space.
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#92 - 2012-02-07 15:28:39 UTC
Andski wrote:
seany1212 wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Are you talking about WH space or Null? Cause Anoms in WH space pay a pittance compared to Sigs. Also, the sentence you quoted referred quite clearly to WH space.
.


lol, you're doing it wrong.

No local in null would shake things up a bit, for those alliances that build bubble fortresses on gates for there anomaly/mining ops would have to actually start manning the gates but it will never happen because the carebear nullsec'ers will cry too hard Roll


lmao you think people mine in nullsec like peasants

you're dumb


No, they farm like peasants. Mining is done these days with guns, you know?

Remove insurance.

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#93 - 2012-02-07 15:30:45 UTC
Patient 2428190 wrote:
What if the only time you would show up on d-scan is when you are 24km away from them?


What if the only time they would show up on d-scan is when you were 24km away from them? Have fun searching every single belt in EVE, every day, in the hope of finding something to kill.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#94 - 2012-02-07 15:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
Tenris Anis wrote:

Mining is done these days with guns, you know?


Oh? What race of tower runs on drone loot? Is it true you can jump a supercarrier with glossy compound in the fuel bay? Condensed alloy to light a cyno, right?
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#95 - 2012-02-07 15:41:27 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots. There are a few general exceptions to this, usually involving solving some sort of cultural/interpersonal problem. Given a multinational, multilingual, and multicultural game play, using this to sort out bots is a bad idea.


I have yet to see bots doing decent fleet actions. Bots are good in grinding, the problem is that currently the main income source of many eve players is grind. Grind anoms for null bears, grind missions for care bears. Grind ore for stupid bears. In all 3 areas bots reign supreme, because those areas of the game are repetitious, they are monotone and they are perfectly valid to with just one person involved. Actually all of them are often done by a single person, without bot involvement on multiple accounts with ease. While playing world of tanks. And with one hand on the back.

Our sources of income in eve need to be reworked if we want to stop bots reign supreme. We are currently playing wow in space with our daily missions or whatever else pays the bills. Naturally many people will be tempted to use bots, and naturally the will work just fine. (And as a site note, they proof how much risk is in null sec alliance space involved.)

Remove insurance.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#96 - 2012-02-07 16:37:08 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Quote:
Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots.


I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually drunk and not just tired coming up with that sort of logic, there are certain things human players can't do far better than bots and it would also be easier for players to which is why I said what I did.


Just about everything that's been designed to thwart automation has been successfully automated.
Captcha
Chess
2+2=? (Done cause it weeds out the laziest bots without hurting people)
etc.

Maybe procedurally generated content would be hard to bot, but it would certainly be doable.

"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
#97 - 2012-02-07 16:39:31 UTC
Tenris Anis wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Hard for Bots means Hard for Players. Easy for Players means Easy for Bots. There are a few general exceptions to this, usually involving solving some sort of cultural/interpersonal problem. Given a multinational, multilingual, and multicultural game play, using this to sort out bots is a bad idea.


I have yet to see bots doing decent fleet actions. Bots are good in grinding, the problem is that currently the main income source of many eve players is grind. Grind anoms for null bears, grind missions for care bears. Grind ore for stupid bears. In all 3 areas bots reign supreme, because those areas of the game are repetitious, they are monotone and they are perfectly valid to with just one person involved. Actually all of them are often done by a single person, without bot involvement on multiple accounts with ease. While playing world of tanks. And with one hand on the back.

Our sources of income in eve need to be reworked if we want to stop bots reign supreme. We are currently playing wow in space with our daily missions or whatever else pays the bills. Naturally many people will be tempted to use bots, and naturally the will work just fine. (And as a site note, they proof how much risk is in null sec alliance space involved.)


I meant to limit my statement to PvE activities, but I don't see why you couldn't make some bots to follow an FC's broadcasted (or IRC chatted) commands. Thing is that the fleet would instawelp if the FC got shot.

"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

Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#98 - 2012-02-07 16:54:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tenris Anis
RubyPorto wrote:

I meant to limit my statement to PvE activities, but I don't see why you couldn't make some bots to follow an FC's broadcasted (or IRC chatted) commands. Thing is that the fleet would instawelp if the FC got shot.


There are incursions, which are PvE, and which demand fleet action. But, yeah, I agree that it is possible to bot even fleets, but you run in way more problems. In general bots are good in predictable situations. And while actually computers play better chess than humans, most programmers of eve bots will not be investing that much time into their bots.
So increasing complexity to pve will limit bot use. More complexity can be achieved by increasing the numbers of characters involved.
More randomness would as well help, changing randomly spawns, escalations that drop you on the head, more variations. Players can deal better with this kind of stuff than common bots can.

Furthermore there is another advantage of making more pve content more group orientated. Not only humans are still better at this, but even when bot fleets arise, you will catch them more easy because if you get a fleet of them, you always get several accounts at once, which makes the use of bots more risky and less desirable.

And lastly, if we add more group stuff for null bears and low sec, we might silence the peeps who rant against incursions, but that is just a bonus.


http://xkcd.com/1002/

Remove insurance.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#99 - 2012-02-07 17:17:36 UTC
Tenris Anis wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

I meant to limit my statement to PvE activities, but I don't see why you couldn't make some bots to follow an FC's broadcasted (or IRC chatted) commands. Thing is that the fleet would instawelp if the FC got shot.


There are incursions, which are PvE, and which demand fleet action. But, yeah, I agree that it is possible to bot even fleets, but you run in way more problems. In general bots are good in predictable situations. And while actually computers play better chess than humans, most programmers of eve bots will not be investing that much time into their bots.
So increasing complexity to pve will limit bot use. More complexity can be achieved by increasing the numbers of characters involved.
More randomness would as well help, changing randomly spawns, escalations that drop you on the head, more variations. Players can deal better with this kind of stuff than common bots can.

Furthermore there is another advantage of making more pve content more group orientated. Not only humans are still better at this, but even when bot fleets arise, you will catch them more easy because if you get a fleet of them, you always get several accounts at once, which makes the use of bots more risky and less desirable.

And lastly, if we add more group stuff for null bears and low sec, we might silence the peeps who rant against incursions, but that is just a bonus.


http://xkcd.com/1002/


That sort of thing might work, but I'm not sure how to do it without hurting casuals. My big comparison finale is DRM vs Piracy. Each layer of DRM marginally hurts the pirates, but often significantly hurts the paying customer. In this case, making all income group based means that anyone who's unlucky enough to be at the margins of their groups TZ is going to be screwed for half their playtime. Randomness also tends to reduce income, since you can't plan your tank, so adding randomness would likely require a significant bump in income per rat, which runs into the problem of people running sites in ships bigger than expected (a site that requires a BS to drop some DPS for tank isn't going to touch a carrier's tank), look at L5s.

As for limiting bot use; from my understanding bots are mostly maintained by 2 types: The hobbyiest who would love to see a more difficult problem to solve, and the business person who's making a fair amount of money and would do the work to keep their bot working and making them money. So the arms race isn't going to run in CCP's favor, since CCP has to make a fun game AND protect it from bots at every angle, while bot makers need only find one unprotected crack to wedge open.

The incursion issue is the income.

"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

Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2012-02-07 18:11:50 UTC
Quote:
They can inhumanly press Dscan every second and if there is a newer entry than them they cloak up until number of entries matches them again.


Going to have to slap this down as completely wrong. Lets assume for a moment that noone is hacking the client to get local information where none exists in a non-hacked client. So, the bot is pressing Dscan constantly. Ok. Are you alone in the system? Do you tell your buddies, "Hey, noone Fing move cuz I wanna bot and don't want to be interrupted!!" or does the bot use OCR and qualify what it expects are friendly ships by comparing ship name with ship type? If it does the latter then what is to keep some baddies from naming their ships exactly the same and fly the exact same ships thereby defeating such a poorly designed "friendly" check? It gonna get ya killed boy!

RubyPorto wrote:
The real reason removing local is a terrible idea is that Null Income for real players is based on Anomalies which do not require probes to find.

WHs work without local because:
1) The income is higher
2) The income is based on sites that need to be probed down, so there's a chance of catching the probes or probe ship on DScan


#2 is completely wrong. In w-space these are the least profitable sites since 1) they're few and far between, 2) require time to probe out to find, 3) usually have some of the worst ribbon drops & 4) require time to hack or analyze for what amounts to a paltry sum in loot for the time required to open those cans in their respective classes of w-space.

I've actually just done a tour of nullsec. What I found is smart people run missions which cannot be pre-probed during periods of low activity by smart hunters. Anyone that does run the anoms in null have local to immediately alert them to POS up. Local also gives lead time to anyone running missions that there may be someone about to probe out their mission site. A smart missioner is going to POS up immediately.

You're right though, removing local won't eliminate bots. But, it will make it easier for people to find them and attack them. Mission bots only need to look for probes on dscan, sure. Then again you're going to have a greater chance of catching a bot while its performing some other function than dscanning without local. With local, you've got no chance at all.

There are no perfect solutions. There are, however, deterrents that are easy & cheap to implement such as no local that will empower the real players to be able to further deter botting by finding them and killing them. At the worst, no-local will make it more expensive for botters to operate because there are a number of scenarios that would require them to invest in more accounts and equipment in order to develop a perfect system intel network for which local is now used. At best, it'll cost botters lots more isk in ship & equipment replacements.

Don't ban me, bro!