I think we can all agree that botting is a problem on EVE. So I ask you all, how would you feel if CCP partnered with Battleye or some similar service that helped prevent or expose botters?
I am for any and all options that actively counter botting. But only if it REALLY does something.
That pretty much defeats Eve’s current core business model and main source of income.
CCP already has it. They have various server-side methods that they can’t explain, that look for suspicious activity. Every once in a while, a ban wave is announced. Those have to come from … something more than players clicking “report bot.”
Right, I understand they already have something server side and we can argue it’s effectiveness. But I ask, should they compliment it with a program that runs client side?
I don’t think so. CCP has full control of the client and server; any new algorithms or monitoring that occur to them, can easily be incorporated into the client. Putting it into a separate program that you start as an accessory to EVE might make you feel like something is being done, but it wouldn’t be as efficient as keeping the Team Security code modules in the same program.
You know how cities build crap roads so they can keep handing out contracts to companies that fund re-election campaigns? It’s kind of like that for game companies and botters. They’ll ban them so the botters have to keep buying their way back in, but they will never go all the way and actually implement permanent solutions.
No, please no intrusive client side malware. Also this will block the Mac and Linux client.
Definitly no. all third party tools are cause bugs…
but yeah, if they introduce battleye into the game, it will completely destroy the linux/mac player-base. because the windows version of battleye WILL NOT WORK in a wine environment (how linux/mac players run eve)
I’m glad CCP knows that we’re not collectively dumb enough (yet) to tolerate such software.
Effective protection requires some client-side elements.
For a game like EVE, “server-side only” anti-cheat logic can always be fooled.
The claims that e.g. it won’t work well with Linux/Mac, or could introduce bugs, can be ignored. Those are just potential requirements on the anti-cheat system.
“client side” can also always be fooled.
Not necessarily. Protecting a game isn’t the same thing as “100% virus-proofing”.
There’s a proprietary protocol between the client and the server which can be (and often is) manipulated, but it’s possible to verify that the protective software local to that client is working correctly via that protocol, and reject anything from that client unless it’s working.
I don’t know (or care) if Battleye actually does this. The point is that while hackers have possible countermeasures on the client side, they can’t always foil the protection.
Of course what actually happens (with security in general) is that it’s not considered until there’s a significant problem, at which time it would be difficult and expensive to retro-fit serious security measures. Understandably, small companies like CCP are tempted to look for cheap solutions.
Yes. It absolutely should be anti-cheat in every way.
There is no need. There is simply nothing you can do on the client to cheat appart from botting and that can be done with an unmodified client that can not be detected by anti-cheat so you have to detect it server-side anyway. This game is doing fine and there are no cheaters (appart from botting) for the last 15 years.
The people speaking up for this have absolutely no clue what they are talking about seriously.
indeed, you don’t know.
If a hacker makes a program that you can’t detect, then you don’t know that you don’t detect it. You can’t prove that NOBODY can fool you - now nor in the future.
If your argument is that “server side measure can be fooled”, then this also is true for client-side measure ; thus client side measure are just as bad as server side measures in terms of reliability.
It’s all fun and games until the autistic guy builds a robot to press the keys for him.
They ban maybe 10k-20k bots a year, 27 - 54 a day avg, I’d call that pretty effective.
Client side, NO, those tools are highly invasive, of course we all trust tech so it’s no problem…
That’s like saying you killed twenty thousand ants a year out of the millions in the hill. Or removed 54 fleas a day off your infested horse.
In other words, without knowing the other half of the equation (How many botters are there), you are spouting poop. “Maybe 10k-20k a year” could be less than one percent of the total. Not very effective at all.