Can you provide the security teams contact email so we can provide you with video evidence and the name of the player?
Thanks for asking them! Iâd be happy to see the rewards too, I always wanted to see some incentive for something good.
- Itâs definitely been discussed, but so far no permanent solution yet
- Not now, but you can always apply for CCP, if youâd like!
1 Like
Thank you very much, GM Aisling. 
1 Like
No email for now, unfortunately, but just attach video to the ticket, if possible.
1 Like
Honestly just a 3day ban for botting? That is disappointing. So the botters wonât even lose their wealth gained by botting? And they can play again after 3 days? Kinda lol considering how long does it takes to security team to act.
We have ganked an obvious bot a month ago who was mining with Orca + 6 hulks. We were killing his hulks one by one every 15 minutes and the remaining fleet continue mining, activating lasers on another after they were depleted etc.
I donât know what your internal logs tells you, that this user didnât even received a 3day ban (judging by the fact that I didnât receive email thanking me for reporting an user who was cheating), but the fact that he kept mining after his hulks were picked by gankers is an obvious proof that he was using an automation to mine. No human would kept mining after losing a 3bil hulk to gankers and letting them to kill 4 more within next hour.
Likewise the obvious makro usage for smartbombing in lowsec. Still not addressed. Super obvious to anyone who ever smartbombed himself, there is just no way to press it manually in correct order without error due to the way how server (donât) accept input. I regularly fail with 3 bombs setup doing this manually, and that guy is multiboxing 4 accounts and never fails to press all 28 buttons. It canât be more obvious really.
I appreciate the article and the communication here on forums, but from what I see, Security Team is not doing enough and macro usage or straight up botting is becoming more and more prevalent. Low penalties for doing it, now publicly revealed, wonât help this either.
People make mistakes, itâs natural. We donât want to punish bad decisions so severely with a permanent ban. Some were tempted to try it and stopped after the short ban. Consider it as a warning - âwe see it, we know what you are doing, please stopâ. If the warning is not heard - then we take a more⌠permanent action. I think thatâs fair.
Regarding the obvious bots. I understand that many in-game moments and encounters might seem like someone using a tool. We had hundreds of reports for some players throughout the years. All of those instances have been investigated thoroughly. If there is nothing, then there is nothing and we will not ban people just because they came up with some strategy and managing to do it good.
But once again, if youâd like to report someone specific, send us a ticket with chararcter names and weâll have a look.
2 Likes
I feel like a 3 day ban is fair as well. Takes into consideration some spuds who use macros for other uses outside of eve, decides to use them, in eve. Realizes their mistake during the 3 day ban and afterwards, doesnt do it again.
I know multiple people who have been banned for botting, because the âthresholdâ was hit, and then CCP unbanned them and admitted CCP was wrong. Have you considered the long-term effect of alienating players with false accusations? It doesnât merely impact the individuals directly, it also affects everybody who knows about the incident, and the playerbase has that much less confidence in CCP.
Yep, exactly this. Mistakes happen, I can understand it to a certain degree. Banning rampage never did anything good.
2 Likes
In my personal experience there have not been that many cases. I definitely made mistakes myself, my colleagues usually pick those cases up when I ask them for a review. But I donât remember that much of them, to be honest.
False positives will always happen, this is just how it is when both machine check and human check are included. We decreased the amounts of false positive drastically from previous years, this is something that I see for sure.
Good thing about false positives - they happen only once per player. Simply put, if someone was falsely banned and then unbanned, if the same case is ever picked up again, weâd be extra careful in investigating it.
And yes, we are only humans, but we genuinely try to reduce the amount of those false positives and are ready for the dialogue when the case landed on a sort of grey area. Luckily, there has not been many of those.
5 Likes
I hope youâre a new breed of GM. Iâve seen many complaints about this that were not resolved âin the past.â
Anyway, hearing from CCP in any way, shape, manor or form is always a good thing! 
1 Like
Thatâs very nice of you, thank you! Iâve been with GMs for quite a while though, haha 
Happy to hear it, hopefully weâll be able to keep on this trend.
1 Like
Created the following support ticket ID 1950709
I have ref your name on it, its listed under âRules & Policies > EULA & Terms of Serviceâ
Good question! I double-checked with our community folks just in case. Yes, this is against the rules for EVE and Twitch as well. Community also mandate that every giveaway is done in such a way that everyone has equal chance to win.
Can you advise, generally if a streamer is found to have violated the giveaway policy what type of action is taken? Ban? Warning? Removal from Partner Program?
Last follow ups, on Twitch if you have Follower only mode enabled, which requires someone to follow the twitch channel in order to chat, does this violate the giveaway policy?
If the Twitch Channel has some viewers banned from the channel, so they are not able to follow or enter the giveaway, does this violate the giveaway policy?
Thanks!
at some point people need to understand that multi boxing is not botting. with all the changes to industry, it is impossible to get the materials you need without a team . sometimes that team is fellow players, sometimes that team is you with a boost ship, and a couple of miners. i pay for my accounts and simply enjoy building things. YET some people still ocmplain that CCP should eliminate multiboxing. i cant even begin to imagine the economic fallout from such an ill conceived idea both for CCP and in the game itself.
hopefully this idea finds its way to the dumpster where it belongs
1 Like
I think the fewest people complain that CCP should eliminate multiboxing completely.
Itâs âmassive multiboxingâ that most people dislike.
Why? Letâs say there are 20 mining barges in an ice anom. What difference does it make if they are controlled by a single player or 20 different players? There are still 20 barges in that anom sucking up all the ice either way.
Or if you get dropped on by 20 Catalysts. Again, what difference does it make if those 20 Cats are controlled by a single player or 20 different players? Youâre still getting ganked either way.
Iâll tell you why. What it boils down to is certain players are upset that others have more than they do and have the ability to multibox several accounts, so they whine about multiboxing with the hope that CCP will make EVE more âfairââŚ
4 Likes
I could try to explain how it would impact economy, PCU, pretty much all content in EVE. But not really bothered if only point is to just spin fake narrative.
I am not a psychologist or have seen any professionals opinion about that topic, but I doubt that something so widely disliked is simply based on envy. I dislike it as well and I can tell you for sure (because only I can know) that I am not envious, no matter how much wealth or power or skill any other player has.
The difference is the hugely different probability of that really happening. There is a kind of ânatural barrierâ in terms of player coordination to set up a fleet of 20 different real players for a specific job. Times they can log in, a common interest at this exact moment and the ability to do this specific job and the given time for all of them at once. A massive multiboxer cuts off all of that, so the probability of it happening is 100% at any given moment he cares to log in his multibox-fleet. He can do that daily, even multiple times, for hours if he wants to. The probability of a âreal mining corpâ doing that with 20 real players is a lot closer to zero. Donât tell me thats irrelevant, I once was a CEO of a small/medscale PvP corp and even while we all shared the same interests, it was actually pretty pretty rare to get 20 people in fleet for a long time, maybe 2-3 hours at primetime, but usually the roaming gangs were much smaller because of that ânatural barrierâ of player coordination.
So, it really isnât like âthere are 20 barges in the belt sucking the ice either wayâ. Because if it isnât for the massive multiboxer, there would probably be only 2 or 5 or 6 barges sucking ice there. If any.
Same here. If not for the multiboxer, some ganks simply wouldnât happen at all because the gankers wouldnât be able to get so much cats into their fleet for such a long time.
Also, at certain scenarios one massive-multiboxer destroys the content/fun for many other players because he simply drains resources out of an area until there is little left for any casual player. It may not be such a big problem in Sov0.0 because of the large amounts of resources there, but certainly is in more limited areas like WH or HS.
I think we all agree that a âbanâ of massive multiboxing would absolutely impact resource prices (price spike), because actually lots of them are gathered this way. But this also is a clear hint that all casual players suffer from the lower prices for their activities. For someone with 20 accounts its pretty irrelevant if he can get 1.3, 1,6 or 1.8B isk/h with his mining fleet, the amounts are still big enough to fund everything he needs or wants. These guys usually float ISK in the billions and couldnât care less about market prices. But casuals who only play with 1 or 2 miners really suffer if they get 40% less than they could if massive-multiboxing wouldnât sink the price that much.
Last but not least, and that is the main point why I personally dislike it (not the massive multiboxing itself, but itâs efficiency): Its bad game design to not having game mechanics that reward attention, focus, skill and knowledge over someone doing 1-2 clicks every 10 minutes on semi-afk accounts. Thats why I would like resource harvesting mechanics that greatly reward constant player attention. There are some ideas for this, all leading to the outcome that 20 real players paying attention to the job would greatly outperform 20 bots or 20 semi-afk-multibox accounts. So, I wouldnât want to âeliminateâ massive multiboxing, but make sure that there it can never be as efficient as the same amount of real players.
4 Likes
Can we expect links to âWell, you know - those out of game programs/macroâs/input broadcastingâ in the âNew Capsuleer Training Programâ ???
you know,⌠Just so we are all on the same levelâŚ
Great, thanks! I forwarded it to the Community, since Twitch things are generally their thing.
I canât really tell a lot about the action, since itâs usually case by case, and also Privacy Policy definitely prevents me from going into details of particular cases.
I am also not the best person to ask about Twitch as I have zero idea how it works with followers and Twitch banning per se, so that would be a question for the Community