Much of this wouldn’t be an issue if the bots/scripters would get caught and banned. I report the bots every time it happens and who knows if anything gets seen, done, etc.
1 Like
You need to also prevent trade and ship change during this period, otherwise they can just loot, drop the items in an orca or dock their ship in an orca, and let you kill the now empty capsule.
Ok so as it appears to me, the situation is:
Player A is ganked by player B.
Players C, D, E and F are waiting to snipe loot.
Player A dies and is whisked away to his home station in the Great Wildlands.
Player B is ganked by Concord.
Players C, D, E and F are now mashing the loot button.
(I want to get that straight as some players are talking about it as if the ganker is the intended target of these reforms, but the OP reads differently)
I think the best way to do it is have a loot cooldown timer.
You could make it a mechanic:
Player A and B get instant access to the loot and can return at their leisure (subject to normal despawn/wreck destroyed parameters), but players C, D, E and F have to hack the can - or alternatively, they must wait 5 minutes (loot cooldown timer) until the “cargo hold door lock loses power and unlocks” and then they can loot it.
This gives the player, or the killer, time to get back and loot their wreck, but also eventually makes the wreck available to all. With the timer (or hackable lock) on the wreck object itself, and not part of docking mechanism.
1 Like
They are bots.
More like, D and E are bots, while C is the alt of B and here for the loot. C is in fleet with B and should not be suspect to a flag IIRC.
People literally made vids of them being bots at the Jita undock and CCP does not care.
1 Like
That’s as maybe, there’s probably a couple of real players swimming about in there too but the point is to give the player or the battle winner equal and instant access while delaying interlopers.
A hacking requirement on the container would scupper the bots somewhat so long as it was abstract enough to make the code for the bot too awkward and time consuming to be worth writing (or at least rushing).
You could select from a bank of 4 or 6 different hacking tasks ranging from easier to harder, depending on estimated value of the loot.
I am not aware of any bots for hacking cans at present.
1 Like
It’s probably more along the lines of they know, but they can’t do anything about it.
That’s not a maybe by a long shot. CCP banned some. Then gave up.
Because obviously a mechanism that is better when automated won’t be automated, right ?
There are bots scanning signatures and hacking relic sites.
There was some already like 5 years ago.
“can’t” as in, decided to not add workforce into solving that issue.
This could definitely be a cool mechanic but CCP could alleviate the bot advantage by only allowing players A and B (and their corps or gangs) to loot the can for the first few seconds. Player A can’t do it because Concord killed them and player B can’t do it because they’re likely dead or in a pod.
Anyway, the bots use scripts that open, loot, and dock in a fraction of a second. If you can freeze them out for just 2-3 seconds, then the humans can have a chance to loot the wreck that was created by their attack or destruction.
My proposed solution would be quicker, easier and more worthwhile for devs to implement than trying to ban bots entirely.
Tackling the bot issue by simply introducing a short delay is merely kicking the can down the road as the writer of the bot script merely needs to account for said delay, which from a code perspective is insanely easy to the point where any such change would be nullified in less than a day.
Introducing a challenge to get the loot (if you are not the owner, or did not win it) would break the bot script in a bigger way, forcing the bot creator to write more interesting code, and for longer.
I’m starting to think people don’t want solutions, they just want to moan 
You don’t propose a solution to start with.
You propose something that will require more dev time to implement than botter time to break since they already broke it.
Basically, you propose a waste of time.
For Jita, I would suggest a new module be added to all stations and outgoing gates.
The module would keep the ganker, regardless of whether the player is a bot or a human, from docking for 15 seconds or warping away from a gate for 5 seconds.
The new mechanic would be primarily used to stop bots.
Keep your door closed Grace and only talk when spoken to. You do know a man who died lived in the station you dock at.
Yes, the botters could add a delay to account for the change but the loot would already be gone since the humans would’ve opened it already. The bots’ primary advantage is speed… they loot and dock faster than any human can. Add a delay to only allow the target’s and attacker’s corp/fleet to loot the wreck for a mere 2-3 seconds and the bots are too late to the party.
It’s even worse than that.
Bots don’t need to read the interface. They can simply read the data stream. And react directly by sending the correct orders to the server instead of clicking.
You mean fleet ? Why would there be any other rule than the one already existing ?
3s is the reaction time including ping for someone who has a bad connexion.
T-d : the victim is killed. (d random delta, <1s)
T0 : the wreck is created, the person on grid are notified. This is at a tick
T+p/2 : the client receives the information there is a wreck (p the client ping)
T+p/2+r : user has reacted to the presence of a wreck on the grid
T+p+r : server receives the request to open the wreck
T+3p/2+r : client receives the wreck content
T+3p/2+2r : user emits the action to loot
T+2p+2r : server receives order to loot.
Now r depends on the information that is expected. If it’s “loot all” then it’s actually very fast (like 200ms), if user must thinkg about it (several wrecks or items to loot) then it’s more 1s.
Don’t add more complex, context-specific rules. Just add the “don’t dock, don’t trade, don’t change ship” for the suspect timer. Also yes, it means they can TAKE items from a can but not place items in anything, of course. Can’t even swap ammo.
Yes, sorry, FLEET. I revised my post. Thank you.
How did this thread turn into an argument? Fact: there exists a mechanic that is being abused by bots. Ideally CCP would ban them since they do get reported regularly. But since that’s not happening, I’m suggesting and soliciting ideas for a mechanic that would level the playing field. That’s all. Anyway, thank you all for your constructive feedback. 
Just because they are reported as bots, ccps software and other algorithms may say otherwise
Because some idiots can’t accept his post is a bad idea, so he go personal attack to elude the stupidity of his post.
Because the ISDs tolerate those toxic posts.
There are bots on the market that have been present for years and still not banned.
I got a lot of “thank you for your report” , like in the 100s, then I gave up. Then still kept receiving those messages for like 1 year afterwards.
Can CCP do something else ? I don’t know.
Again, detecting bots is a very costly operation, with a lot of false result . You don’t want to ban people from the game because the bot detection program got a false positive.
That’s why, instead of fighting a lost fight of cat and mouse, it’s better to have the game be not rewarding for bots.
1 Like
10 posts have been removed for the below stated reasons.
1. Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Trolling
- Flaming
- Ranting
- Personal Attacks
- Harassment
- Doxxing
- Racism & Discrimination
- Hate Speech
- Sexism
- Spamming
- Bumping
- Off-Topic Posting
- Pyramid Quoting
- Rumor Mongering
- New Player Bashing
- Impersonation
- Advertising
Appreciate the attention here @ISD Buldath. Any idea if this topic will receive any CCP attention or if it’ll fall on deaf ears?
No, won’t get any attention.
Don’t get any hope.
You write here to discuss, and if it happens that CCP actually implements it, it’s an accident.
Does not prevent some trolls from screaming how they dislike it, and make toxic posts to prevent any constructive discussion. Just in case, they better be 100% sure that the forum become dead through their sterile harassment.
Well it might get a little. I have noted it and will chat with CCP about it.
m
3 Likes