Ive never stated otherwise. You still dont understand the paradigm shift in addressing the bot problem from a human max activity/competency level (as a detection/prevention method), rather than a technical matter of what bots cannot, and cannot do.
The harm from bots to the game is not in the automation itself (thats just the mechanism/vehicle that enables it) its in the isk/materials they generate which:
A) Unfairly enrich/advantage a player involved in illegal actions of botting.
The attempt to explain how bots weren’t harmful is certainly speaking against you.
Your duration theory is also wrong, since a bot can have much faster response times, can input far more commands and faster than a human can, and because a bot is usually written by an experienced player, does it also give experience to the inexperienced noob. The amount of time a bot runs is merely proportional to the damage it does, but damage is being done.
But here is something you want to give a thought: account sharing. It’s also illegal, but what if three humans shared one account? They could in fact be playing 7-8 hours each. Their influence on the game according to your logic would be not damaging, because they are three humans. Yet we know it’s not allowed and in fact damaging to CCP’s revenue.
I understand the paradigm shift in how to deal with bots that I am putting forward is new to you, and outside the “box” you are used to thinking within.
Its a three pronged strategy:
Institute Delayed Local in Player NS to enable more bot hunting, with less intel to bots. This makes it easier for players to hunt/destroy botting ships.
Crunch client sent data in terms of duration/frequency/repetition of activity, so that “inhuman” rates are flagged by a program for CCP staff to review, per instance, and abject clear inhuman botting duration/frequency autobanned pending appeal. This makes it easier for the small security staff to parse data for suspect activity.
Institute a system of minigame popups, which occur when activity duratiin/frequency/repetitiin becomes suspicious, in circumstances that they wont paralayze a player, but will stump a bot. This prevents true-afk botting, which is the most harmful to EVE, its balance and economy,
Bots are restricted by the same command structure as players.
The game parses all actions into 1s parcels.
If a bot is submitting commands faster, especially multiple ones, than a human can, then viola, that just revealed a botter/scripter, per your own caveat above.
You still arent understanding what bots are, and are not.
Why?
Cos I would make botters and bot programmers lives far more difficult?
Makes no sense that you would say this.
Oh, wait… You have already admitted to botting in another game.
The minigame shouldn’t be too hard to automate. Probing sigs down would be harder, but if the bot-char has good scan skills and possibly implants, many relic/data sites in Highsec and Lowsec can be probed down in one go near celestials.
From my botting times can I tell you that we disassembled the game, changed its code on the fly, redirected calls, hooked interpreters into it to program the game, read out it’s memory, added new features and commands to it, etc… Scanning may only seem like it’s difficult, because it’s a 3D image for the player, but on the machine level is it merely about reading a few bytes. Some bots then don’t even use the game client, but they talk directly to the server and imitate a game client.
Yeah, I think this misunderstanding comes from people thinking that bots would be limited to being software versions of actual robots sitting in front of the computer and that there are no further possibilities.
Of course. Do I want the game to be ruined in the process? No, certainly not.
But how come you ask this question? You don’t even believe in the existence of bots you don’t see, and I doubt you’ve ever seen one. You probably only ever read about it. So how come you want to fight bots?
See? You keep doing it again. You keep ignoring what I’m writing, and you only see what you want to see. I’ve written several times what I think is best. Yet here you are asking me again.
You only keep ignoring it, you switch to some other thought of yours instead, and disregards my comments as offenses.
It’ll always be like this, Salvos. I cannot change the way you interact with people here on the forum.
Did you read it? No, you’ve ignored it again and turned it again down as an offense. It’s as if any comment, which doesn’t align with your thinking was bad.
, admittedly.