The problem isn’t quite that. Firstly, and already mentioned must a puzzle still be doable by a human without interrupting their game play or even threatening to kick them out of their game. Secondly, bots don’t need to look at the screen to solve a puzzle. If the puzzle is created in the client then the bot just needs to modify the client. If part of the puzzle is created on the server then the bot still only needs to read the server data before it’s shown to the player. If the entire puzzle then is created on the server and only transferred as an image then the bot can still using image detection algorithms to get most of them right. If the puzzle is then so hard that even humans fail the test, then a bot can use a pre-trained neural net to solve it better than a human can. However, if the test is in deed hard and makes humans fail, then a bot is also allowed to fail. A bot however doesn’t need to solve the puzzle when it only pops up every hour, but can simply raise an alert for a user to solve it. In short, it’s useless and only annoys actual players.
It wouldnt be just a simple image as the CAPTCHAs you are used to.
Its an interactive, randomized minigame, each of which is unique in terms of color, display, motion and morphing.
You are so locked in the “CAPTCHA” mindset as in browsers, that you arent seeing these would be EVE stylized minigames, within EVE, using the EVE clients potential.
Only a fraction of users would have opportunity to access the client to solve it, and cannot do so while asleep, and even then, it still involves. delay between the alert and actually solving it,
So who creates this mini game? Is it written in code, using bits&bytes in memory? You do realize that code in memory can be overwritten. To make a simple example:
IF test == success THEN …
A statement like this can be turned around by a bot at any time. The test of == can be turned into != and turn any failed test into a successful test, simply because a bot has modified your game code.
If you fk with the code, your client will break.
It’s called programming, Salvos.
Its called “your client doesnt match the version CCP is running on its servers”.
" So who creates this mini game? Is it written in code, using bits&bytes in memory? You do realize that code in memory can be overwritten. To make a simple example:"
If it’s correctly server-side, the correct answer is only known to the server, who then decides whether the requested action is allowed or not. Virtually all websites with authentication work this way (if they’re competent)
Which is another test, and can be turned around.
Like I said, some bots don’t use the client. With some is there in fact no client at all. These bots mimic an entire client by talking directly to the server.
Tell me how you are going to respond to an hourly bot alert when asked to solve a minigame while asleep?
You gonna get up every hour to solve it?
Do you begin to understand now?
Yes, only Salvos doesn’t understand this. Hence I’m asking how he intends to create his mini-game when it doesn’t come pre-made from the server. He uses words such as “dynamic” and “random” like buzzwords, but doesn’t actually know what it means in computing terms.
You wont be able to re-code the solution to the minigame, than you would a data/relic can hack instance.
The server will send you the minigame command, and check your response when you send it back upon clicking “Done”
We’ve already been over this. If one bots for too long does it only require a check on the online time. However, botting farms use operators, who run multiple bots for several games, working in shifts to run their botting operations and to sell their game gold to whoever buys it.
This is getting really funny now.
You still dont see that your “rebutal” above is already covered for in my proposal, and I have explained why/how repeatedly.
Its already covered.
How is the “minigame command” implemented? What do the various responses to the server look like?
The same way the puzzle for hacking a data/relic site is, albeit with far more variations in design.
And at the end does the client send success or failure to the server?
Does it do so with succeeding/failing hacking a data/relic can?
It would do the same.
PS: Its ok to admit you where wrong, and my proposal works.
I promise I wont rub it in your face.
I don’t know. I haven’t hacked the game nor have I any intentions of doing so. So you’ll have to tell me.
My guess is the server knows the layout of the puzzle, sends only the shape of it to the client, and the client sends back which node the player clicked, and the server responds by uncovering it.
At least this way does the client not hold the answer to the entire puzzle.
So all your bot needs to do is to send which node it clicked, waits for the server to return the uncovered result, which of course includes the information on the neighboring nodes, and thus tells the bot which one to uncover next.
Any repair tools and hacking cards that are being revealed get used as needed by the bot.
The minigames would work largely like the data/relic hack minigame format-wise (albeit different in form), with the exception that they are triggered by CCP, when you trigger certain bot-aspirant conditions, and disable ship operation till completed.
I dont see how you could interfere in that, any more than you can interfere in the layout/result of the hacking minigame.
You mean a hidden detection?