Same way as you deal with any problem. If you all cant play nice then none of you can have the toys. No auto-jump for FC, no undermining by certain methods, no losing CC systems in PP....
Proposal Discussion: Things that could help player groups identify a possible bot attack
- Thread starter CMDR Jal'Bur
- Start date
Same way as you deal with any problem. If you all cant play nice then none of you can have the toys. No auto-jump for FC, no undermining by certain methods, no losing CC systems in PP....
It does beg the question of how many of those 20k "signatures" are from active accounts.
I suspect that if there were 20k genuine signatures from currently active players then Frontier would've responded by now because that number would eclipse any and all previous community concerns open letters and petitions.
Are you suggesting some might be ... bots?
Are you suggesting some might be ... bots?
You might think that i couldn't possibly comment.
The OP suggestion would help identify what my ship gets up to when I dismiss it from a planet's surface. I have long suspected ..... 
That is very true. Some people don't want to show their CMDR name everywhere.
It would be great to just have general stats, instead of just being able to know what CMDR KKomrade_Sylas is up to all the time by looking at a news board. It's a system report, not facebook.
Last edited:
The OP suggestion would help identify what my ship gets up to when I dismiss it from a planet's surface. I have long suspected .....
I've heard a rumour that I started here right now that when we land on planets and dismiss our ships they are co-opted by bots to undermine whatever player group is closest.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
I'm collating the figures and can only go on what people tell me - except one obviously egregious example of exaggeration, I'm not second-guessing what people tell me. When/if CI signs up I won't add the discord number c800, the Inara numberc150 or even the squadron number c300, but rather the individuals who have voted to join [50] in the internal discussion as our numbers. I can't speak for other squadrons.
If you are dubious about the total commanders represented, the 161 different squadrons and groups have pledged is a harder to dispute figure
This literally gives you all the information to effectively counter what a small group of players is doing in their systems and flattening them. Of course some players want to hide their activities, no-one is going to tell you how to win against them.
I'm starting to see what this 'botting' is really about now. You just want to see what numbers the opposition are inputting.
right now, certain reports already give you a lot of forensic data.
exampel: bounty report combined with traffic gives you an average of bounties redeemed, which hints at whether someone is bhing in system, importing bounties, or redeeming mission npc boutnies.
if the traffic report would list number of individual ships (exampel: not longer python: 95, but python 95(38), this would get more granular. but the same could be achieved by listing total numbers of accounts/cmdrs visiting along the traffic report, something like: 197 ships of 127 commanders have visited in the last 24 hours.
from an ingame perspective this makes sense in parts, and not in some others. wanted status isn't cross-ship, while reputation is bound to commander.
now - more data sounds nice in systems with a lot of traffic. but in small systems it can get stalkative very fast.
for exampel we enganged in a frenemy bgs battle - basically 3 commanders on one side, one cmdr on the other side. there was almost no random traffic in system. at the end i could have drawn a profile, attached to an inara profile, in which timezone the/she/they play, what are their worktimes, what they do today working the BGS, which missions they play, what ships they fly. in many cases he/she/they could be identified by social media crossreference (i didn't try to look them up via twitter/facebook/other forums/...)
i'm very happy that elite dangerous does not make that kind of interaction more easy.
actually, to me it looks as if happiness is what you are looking for. and it looks as if happiness is a live value: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/happy-now.559980/post-8905241
indication is, that trading for a loss triggers boom, while reducing influence.
exampel: bounty report combined with traffic gives you an average of bounties redeemed, which hints at whether someone is bhing in system, importing bounties, or redeeming mission npc boutnies.
if the traffic report would list number of individual ships (exampel: not longer python: 95, but python 95(38), this would get more granular. but the same could be achieved by listing total numbers of accounts/cmdrs visiting along the traffic report, something like: 197 ships of 127 commanders have visited in the last 24 hours.
from an ingame perspective this makes sense in parts, and not in some others. wanted status isn't cross-ship, while reputation is bound to commander.
now - more data sounds nice in systems with a lot of traffic. but in small systems it can get stalkative very fast.
for exampel we enganged in a frenemy bgs battle - basically 3 commanders on one side, one cmdr on the other side. there was almost no random traffic in system. at the end i could have drawn a profile, attached to an inara profile, in which timezone the/she/they play, what are their worktimes, what they do today working the BGS, which missions they play, what ships they fly. in many cases he/she/they could be identified by social media crossreference (i didn't try to look them up via twitter/facebook/other forums/...)
i'm very happy that elite dangerous does not make that kind of interaction more easy.
actually, to me it looks as if happiness is what you are looking for. and it looks as if happiness is a live value: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/happy-now.559980/post-8905241
indication is, that trading for a loss triggers boom, while reducing influence.
I see it like this though, if your squadron is supporting that faction or its your player faction, why would you not have access to the Docking list of a station.
If its your group that is controlling the station you should at least be able to check who docked at it IMO.
Anonymity would be not docking and not getting scanned.
excuse me, but you saying the suggestion being non-intrusive, doesn't make it so for me.
i find it very intrusive. 3 of the 4 suggestions includes something intruding anonymity, as per op:
- "Showing the top 10 visitors"
- "who is picking up bounties"
- " showing ... the top 10 CMDRs dropping bounties"
now, we can discuss a non-intrusive suggestion, but the one opening this thread isn't.
Sorry but there's the hole right there (my underlining). Far better to consider how Frontier can detect bots (or verify bot behaviour in the case of a player making an allegation of botting). We've seen (in the other thread that you started on this topic) that there is already plenty of player reporting of botting - so I don't see the benefit creating more grist for that particular mill. Frontier already have telemetry data that they can use to detect bots, and I don't think their work on the subject will be made any easier by getting a load of additional, not very dependable, data submitted by players.... how to make it easier for players to spot bots and report them to frontier. There are holes in this idea. Go ahead and point them out
And as for orchestrating an online campaign to harass Frontier on the subject, I think it's just counter-productive (for instance it can create the false impression in the media that 'Elite Dangerous is beset by botting problems' whereas in reality the only [arguable] impact is on BGS/PP, an area of gameplay that the great majority of players don't ever go near). As such, I'd question whether the 'A-BA' is achieving anything useful.
I'm aware that Frontier have put some of their best people onto the problem of detecting and eliminating botting (one of them is a personal friend) so I can't agree that Frontier are ignoring the issue. The difficulty is that we don't get to see direct evidence of their work, because it is indeed an arms race, and Frontier's bot-detection algorithms will soon be defeated if made public.
Bottom line: I do not see the value in creating more scope for players to submit allegations of botting (many of which may be malicious, or at least mistaken), and feeding an on-line campaign to give the (false) impression that Frontier are ignoring the issue of botting.
I mean, I have repeatedly said in this thread that CMDR names aren't necessary (and probably not ideal) at all. That information doesn't need to be disclosed. It is a general statement about showing more detailed reports in-system, and the opening statements are mostly just brain-storm ideas about all possibilities.
Well if you have nothing to hide then why so against your name showing up in system logs.
Note: Not my view but I'm just getting this argument in before others do.
it's not your OP, we are discussing a post we are all reading on page 1.
It doesn't matter to my discussion of that post, what you - another poster in here - like about the suggestion and what you disregard, if i discuss that post.
or are you CMDR Jal'bur as well? in that case i suggest an edit/clarification of the first post.
as for brainstorming - yes i get it, but a brainstorming delivering in 3 of 4 cases "i want commanders name" shows in my humble opinion a very restricted or directed set of brain, not much of a storm.
Hush now...
We all know members are only permitted a single account and multi-accounts are insta-ban... (allegedly)
(Which is why with 4 CMDR's I am only allowed a single account to communicate their activities)
They just share the same views and expressions, is all.
No, I am not the Original Poster, so I can't edit anything, and I was mainly criticizing the doing away with any extra information altogether despite past statements from the same people that suggest otherwise. Once again, I'm more for more information, not necessarily for CMDR names. Obviously a lot of people (including me, tbh) don't want to be shown everywhere like there were no privacy laws in 3307.
I'm pretty sure those ideas work without the names, too. In fact, having acknowledged the real concerns about CMDR names in this thread, I don't see an issue with my past statements here, OP's literal ideas notwithstanding.
The extra information is too much. Remove your own inputs and you know exactly what your opposition is doing. At that point the whole thing becomes pointless.
If anything you'll encourage bots because you'll know exactly what values to aim for to beat your opposition without it appearing excessive.
Not only bots - anyone wanting to attack your faction takes a trip around, spots the one with least support and attacks there.
And probably looks at using things like megaship scenarios that don't have stats. So then the demands start for them to be added to the list of reports ...