How to fix the bot problem and make people happy

Happy now?


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.

B) Wrecks the games economy, invariably.

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.

In retrospect, Ive been too hard on you.

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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,

You do talk a lot of :poop:, admittedly.

I’m just glad you’re not in charge of the game, Salvos.

1 Like

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.

It’s irrelevant. Of course are both human and bot are playing the same game. It doesn’t justify your claim of bots not being harmful to it however.

How would you know that?

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.

2 Likes

We’d be having CAPTCHA all over the place and most players would get annoyed by it. It wouldn’t be EVE Online, it would be POPUPS Online. No, thanks.

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

Posts 3 pronged comprehensive strategy to reduce botting in EVE.

“Nooooo! You cant do that” and other nonsense as responses.

Dafuqman.

Its almost like you dont want to reduce botting.

Customers are like that, Salvos. They want what they want. Hard times for “gamemakers” like you.

Do you want botting reduced in EVE?

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?

Then why are you constantly, repeatedly, trolling any and all attempts to discuss doing so, and means of doing so?

Makes no sense.

I’m not. You only see what you want to see and keep ignoring what I’ve been telling you.

You’ve demonstrably been doing it here to my posts throughout.


I will ask again.

  1. How would YOU reduce botting in EVE?

Inb4 another even more ridiculous evasion of that simple question.

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.

Maybe scroll up and read it all again.

Saw it coming.

All he does is troll others against reducing botters, but will not provide a concise proposal himself to that end.

Inb4 “discussing how to reduce bots is against TOS/EULA”, again.

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.