No. I read what is there and I can see more in oplek’s suggestion than you. That’s all.
Why do you have to be so negative towards his suggestion? Why do you want it to fail so badly? Because you cannot come up with good suggestions of your own?
What “you see there” in regards to Valkyries FPS view flight systems is in your own head.
He never suggested or proposed that, or even hinted at it.
All he said, was removing orbit/approach/keep range flight commands, which also can exist in FP perspective and with otherwise manual piloting systems.
You seemingly cant differentiate between what was actually said, and how you twist it in your own mind,
It’s called “imagination”. Do you have imagination?
Well you two got into a discussion that I can’t possibly look through at the moment. My writing had nothing to do with that. I first thought to write a few thousand words about botting in order to make up for the huge difference in technical knowledge people have. It’s probably a waste of time though, so I’ll just conclude without showing the way to it:
- Any technical measure that can be taken without too much cost should be employed. However, those will only ever force botters to become more professional in the arms-race. It’s not bad, but such solutions would need to make the effort to re-program bots higher than the effort to manually mine/rat.
- Any non-technical measure will have to look at why people are botting and why - in a non-technical way - botting provides an advantage. However, possible results of these questions would ask for in-depth changes of how the game works.
- The game should not suffer more than it gains from any measure. See what Whitewold said, it’s important:
That in mind…
Fair enough. No solution has to address every aspect, but the question remains if it even addresses the one thing it claims.
It depends. In the specific case, which is employing more bot-chars to check for bot-hunter movements on gates, it is trivial to automate in a way that is near undetectable, unless the game had sole superuser rights to the player computer. This doesn’t even require any input automation into the client or any manipulation of data streams, it is just digitally recognizing signals that are provided by the game.
Delayed local will be good for many reasons and it will force botters to adapt or die and that might be good enough for now. In the long run, they will adapt, because it’s trivial to do so.
Yes, I think it is fair to assume so, but it’s also fair to question that.
In general it would be one of the first things that could be employed client-side. The coordinates of a mouseclick will determine if a certain area is hit and thus how it is to be interpreted against the current layout of the client. This data could be saved short-time and overly accurate repetition or timing would be a strong indicator of botting. It’s one of the typical things done against botting, but as I said, it can be circumvented.
Yes I understand that. The obvious problem is that there first needs to be a flag. If that doesn’t occur because a bot uses aforementioned ways to evade simple detection mechanisms, this flag won’t be set. Possibly players won’t have to face these tests either, but only if implemented correctly. If so, then this will really only trap the most simple bots, which anyway would already be determined by input automation detection.
So, if it’s too strict, players and bots will suffer alike. If it’s not strict, it will have no effect.
Sure, there are no such bullets. The fight against botting on a technical level is an arms race where the Devs are always somewhat on their back foot. The solutions presented in this thread largely fall behind the things that should already be in place. Because they are so well-known and established, I’d assume CCP is already employing them and more. One may assume otherwise, but this implies that CCP is unwilling to really fight bots. If that is the case, this entire discussion is happening under false premises. If not, if I’m right in my assumption and they already do the established stuff, it’s time to move beyond that and think “what can be done” in a way that tackles the issue from other angles.
You cant “imagine” what was said, to be anything other than what was said.
They said what they said and meant, your “imagination” of that is completely in your own melon.
This explains a lot about you, and how you cant comprehend what is being said, because you “imagine” it as something it was not.
And yet do you play a sci-fi space game.
It’s just a 2018 mating ritual.
5 Likes
EVE doesnt exist in my imagination.
It exists as what it is.
Jesus Christ, Whitehound… Like must be very difficult for you like this.
A science fiction.
No.
It exists as a sequence of code, programmed by people, as represented ultimately by a binary system, electronically and by charge, on physical computer platforms/hardrives and made apparent by processors.
There is nothing (science)fictional or imaginary about the existence of EVE, as a product offered by CCP.
Wake up to the real world.
When someone says or writes something to you, thats what it says.
Your imagination about it has nothing to do with it, except in your own head as superimposed to ambiguate what objectively is all that was put to you.
I know people like you that cant make that differentiation and its sad.
You will be forever misunderstand, and be misunderstood, because you wont take what is there as simply what it is, and instead live in your own “imagination”.
True, and yet you cannot imagine how a bot can access and manipulate it to over come popups and other mechanics you wish to put in place. A player will certainly have to deal with these things on the sci-fi end, meaning, on the screen and in the middle of space. Maybe while he is having a fun time chasing a foe, only to be interrupted by a popup. A bot however has no imagination, no feelings, and can just ignore all the sci-fi stuff.
I can imagine it.
But its not real at this time, and not for the foreseeable future.
AIs/bots are very stupid at dynamic problem solving.
You are grossly underestimating the difficulty/effort/time/resources of programming a bot to solve the system of minigames I proposed.
Well, I guess when I told you that write software and I’ve written bots for HG:L, you’ve only picked up the part about me using bots, did you?
May that as it be. Just gonna have to agree to disagree.
1 Like
Are you telling me you have the means and wherewithal to program a bot that can reliably solve data/relic can hacks, and probing for sigs?
Do you mean if I have the skills? Sure, I do. Just don’t ask me to create a bot for you. I then program the EVE API, as it’s allowed and to create an advantage for myself. CCP allows us to poke around in some of their data all in accordance to the EULA.
I realized it as I kept reading. Narrow minded for his own ideals
1 Like
Do you claim that at this time there are bots operating in EVE that can reliably solve data/relic can hacks, and/or probe sigs?
I won’t make such a claim. I find it better not to ask for bots nor should you. The claim has however already been made in this thread. Feel free to google for bots if this is truly what you desire. I couldn’t stop you if I tried.
If such bots do exist, as is your premise, the community needs to know so as to put pressure on CCP to prevent them, as well as find ways to detect/report/destroy them in-game.
To your knowledge, are there bots active in, or for, EVE that can reliably hack a data/relic can and/or probe a sig?
We already know they exist for mining and ratting, among other things.
Without having actually seeing them, there’s no definitive yes or no.
1 Like