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

[Jmanis]

Realistically, the solution is to actually create activities which are substantially more complex to do so that trying to bot them becomes a much more arduous and unpredictable affair, and ensure they reward substantially more than otherwise "basic" activities which are easily bottable.

Of course, we just had several phases of rebalancing, and look where we are now...

For example, are people actually botting Salvage missions? Megaship turret missions? Cargo hijack missions? Are these reliably bottable, considering NPC interference? In terms of influence, these should be earning, say, ten times more in terms of influence and effects than a standard A->B delivery, and even more than standard trade routes.

 

[Riverside]

Realistically, the solution is to actually create activities which are substantially more complex to do so that trying to bot them becomes a much more arduous and unpredictable affair, and ensure they reward substantially more than otherwise "basic" activities which are easily bottable.

Of course, we just had several phases of rebalancing, and look where we are now...

For example, are people actually botting Salvage missions? Megaship turret missions? Cargo hijack missions? Are these reliably bottable, considering NPC interference? In terms of influence, these should be earning, say, ten times more in terms of influence and effects than a standard A->B delivery, and even more than standard trade routes.

Trading inf requires a dock for faction support so would reduce a significant benefit to owning a dock (not necessarily a bad change, it would speed up system flipping and increase the maintenance requirement), for PP I think it would just increase the already burdensome workload of leaflet delivery.

I do agree with the thought process though.

 

[Taimaru]

I really hate the idea of introducting captcha's especially when it comes to docking which many do even when they're not even runnning missions. If it was implemented at the docking stage I can forsee many quitting the game because it would be really, really annoying after the first few times.

However, if a captcha or similar mechanism was going to be introduced I would rather it was implemented in the "picking up mission" and/or "handing in mission" stages.

 

[Melanthes]

This whole "bot" problem is just CI lacking in their understanding of the BGS, nothing more. Which would be a favourable interpretation of this absurdity. Even these signatories are an idiotic number. How many of those are inactive players of older squadrons? Probably most of them.

 

[Just Paul]

So no, I don't think bots are a big problem, but false accusations of botting are

Exactly this. With the whole hysteria people who are not only putting lots of work in, but also brainstorming and testing out of the box strategies are then accused of botting and/or hacking. Not cool at all.

On a different note, could somebody help us reprogram our bots. Something went wrong and they are utter useless.

Spoiler: Bots doing strange stuff

 

[Jmanis]

Exactly this. With the whole hysteria people who are not only putting lots of work in, but also brainstorming and testing out of the box strategies are then accused of botting and/or hacking. Not cool at all.

On a different note, could somebody help us reprogram our bots. Something went wrong and they are utter useless.

Spoiler: Bots doing strange stuff

If 10 years of EVE Online taught me anything, it's never underestimate the commitment and impact of a coordinated group, or a tireless individual.

 

[Jane Turner]

I'm convinced it'll either be too simple or too much work to implement, the only thing mentioned that I think could have merit without being too hard to implement is this based on this:

• Should make it harder for simple scripted bots [anecdotal evidence suggests 5th columning in Power PLay is dramatically reduced after interface changes]

If the bots are really this simple then there might be some fairly low effort station UI stuff (probably not noticeable to humans) that could be done to mess with bots that don't actually read the screen and just send key inputs.

Isn't this where simple questions come in - on the example used it's simple to look up a large population system in the galaxy map and deduce what the 6th planet is and hence the name of the station, but it requires comprehension skills in addition to reading skills

 

[Jane Turner]

I think a minimal amount of arms racing is okay to at least create a barrier to entry if significant gameplay changes are too much work. It's just a subjective question of what the reasonable amount is - which is really for Frontier to decide.

Raising the amount of effort required to maintain most scripted commanders is a worthy goal, it doesn't have to beat every one - all the time. Pretty sure FD can never win the arms race v the best scripters.

 

[Jane Turner]

Well, it still boils down to "prove you are human and at the controls" which is what "Captcha" was designed to do.

So, at certain game "breakpoints" you need checks to "prove you are human and at the controls" detection which makes sense to game-play and users.



As an alternative to Captcha, and since VR also has a microphone as do most headsets, a "voice recognition" or "voice phrase" challenge at certain game breakpoints where you need a "prove your human and at the controls".

Another idea is to use a tactic fighter jets use when challenging an airliner in flight to prove a pilot is at the controls. The fighter pilot will tell the airline pilot to "slow down" and "lower the landing gear". An in-game challenge could do something similar.

Oh,, Seven....

There would have to be some sort of internal opt-out register for deaf/hearing impaired commanders on the first, but great ideas - I'll add them

 

[Jmanis]

There would have to be some sort of internal opt-out register for deaf/hearing impaired commanders on the first, but great ideas - I'll add them

Sorry mate, but individual medical conditions are entirely none of FDs business when it comes to the operation of video games.

The notion of maintaining such a register is a beeline to a PR disaster.

Edit: not to mention legislative compliance requirements for maintaining such information.

 

[Jane Turner]

Realistically, the solution is to actually create activities which are substantially more complex to do so that trying to bot them becomes a much more arduous and unpredictable affair, and ensure they reward substantially more than otherwise "basic" activities which are easily bottable.

Of course, we just had several phases of rebalancing, and look where we are now...

For example, are people actually botting Salvage missions? Megaship turret missions? Cargo hijack missions? Are these reliably bottable, considering NPC interference? In terms of influence, these should be earning, say, ten times more in terms of influence and effects than a standard A->B delivery, and even more than standard trade routes.

Can't know for sure - but my guess is no.

 

[Jane Turner]

I really hate the idea of introducting captcha's especially when it comes to docking which many do even when they're not even runnning missions. If it was implemented at the docking stage I can forsee many quitting the game because it would be really, really annoying after the first few times.

However, if a captcha or similar mechanism was going to be introduced I would rather it was implemented in the "picking up mission" and/or "handing in mission" stages.

That's where the weight of feeling was on the AB-A server - it seemed like the least invasive place to put it

 

[Rubbernuke]

This should be a thing in it’s own right. The possibilities are endless for proper piracy, blockades, security scans, more involved smuggling, and even just getting to actually fly sub-FTL a bit more and simply admire the pretty stations.

You could tweak it all sorts of ways and make it dependent on security/system states, or the size of the station (outposts with their smaller ‘footprint’ could let you drop closer to the no-fire zone to make them more useful?), but even in it’s crudest form this is a great idea!

Way ahead of you: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ccording-to-bgs-criteria.555006/#post-8711595

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

Way ahead of you: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ccording-to-bgs-criteria.555006/#post-8711595

Oh I know you did, it’s a particular talent of mine to present other’s imaginative thoughts as my own I like to call it inspiration!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Hell no. I really don't like any sort of things in games that cause extra effort or problems for legitimiate players just to deal with a tiny number of cheaters.

FD need to address the problem at source.

I'm recently been frustrated in GTA by a similar issue. There is a limit to the number of cars you can sell in a given period. The more you sell, the more the game considers you suspect. If you keep pushing it, the game will simply assume you are a cheater and lock you down to selling no more than 1 car every day even if you obtained all cars legitimately.

This is because people have found a way to duplicate cars so they appear purchased. Rather than fixing the problem of duplication, they just make it so everyone is affected by the limits.

Meanwhile those who are willing to cheat simply find other ways to cheat/exploit the game and continue to make easy money, while those of us who don't cheat are affected by the anti-cheat protection.

Its also worth noting that when you sell purchased cars you always lose a lot of money, so unless cheating, selling cars is causing you a loss.

While not cheating, it also reminds me of the situation with missiles and torpedos. They were in a good place, until a very small number of poeple started using them to blow people up inside stations. Rather than addressing the issue directly, instead FD nerfed missiles and torps into the ground and it was over a year before they restored some use to them. But they are now a shadow of what they once were.

So, no, a thousand times no to this suggestion.

 

[Jane Turner]

Sorry mate, but individual medical conditions are entirely none of FDs business when it comes to the operation of video games.

The notion of maintaining such a register is a beeline to a PR disaster.

Edit: not to mention legislative compliance requirements for maintaining such information.

I guess GDPR is in play here - indeed - then just the second idea.

 

[Jane Turner]

Hell no. I really don't like any sort of things in games that cause extra effort or problems for legitimiate players just to deal with a tiny number of cheaters.


So, no, a thousand times no to this suggestion.

Including - a significant monetary gain for answering a simple game-related question? One of the main aims of this thread is to explore ways that would make this more engaging or mitigate it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Including - a significant monetary gain for answering a simple game-related question? One of the main aims of this thread is to explore ways that would make this more engaging or mitigate it.

No. I don't care about monetary gains. Its not like credits mean anything these days anyway. FD have seen to that.

There is more than enough credit creep in the game as it is and I still don't want any bumps in my gaming experience to deal with a small number of cheaters.

Again, FD should address it at source, not put the onus on players to deal with it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No. I don't care about monetary gains. Its not like credits mean anything these days anyway. FD have seen to that.

There is more than enough credit creep in the game as it is and I still don't want any bumps in my gaming experience to deal with a small number of cheaters.

Again, FD should address it at source, not put the onus on players to deal with it.

Indeed. FD need to have robust systems to prevent bots, varied gaming to make bots very difficult and be vigilant to hacks.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Isn't this where simple questions come in - on the example used it's simple to look up a large population system in the galaxy map and deduce what the 6th planet is and hence the name of the station, but it requires comprehension skills in addition to reading skills

The technical problem here (beyond being an annoying time waster to humans) is getting a varied set of questions that can't be easily pattern matched. I think those types of questions are meant to mitigate off-the-shelf solutions for registering accounts and require at least a bit of custom code or domain knowledge. It's something you're meant to encounter once. To a determined attacker it'd be mostly an issue of cataloging the types of questions that can appear. This would be entering the arms race with a bespoke gun that shoots once before the barrel explodes.