Eve Bots - are they a bad thing, is CCP complicit in their use?

Communications Center General Discussion
752

This is a good start, but remember our goals are to have the least impact on actual players. “Active players” should have no effects to them, “semi-AFK players” should have a bot test, that when they pass it, it has no other effect on them, but failing the bot test should result in bad things.

Edit:

I was thinking something more along the lines of between waves, since the game client “knows” when it is sending the next wave of rats, it can not send rats while the bot check is being performed. So the ratter could be safe from an NPC problems while doing the bot check.

There would still be a danger from players, so that would have to be addressed or minimized. The first thought would be that a bot test might come with only a 10% (or less) chance between waves of rats, so a player couldn’t count on a distracted target, but I feel we have to do a little better then this.

Maybe the bot-check goes away if a non-blue warps toward you (the game client knows this long before you do), but a botter could automate an alt to do this every time the bot check comes up, so it would have to return once the ship enters wrap, and then they fail like a courier mission bot.

This is just off the top of my head, so feedback is welcome.

753

The reason I stated my examples were simply that over time it would reduce your isk/hr till you had no weapons systems left but a bot would simply just be running through their scripts/programs doing nothing.

Most would simply then hang in the same anom/site/etc able to tank it but never able to finish it and simply be a target floating out there.

754

in many ways your ideas are good, at least your making an effort in forming them.ccp on the other hand, said they would get back to me about my toons issue.Here’s the rub, I immediately asked for proof , non given. They have been combing my logs for a week now with no response, I know they won’t have one because there is bot like behavior.I do this game just to keep my mind active and if I stay up a whole night to finish 1 belt… shoot me.

755

What is particularly amusing, I never claimed that a bot evolves by itself, but that strategies are what evolve and that includes the strategies that bots use…strategies developed by their programmers.

You really have an issue with logic and reading comprehension don’t you.

Edit: Oh, and I never claimed it was a literal analog of Darwinian evolution either. That was something else you read into my comments.

756

Its a semantic argument Teckos. Nothing more, nothing less. I honestly dislike how many arguments dribble down into them at the bottom levels. Not just online but in real life as well. Yet such is humanity. And beyond which there is really no point in arguing at all I find. Its more about the win than about sharing information or learning at that point.

757

I see you are once again confused by the concept of a dictionary or unable to use one. “Coevolution” only has one meaning, and that is biological Darwinian evolution. So, when you used the word “coevolution” you were either claiming, or making an analogue to Darwinian evolution.

Coevolution does have two accepted computer related analogues:

  • One in hardware/software which is a cooperation model, not competition, so clearly not the analogue you were making.

  • The other is in machine learning, this one could apply to the topic at hand, so I assumed this was the idea you were going for regarding “coevolution”, but this requires the machine, or algorithm to change itself, not to rely on external forces to make those changes, EvE bots are not actual thinking evolving AIs, therefore “bots don’t evolve.”

  • Also both of these are analogues to Darwinian evolution.

You using words in your own private vocabulary way that doesn’t map on to any real meaning of the word, does not mean someone else has a problem with logic or reading comprehension. People can only understand what you actually say, not what you wanted to say, but used the wrong words for.

What you wanted to say, and what you are saying now is “the system that contains, builds, and fights against bots will evolve and result in better bots.” That is true, but that isn’t what you said, and that isn’t coevolution, that’s just evolution of a system.

Yes, it is. Because words have meanings, and you can’t have an argument without those words having meanings. All arguments are semantic arguments, or contain semantic arguments. An argument without semantics, would be called a physical fight; that isn’t a good form of argument and not even possible online. Maybe we could argue with emojis… no, they still have meanings so we would need semantics to argue with them.

But who is really “arguing semantics”? The one who says “you used the wrong words, but now that we have understanding, let’s drop it and move on”, or the one who keeps insisting that the words he used have different meanings than they have and so he didn’t use the wrong words?

There is no reason to argue over what words mean, it’s simple to just look them up: if coevolution has a meaning that is not biological, then just link a dictionary that gives a non-biological definition. (Hint: it isn’t Webster’s, dictionary.com, or even Wikionary.)

758

I applaud the cromulent use of words in this thread, and firmly believe they enbiggen us all.

2 Likes
759

Yet like with most semantic arguments its not just the words or their usage that is the issue. Its that though people understand what another is saying they simply refuse to give in or concede the point to move on beyond what is being said and ironically create a strawman argument using semantics to try to win the point logically instead and devolve the discussion into a fight about the correct usage of words rather than the actual topic at hand.

Ive found that usually after a few pages in a thread most of the initial flurry of information spread or trains of thought have devolved into personal attacks, or semantic breakdowns between the regular parties and arent worth discussing or reading further.

760

Whatever.

Returning to topic:

Bots and what CCP or we as players can do against them.

My bot-tests stands a chance of shaving 33-66% off all active, effective bot up-times whilst the botters are afk (such as at sleep, at work, etc). That might also be enough to make some substantial fraction of bot operations unprofitable, ending them, thus freeing CCP resources to investigate the remainder. The bot-test can also potentially be used to flag botter suspects.

  1. Can anyone offer an alternative that can beat that?

  2. Would you be prepared to solve a bot-test, 1/hr, that takes you mere seconds and a few clicks to pass, so as to cripple botter output by 33-66%?

761

Yes if the proposal worked but when they realize its difficulty to implement,don’t let marketing get a hold of it. Then it would turn into something like "For a recurring payment once every 7 days,you can ignore this captcha.

Fly safe Botter

1 Like
762

That would defeat the purpose.
CCP loses more cash via RMT by botters, the negative effects on the in-game environment, negative effects on player motivation ingame and overall publicity, than they can ever gain back via essentially allowing bots to run rife for a cash payment.

You are proposing a “pay to bot” cash option.
That will never happen. Surely you can see that.

I know you are half-joking, but this isnt helpful or a real concern.

763

In light of yesterdays debacle,Pgl’s altruistic or selfish highlight of Eve in the national media. That single event might be one of the last coffin nails needed to bury this game. We’ll see.

In any case yesterday won’t increase the revenue and your idea won’t be free. Market is an evil I’d not give a chance to grow roots any deeper than is already.

So yes,I am only half joking.

764

Your captchas would be bad game design. Period. You might drive off bots, but you’re just as likely to drive off players. The bots would adapt, but the players wouldn’t bother. You’re applying the false positive problem to literally every single player by assuming they are a bot and forcing them to prove otherwise. How does the player benefit from that mechanic?

Also, this entire discussion is pointless. You guys think CCP has never heard of captchas before? You think they don’t know how to scan for bots? Devs hate it when people try to take up the role of Jr Game Designer. I guarantee nobody at CCP is even reading this thread, or if they are, they are absolutely not taking it seriously. You guys are debating the feasibility things that CCP has already established as routine. Why should they be taking this thread seriously when you haven’t bothered to educate yourselves as to what CCP can already do? This discussion is so dumb.

No, if you want this thread to actually be productive, you take care of the one thing CCP doesn’t have. That is: CCP doesn’t give a ■■■■. You want to ruin CCP’s day enough to make them care? Make a public database that monitors bots. Name and shame, done by the players, public to the media. Make it super easy to use. Make pretty graphs and charts detailing how much bots likely made. Include standard $ values for that isk in both RMT values and plex values. Embarrass the hell out of CCP. Then they might start caring.

765

I’m not wasting my time or money. CCP can do something about botting or wallow in their trash. Its their livelihood not mine.

766

I have to agree with this. It took massive outrage and multiple threads about distro mission bots and bots in general for CCP to ban a token 1000ish accounts. Those accounts are likely already replaced and pressing on. Unfortunately, it looks like CCP is going to have to be shamed into getting more serious about dealing with this issue.

I get it…if they don’t care about banning bots, why should we? I barely have time to play, and I certainly am not wasting my play time doing CCP’s job for them. They have the ability to identify bots, but they seem to only occasionally ban a token number of them to attempt to appease the masses.

767

Completing a 5-10s minigame once per hour, is not much compared to shaving 33-66% off ALL bots potential up-time.

If someone is going to leave EVE cos they have to spend 5-10s/hr to solve a simple bot-test, then they can fk off for all I care.

HTFU.
5-10 seconds and a few clicks per hour is nothing,

You spent a months worth of time for solving these bot-tests per hour just by writing your whine here.

PS: You sound like a botter.

768

Also if I read your idea correctly,that it wouldn’t occur unless certain parameters went into action. To me that meant that those at their keyboard actually playing wouldn’t have to incur the captchas. Correct?

769

If this is addressed to me, no, its not correct.

You arent understanding the preventative nature of this suggestion.

Im suggesting a model that forces bots to fail whilst the botter is afk (such as asleep/at work/on vacation etc).

That sleep/work time can be presumed to result in -33% (sleep) to -66% (sleep+work) uptime on most bots.

As to the conditions under which this bot-test can occur, I have outlined them in a post above.

770

If I am actively playing,I won’t be allotted in with those who bot. That conveys a message I’d prefer to not part of.

Removing bots is the goal not active players. There would have to be a measure to differentiate without me being the utility.

Salvos sorry but I didn’t read all you posted past a certain point. I tried but honestly the squabbling about semantics and such turned me off.

If you recall I did point out that this thread had over 300 totally useless post.

771

You still dont understand the impetus.

My proposed bot-test does not prevent players from running bots whilst at their PC, provided they solve the bot-tests.

What it does, is prevent them from running these bots when they are afk, such as for 8hrd per day while sleeping + 8hrs per day whilst at work + Xhrs per day for other IRL concerns. It also stops bots that are built to run while they are entirely afk, for any amount of time, including a month long vacation afk.

Do you understand?

Take a moment, seriously, to wrap your head around the difference between how you are used to thinking, and what I am proposing.