Devblog: Update On Chat System Issues


(Solonius Rex) #444

From now on, once a week, every week, local will randomly stop working.

New Anti-bot measure from CCP, perhaps?

(yamamoto suhara) #445

how about 30 sec delay to local?they need to finish this botting cancer that spread all over eve…nerf the anom,make them scanable like ded sites,stop with this infinite spawn bulshit…we dont need bots we need active players that create content.No wonder why player base gone down, ur game right now is boring and not much content left

(shaun 27) #446

I think they have started to already at least in abyssal sites. With the changing environment ie rock placements caches different spawns I would think this makes it very hard to bot.

Just need to implement this is missions etc should make it harder but I haven’t a clue how advanced these bots are tbh.

(zluq zabaa) #447

yeah but that’s not only because of bots. actually I think that there are so many bots now, because the game is reduced to idiot mass allocation of ressources and people, thanks to stupid things like endless respawns. if the way to win is reduced to such simple forms of getting more and having more, bots thrive perfectly in that environment and players become quickly bored. the ones who give in to joining the way of the null blob gatherer may become bored a bit later, but they’re not playing EVE, they’re just playing Rorquals online.

(Solonius Rex) #448

Bots can and do scan down anoms so that won’t fix it.

What they need to do is find a way to implement more active system where humans need to input something. I dont see any other way for bots to die out.

(Buoytender Bob) #449

I agree that more active human imput would be part of the solution, but I wonder if you could also make it so that not only the bots adversely affected, but null sec is made more open for gameplay. I freely admit that the following idea/concept may ruffle some feathers in null sec, but the most profitable and apparently most abused botting takes place there. I would appreciate feedback from those more familiar with null sec,intelligence channels, and botting. Perhaps it would cause too much disruption in the current NS status quo or is beyond the current capabilities of CCP.

What I propose is that CCP implement an AI that creates ships that have zero offensive capabilities, but are invulnable to PC damage. These ships would travel system to system at irregular intervals, occassionally stopping at belts/planets,etc. They would be capable of possibly responding to local chat. They would come in all warship classes. They would even have a small KB precense.They would be seeded in areas where bots were reported AND initial CCP investigation supports that conclusion (avoids reporting griefing). The concept goes:

  1. The recent breakdown of chat channels and especially local showed a dramatic increase in bot deaths as the program no longer had any reporting when a neutral entered the system. The AI would create a system where 1 or more neutrals would show up in the system, moving from system to system via gates like a PC would.

  2. Since botting programmers would then default back to cloaked or perched spotters at the gates, the AI entering and leaving systems like a normal PC would render those lines of programming ineffective.

  3. This would make most botting programs obsolete and reduce the botters to a much smaller pool of available programs, making them easier to spot,track and trace for Team Security.

The goal is to make local much less available for botting programming. It also removes in part the blue donuts of NS, as now neutrals could show up in any system. Since these AI ships cannot harm or interfere with a Pc’s actions, there is no real threat. However, now every afk miner,VNI rather, etc. has to wonder if the neutral is AI or PC. Of course, shooting the AI ship would reveal that they are invulnable (vairable) and could be ignored. AI ships would have random names which would be deleted every week or so; this allows for active corps to gather a list of harmless ships, but rotates it enough to discourage including in a bot program.

Perhaps these would be too disruptive for NS’s current meta and it obviously wouldn’t be useful in HS, but it would be able to duplicate the environment we saw this last weekend and perhaps make it such that botters become a bit too complacent with neutrals. It would also shake some of the NS community out of their current rorquel and ratting afk habit. Workable in some form or not?

(Daichi Yamato) #450

More human active input in a 1hz server game?

(BlackSnowX86) #451

u dont need to take it outside of the game. the irc client integration to eve client its only 350 lines and 4 dll librarys, i already integrate it to other game clients. private servers. and since an irc is actually a dedicated server capable of holding thousands of channels. its native for it. and the reqs. pfff. very low. a p1 with 1Gb or ram and only 2 gb of Hd can literaly hold. all eve coms. including mails service.

(Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris) #452

But IRC is old and vulnerable to abuse. If i recall correctly it sends messages over internet unencrypted/in plain text and with some proficiency it might be possible to connect to multiple local chats at same time using 3rd party client without launching EvE client at all.

(Sebs Pride) #453

Thank you for the update.

(Bones Outten) #454

You have been disconnected from chat system…
You have been reconnected to the chat system…
You’re jumping from system to system too fast in your Leopard, the chat system has given up trying to connect you to system chat, please wait till you sitting comfortably at your destination to reconnect to chat system.
Your fleet has stopped chatting to you, please use TS, Mumble, Discord, as we cannot reconnect you to fleet chat period.
You cannot invite people to this chat, even though there are no permissions for invitees, just moderation etc. Please go out of game & create a link to the chat channel to allow you to direct people from Your/Corp/Alliance Bio into this chat.

I was thinking that CCP just don’t want scammers etc. in chat but making it unworkable, at least gets us to look for alternatives outside of CCP products :smiley:


(Bones Outten) #455

Also when they test new items on Singularity, with some half assed 2mil sp for a month or so, they only get 400 odd real players to test the new gear. I stopped doing Singularity testing after the SP kept getting deleted. If you want us to test your developments compensate properly, then you’ll have a few thousand people load testing rather than a measly few hundred. Just a couple of isks worth.

(Nevyn Auscent) #456

Wants more people in on the mass tests, says they refuse to test because CCP copies the active DB over from TQ to Sisi regularly and they don’t get to keep their free SP on a server that doesn’t matter…
See the slight problem in your complaint there?

(Oreb Wing) #457

I found I did have a bad RAM module. Running with one stick now on a new SSD and fresh OS and had zero disconnects.

The frame drops from simply typing confused me. Anyhow, thank you for your input.

(Khan Wrenth) #458

Well Devil’s Advocate here…I don’t think they need any more players than they already get. Has CCP ever directly asked for more players? I’ve done a few mass tests in my time. I did it for the fun of it, since as you pointed out the SP was irrelevant anyway. I’ve seen no shortage of people, ever.

Other side of Devil’s Advocate now…if they wanted to up participation, it wouldn’t kill them to offer a real tidbit reward, either. Like, one day’s worth of SP for TQ. I don’t know precisely how much that is. 2,000 SP or something? So, it’s not much, but it rewards you for taking time out of your game to help test, so it’s a nice “thanks” from CCP. It’s also not overly much so people feel a dire need to get it. And mass tests are also not that frequent, so I doubt it could really be seen as something that would unbalance the game. They do what, around four or five per year? So if you participated in all mass tests and got one day’s SP for those…you’d get around five days worth of SP per year. You get about as much from the Christmas presents.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for that. I’m saying if CCP actually did need to up participation (which they appear to not have any need for), they could afford to do something a bit more real than temp SP on a server that doesn’t matter.

(BlackSnowX86) #459

not necessarily, if an encryption protocol is used

(CCP Explorer) #460

This is more complicated than it sounds. The ejabberd’ cluster is using AWS’ environment and is using the RabbitMQ message bus we host in AWS.

We have been working closely with AWS on the issue of Russia blocking AWS IP addresses, affecting Chat, Launcher, Download on Demand, Search, Activity Tracker, ESI and other services we host in AWS. As of this past Monday we are hoping to have that issue resolved.

(CCP Explorer) #461

Indeed the outstanding issue is the presence traffic, people joining and leaving Jita, that is the issue.

(CCP Explorer) #462

We did not.

(Nathalia Itiero) #463

I love how there are tons of suggested solutions and claims that X is better than the system CCP is currently trying to get to work. We as the players have absolutely no idea what the actual issue causing these problems is.

The Jabber protocol and ejabberd are well documented and well known, and there are performance metrics There are tons of other possible chat protocols out there, but suggesting any of them without having inside knowledge about actual problem is pointless.

Hopefully CCP evaluated a set of possible protocols/systems based on some criteria, for example being able to handle the current messages per second, joins/leaves to channels per second and so on, and did a bunch of testing before they replaced the old system.

@CCP_Explorer I’m assuming multiple systems/protocols were evaluated? My point here is that since we didn’t make the system we have no clue, and blaming “the cloud” for anything or saying “WHY DIDN’T YOU X” doesn’t solve anything.

FWIW Matrix is pretty cool, but I have no idea if anyone has tested the pattern of messages and join/leave/whatever we have in EVE against it. I suspect that the problem isn’t handling the amount of messages per second but rather perhaps a problem with thousands of clients leaving/joining jabber channels at the same time and so on? I’d imagine ejabberd isn’t exactly built for that.