Proposal Discussion Anti Botting Agreement Idea 3.1 Player incentivised, VR compatible in-station "not-a-literal-Captcha"

[Riverside]

With work I have done being blamed on botting I have to say I'd expect FDev to require extremely solid evidence (that I don't think is worth the manpower for them to corroborate). I have a single account, don't even use external tools or communication that make organising large scale assaults far easier than I believe the game ever intended, and do my work in Open where I can be found, shot at & more importantly reasoned with.

But mostly I think this is just a whole lot of false positives & theorycrafting to make what is probably a niche activity seem more of an issue than it is, much like Combat Logging most of which is either legal (15 sec timer) or just less than perfect network conections.

I don't doubt that it's possible, but this isn't a game where IRL money is routinely at stake and it seems to me the ones claiming to be most affected are already 'cheating' anyway (using 3rd party tools to bypass restricted in-game comms to gain an advantage). Cheating that is so prevailant it is considered normal & endemic to faction support.

I'm against encouraging or rewarding cheating but I'm struggling to have any sympathy at all for this one tbh, probably about as much sympathy as most players have for gankers complaining about CLogging victims I'd imagine.

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

With work I have done being blamed on botting I have to say I'd expect FDev to require extremely solid evidence (that I don't think is worth the manpower for them to gather). I have a single account, don't even use external tools or communication that make organising large scale assaults far easier than I believe the game ever intended, and do my work in Open where I can be found, shot at & more importantly reasoned with.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...o-further-abuses-of-bgs-and-powerplay.415816/

People aren't really talking about bots because the spreadsheet doesn't match with the results.. people are talking about bots because bots exist. False positives are a real concern, but a single CMDR or a few, or even many legitimate commanders doing BGS doesn't tick off any alarms in our books.

But mostly I think this is just a whole lot of false positives & theorycrafting to make what is probably a niche activity seem more of an issue than it is, much like Combat Logging most of which is either legal (15 sec timer) or just less than perfect network conections.

The problem with botting, is that it likely isn't widespread in use, but the few people who have access to such tools can deal incredible damage. As in "Completely destroy a powerplay power" damage. This is a big issue and there's no denying it. This also addresses your first point, that it might not be worth FDev's manpower... if it is a handful of individuals with extremely damaging tools, it may not require much manpower at all.

I don't doubt that it's possible, but this isn't a game where IRL money is routinely at stake and it seems to me the ones claiming to be most affected are already 'cheating' anyway (using 3rd party tools to bypass restricted in-game comms to gain an advantage). Cheating that is so prevailant it is considered normal & endemic to faction support.

I mean, from reading your posts in the forum, I have the impression that you are reasonable. Surely you can understand how comparing botting to having a discord server is not reasonable in the slightest.

 

[Obi Wan Naboo]

(Oh, if you're wondering how I've proved I am not bot, I have met in person some of the devs and former community managers of Elite Dangerous)

You still might be a replicant or a synth. If we go down the absolute proof rabbit hole, nothing can ever be proven. That's why I prefer to reach the lowest common denominator to solve the problem at hand. The problem being the use of illegal means (defined by FD) to circumvent the "grind" of the game. The solution, which should be acceptable to a vast majority of the player base, is still up for debate.

 

[Guyperson]

That's not incompatible with this - missions used to be predictably unpredictable - remember those ones that changed delivery location just as you touched down on an outposts 300KLYs from the star [Clarified the 1st - it was already there!]

Ideally the game should be unpredictable without being a complete jerk to the player... So not quite like back then.

 

[Jane Turner]

Ideally the game should be unpredictable without being a complete jerk to the player... So not quite like back then.

Yes I wasn't advocating for that precise [massively irritating] mission type- just pointing out that the branched missions were in, so clearly not impossible to implement.

 

[zombieapocalypse]

With work I have done being blamed on botting I have to say I'd expect FDev to require extremely solid evidence (that I don't think is worth the manpower for them to corroborate). I have a single account, don't even use external tools or communication that make organising large scale assaults far easier than I believe the game ever intended, and do my work in Open where I can be found, shot at & more importantly reasoned with.

But mostly I think this is just a whole lot of false positives & theorycrafting to make what is probably a niche activity seem more of an issue than it is, much like Combat Logging most of which is either legal (15 sec timer) or just less than perfect network conections.

I don't doubt that it's possible, but this isn't a game where IRL money is routinely at stake and it seems to me the ones claiming to be most affected are already 'cheating' anyway (using 3rd party tools to bypass restricted in-game comms to gain an advantage). Cheating that is so prevailant it is considered normal & endemic to faction support.

I'm against encouraging or rewarding cheating but I'm struggling to have any sympathy at all for this one tbh, probably about as much sympathy as most players have for gankers complaining about CLogging victims I'd imagine.

Using Discord and external chat groups is cheating? Erm, okay!

But I do have to agree that the perception of cheating in multiplayer video games is always far, far greater than what actually occurs.

 

[Alien]

OK, a few points here ... take a drink every time I ask for proof ... here goes ...

Some people will just never believe anything

I'll happily believe there is a bot problem when you (or others) prove to my very high standards of proof, there is a bot problem. You have not yet done so.

We've taken this into account, and in fact are happy to put up ideas, possibly on a different thread, on how FDev can implement features to help us identify automation by ourselves.

See, this where we start getting into false accusations and witch-hunts. Player A upsets Player B, Player B accuses Player A of something, Player A denies it, Frontier have to decide who to believe and Player A is new and Player B has gotten many players banned by reporting them. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then you are the problem.

I think we'd all rather have no bots at all... except for one person maybe.

You've been here barely a year and presume to know what long standing members of this community think of an issue that has yet to be proven to exist.

People aren't really talking about bots because the spreadsheet doesn't match with the results.. people are talking about bots because bots exist.

Proof please.

False positives are a real concern, but a single CMDR or a few, or even many legitimate commanders doing BGS doesn't tick off any alarms in our books.

I agree false positives are a concern, which is why this proposal concerns me.

The problem with botting,

Yet to be proven

The problem with botting, is that it likely isn't widespread in use, but the few people who have access to such tools can deal incredible damage.

OK, either you know this because you have used those tools, or you don't know there are any bots being used.
And we come to a point no-one has yet raised (that I have seen, but to be honest, I CBA with this stupidity) Why not leave it to Frontier to deal with? I mean, they are the ones who'd know better than you or I if there are any bots being used. If you think bots are a problem, then either you're the one using them (might explain the lack of proof) or you've hacked into Frontier's servers and know how many bots there are.

This is a big issue and there's no denying it.

Proof please

 

[Jane Turner]

All Power Play powers have now signed up

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

OK, a few points here ... take a drink every time I ask for proof ... here goes ...

I'll happily believe there is a bot problem when you (or others) prove to my very high standards of proof, there is a bot problem. You have not yet done so.



See, this where we start getting into false accusations and witch-hunts. Player A upsets Player B, Player B accuses Player of something, Player A denies it, Frontier have to decide who to believe and Player A is new and Player B has gotten many players banned by reporting them. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then you are the problem.

You've been here barely a year and presume to know what long standing members of this community think of an issue that has yet to be proven to exist.

Proof please.



I agree false positives are a concern, which is why this proposal concerns me.



Yet to be proven



OK, either you know this because you have used those tools, or you don't know there are any bots being used.
And we come to a point no-one has yet raised (that I have seen, but to be honest, I CBA with this stupidity) Why not leave it to Frontier to deal with? I mean, they are the ones who'd know better than you or I if there are any bots being used. If you think bots are a problem, then either you're the one using them (might explain the lack of proof) or you've hacked into Frontier's servers and know how many bots there are.



Proof please

This comment would be pretty good at wasting my time if I dove into it so I won't do that in much detail. You clearly didn't click the link I posted in the very same comment you quoted, which contains ample discussion, evidence, and documentation of botting or otherwise extremely sucpicious behaviour.

But of course, I don't expect some people to pretend that link exists in the first place. Should I post it again for you? Sure, if that makes it easier for you.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...o-further-abuses-of-bgs-and-powerplay.415816/

 

[Alien]

The worst part of trying to engage with trolls is that they are good at wasting your time. You clearly didn't click the link I posted in the very same comment you quoted, which contains ample discussion, evidence, and documentation of botting or otherwise extremely sucpicious behaviour.

But of course, I don't expect trolls to pretend that link exists in the first place. Should I post it again for you? Sure, if that makes it easier for you.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...o-further-abuses-of-bgs-and-powerplay.415816/

Ah I see, you can't win the discussion so you are resorting to insults.
Prove you're not a bot.

EDIT: also did you look at the last post in the thread you linked to (which I quoted you here)?
Did you look at why it was locked?
Did you even read what Frontier's request is if you suspect an account is a bot?

Why is this thread still going?

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

Ah I see, you can't win the discussion so you are resorting to insults.
Prove you're not a bot.

I clicked on all the traffic lights.

 

[Nadreck]

My thoughts on this...

I understand that botting is a big problem to a small number of players. But introducing an inconvenience to a much larger number of players will not be popular, especially if it's an immersion-breaking one.

I'll give a hard NO to anything that interrupts the Docking Computer once docking is underway. This is the time to chill out, play with the external camera, have a look around, or go make a coffee or use the toilet. And if I'm being nagged by the wife to load the dishwasher IMMEDIATELY, and I've used up my "just a few more minutes" allowance, at least I can currently request docking permission and the go AFK when it's accepted, with reasonable confidence that my ship will have landed when I get back.

So, if there is to be an interruption, it should be at liftoff. This is the time when the player is most likely to have time available, you don't set off unless you're fairly sure you have some clear time.

All you'd need would be an occasional random warning or question when trying to launch, which has a non-predictable answer. Launch will proceed after the right answer is given, and will be held up if the wrong answer is given, or no answer is given.

It could be a warning about "heavy traffic ahead", or it could be a rumour about pirate activity or whatever. Answers could include "Do you wish to proceed?" (correct answer is YES), "Do you wish to abort the launch?" (correct answer is NO), etc.

However, as botters use software that can read the screen, Frontier would be in a neverending arms-race to come up with new questions and answers that the botters would keep adding to their database of responses.


...Oh, and also a hard NO to de-weighting of haulage etc. Given how much haulage a bot can do, the amount of de-weighting required to neutralise a bot would basically drive the careers of legitimate truckers into the ground.

 

[Jane Turner]

My thoughts on this...

I understand that botting is a big problem to a small number of players. But introducing an inconvenience to a much larger number of players will not be popular, especially if it's an immersion-breaking one.

I'll give a hard NO to anything that interrupts the Docking Computer once docking is underway. This is the time to chill out, play with the external camera, have a look around, or go make a coffee or use the toilet. And if I'm being nagged by the wife to load the dishwasher IMMEDIATELY, and I've used up my "just a few more minutes" allowance, at least I can currently request docking permission and the go AFK when it's accepted, with reasonable confidence that my ship will have landed when I get back.

So, if there is to be an interruption, it should be at liftoff. This is the time when the player is most likely to have time available, you don't set off unless you're fairly sure you have some clear time.

All you'd need would be an occasional random warning or question when trying to launch, which has a non-predictable answer. Launch will proceed after the right answer is given, and will be held up if the wrong answer is given, or no answer is given.

It could be a warning about "heavy traffic ahead", or it could be a rumour about pirate activity or whatever. Answers could include "Do you wish to proceed?" (correct answer is YES), "Do you wish to abort the launch?" (correct answer is NO), etc.

However, as botters use software that can read the screen, Frontier would be in a neverending arms-race to come up with new questions and answers that the botters would keep adding to their database of responses.


...Oh, and also a hard NO to de-weighting of haulage etc. Given how much haulage a bot can do, the amount of de-weighting required to neutralise a bot would basically drive the careers of legitimate truckers into the ground.

How would you feel about a pop up offer that e.g. interrupted your purchasing of a commodity with a much better offer on something else, subject to you supplying some information?

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

I have not starting into PowerPlay yet. However for my intended use of PP weapons unlock at some point, some type of CAPTCHA (not the pictures one like click on each picture with a bicycle, the bitmap or png characters that humans will recognize but bots would not).

I think something like that once every hour would most likely not be easy for any bot code to figure out quickly. And for players once per hour hopefully would be acceptable, but only in the PP menu, when buying or selling the 'stuff'. Autodock and SuperCruise Assist need to be left alone, not that I ever use either one, unless I am flying a large ship.

 

[Riverside]

This is the most Donald Trump answer I've seen since I last saw Donald Trump answer something

Homer Simson's 'Bear Tax' might be less likely to be removed by moderators

In Minecraft some people use the basic sandbox rules as a platform to test out automation & all sorts of cool things, on some servers it's not allowed, on others it is & if someone wants to go to the trouble of creating a bot army rather than just getting other players to help them, ToS aside I'd just say well done & get on with undermining them, just as I would consider someone pressing the home button on XBone to be technically cheating but hey, the button is like right there.

Cheaters gonna cheat, but in this game what they win doesn't actually have an effect on the real world, it's just a big game of capture the flag. Play with the people you want to play with, and leave others to play how they like. And if they attack you have the fortitude to accept they did it in a clever way, but one you personally would not do.

 

[Wrecked]

More than 17,000 commanders have signed up to an anti-botting agreement. So at least some see it as an issue.

If we count all the accounts across all platforms, we're up to about.. what... like 14 million accounts (after the epic freebie, of course). Now I know many of those accounts may be commanders with more than one account. So, let's say that half of them are commanders with multiple accounts (which seems high to me, but we'll just roll with it).... that's still 7 million.

So, then like 0.2% of the number of accounts across all platforms have signed this thing?

Also, I don't think the burden of proving you're not a bot should be on the player. It should be on the game developer to build utilities to detect, prevent, and stop botting without making their player base jump through hoops. If the issue is driving away customers to the point where it was significantly painful for FDev, I'm sure they'd implement a solution. My assumption is that since this botting problem claim has persisted for years now, FDev does not see it worth their resources to address it in the way you and the others in your corner find satisfactory. Most likely because those who it is driving away are within 0.2% of the player base.

Botting may be a problem for 0.2% of the player base, but it's not for an overwhelming majority of players. I don't think asking the other 99.8% to jump through any further hoops because bots might be affecting a small number of players is a reasonable solution.

 

[Nadreck]

How would you feel about a pop up offer that e.g. interrupted your purchasing of a commodity with a much better offer on something else, subject to you supplying some information?

In principle, that would be OK. A bit like the tip-off missions.

 

[Jane Turner]

Exactly. "I will give you a 75% refund the price of your purchase of your tritium in exchange for the name of the station on the 3rd planet in system Y. our files are corrupted...."

 

[S0rkvild]

ok tell me... is that a bot

 

[Wrecked]

ok tell me... is that a bot

Definitely... I mean, look at em!