There is not even one bot in EVE capable of reliably hacking data/relic sites, especially not in Player NS, nor is there a bot, ANYWHERE in EVE capable of navigating the probe interface so as to find data/relic sigs in the first place.
THEY DO NOT EXIST IN EVE.
Period.
Your claim that they do, is false.
This is a claim of your own.
As I said, itâs fine you donât think the same. Itâs perhaps a bit naive to think they couldnât exist, or to claim they donât as if you knew the botting scene somehow. But may that as it be, Iâm fine with what you think. Just lets agree to disagree.
I didnât read beyond the OP, so I might have missed some at least somewhat sensible solutions to the problem. Removing local will do NOTHING to combat bots. I am in favor of delayed local + just a rough number of people in the system (to prevent the trivial âhey, now there are 2 in the system, hideâ), but letâs be real - it wonât help against bots. At least from the bots I saw (well, I have no proof, could be players, but they smelled âBOTâ to me): they run stuff aligned and start warping to a SS when someone warps on them, not when someone enters local. It would be an enormous waste of ISK to flee when a visitor comes.
The problem is that EVE is pretty easy to bot, as the game gives you all the raw data in a neat format. Generally there is no need to parse all that visual mess - a task that is easy for humans and a pain for a machine.
They dont exist in EVE.
Period.
There are no bots active in EVE that can reliably hack a data/relic can minigame, much less one that can probe the sig down in the first place.
Youâre right, but Itâs not just that. Players need to pick up a mindset where they completely rejected all a botter does. Of course itâs difficult to know who is and isnât, so I would just continue to play the game as normal as always. Like you say, they all look like botsâŚ
But when youâre sure youâve found one then players need to go straight over to reporting them. If they donât do this, but rather loot a botterâs wreck, then they are really just looting ill gotten items, which in a way makes them complicit.
This was already brought up for the Yulai event, where it was just a few ships. But if people think they can get easy loot by killing botters, then they are looting what needs to be removed from the game, because it was obtained illegally.
/facepalmâŚ
Do you think what Iâm saying is wrong?
Yes. Utterly.
What do you think /facepalm is meant to mean, if not that alongside the empathic shame that you are this far off the track to understanding what you are saying.
I wonât know until you get back on the topic. So you might just go straight to saying whatâs wrong.
I hadnt thought about it like that.
Best destroy their wrecks too.
Blowing up bots and looting them does not make you complicit in their ill gotten items or actions.
/facedesk yourself, repeatedly.
So if I had an account with a bot and a clean account, and I used the bot to gain items I shouldnât have, then use my clean account to shoot my own bot, shout in local âoh no, you got meâ and then loot all the stuff, should I get to keep them on my clean account?
While technically correct, there are quite a few assumptions made in your statement. The number of available combinations depends on the length of the game. A game that ends in 10 moves has far less combinations than one that ends in 50 moves. So you are assuming a certain length game. Additionally, a large majority of those moves do nothing to improve your position or actually make it worse, therefore chess players donât have to analyze every possible combination as long as their move is fundamentally sound. If you donât understand this concept, I suggest you read a book like âMy Systemâ by Nimzovich.
I think youâd find not many people agreeing with this conclusion. Just because player âAâ plays the game within the rules, while player âBâ cheats. You would be mistaken to jump to the conclusion that player âBâ is âbetterâ than player âAâ. More clever, perhaps, but since you are comparing two different systems, any qualitative judgement, in this case, is more opinion than fact. Itâs like comparing someone who plays pool within the rules of the game against someone who just places the balls in the hole by hand. While the second person has better results, it does not follow the second person is a better player.
One of the definitions of insanity is to keep performing the same actions and expecting a different result. CCP has been actively hunting and banning bots for years, to expect that it would be completely effective now, isnât logical. Changing some minor parts of the game to combat botting at least has a chance of adding to the effectiveness of their anti-botting efforts.
CCP has already acknowledged that the war can never been won. At best they can keep trying to win battles. I take it you would not even attempt this?
True, but they could contract this out and use the good press from this to lower their advertising budget. Only CCP can decide if this is the avenue they wish to pursue, but using people who have experience in this field, would seem to be more cost effective than attempting it in house.
This would be the balance challenge, you wouldnât have endless CAPTCHA challenges, it would be only one, that changes each week, that calls the encrypted challenge from a separate database. In my industry we use a daily changing call sign to verify the identify of certain phone messages, obviously EvE wouldnât need this level of protection, but a weekly or monthly change could increase the difficulty for bots.
Additionally, there is another factor. If CCP makes botting harder, certainly the botting programs will require more complex algorithms, you will drive the cost (and maintenance cost) of those programs up. The more expensive you make it, the less people will be inclined to pay for it.
Yup. Have been for some time now. Thereâs 3 types, roughly. One is based on an old framework of an eve player who got permabanned for botting and who decided to set up his own little venture. It is limited, requires manual tracking. Then thereâs something which we havenât seen in highsec yet, but which has been around the block in null, based on iteration of old intel/scout stuff where it is often used to map out holes to roll, but the base functionality is capable of running - afaik - relic and data types.
Then thereâs something which Iâve only heard about, so hear say, not yet seen or traced, but well letâs be honest, the recent organised bot ring that got tossed into the limelight was once super advanced and nobody had seen it. Turned out to exist.
The ânumber of atomsâ is simply an example to illustrate the complexity of chess. Iâm aware that itâs not completely random. I only didnât feel to go into further detail as he kept insisting chess was a linear game. There is just no point in arguing with such a mindset at that point.
That the cheating player âBâ is better than âAâ is implied. If the cheat wouldnât make the player better then there is also nothing to worry about and we wouldnât have this discussion. Hence did I not delve into further details how cheating may not make the player better.
The war against botters can only not be won, because it never ends. But each battle can become easier. I do believe hidden detection mechanisms are the best way to fight them, because what a player cannot see can also not be seen by the botter. The botter then wonât know why they got detected and so cannot adjust to it. Nor is CCP required to tell them exactly how they caught the botter. Visible changes to the game then can be seen and what can be seen can be fought. I believe CCP is already doing this and for many years. I donât see how else they could fight off so many while keeping the game fun and playable for us.
Thank you for coming to the thread, you didnât miss much, except trolls trying to obfuscate.
I would say that removing local wont remove bots, the point is making easier to kill them, so players remove bots with explosions, making them less profitable. Specially for the casual botter, perhaps not so much for the botting ring wich can be dealt by other ways.
To repeat my own previous comment :-
Which makes your question moot - if itâs been detected already itâs not successful.
Actually, thatâs not completely accurate. This is EVE, a lot is detected, not a lot is done with it. CCP knew of types of market automation, their economist at the time confirmed matters, yet nothing was done for years.
The argument was about Salvoâs claim that when a bot hasnât been detected it couldnât exist. The claim obviously ignores the nature of bots, which is to stay undetected. This is what Dravick was pointing out. What you say makes the entire problem of botting only worse of course, but Dravick is still right about what he said. Itâs irresponsible to believe bots couldnât exist when one didnât see them.
Why was this flagged?