Nope, it's more like getting behind the Flat Earthers contingent. People are being conned into believing there's a problem based on the flimsiest of theories. I'm not going to bother arguing the point because it's already gone on endlessly and anyone convinced of bots is never going to change their mind. As a moderator I think that you should not have started this thread and should not be contributing to it as it lends too much legitimacy to it.
Proposal Discussion Anti Botting Agreement Idea 3.1 Player incentivised, VR compatible in-station "not-a-literal-Captcha"
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Nope, it's more like getting behind the Flat Earthers contingent. People are being conned into believing there's a problem based on the flimsiest of theories. I'm not going to bother arguing the point because it's already gone on endlessly and anyone convinced of bots is never going to change their mind. As a moderator I think that you should not have started this thread and should not be contributing to it as it lends too much legitimacy to it.
as trade/hydrogen bomb/others BGS mechanics has been mentioned (and also somebody mentioned me), i think it is important to stress:
there are two main difference between maximising BGS effects (for exampel: of trade) and botting:
a) the difference between a min-maxed bgs effort and a non-optimized bgs effort are rather tiny. if you take for exampel the small bet jane Turner and me took here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/trading-for-influence-ii-fc-update.555082/post-8749390, the difference on a constructed edge case was 0,6% influence gain. so in daily gameplay you'll have a hard time even to see a difference. compare that to the effect of botting. bots should have no problem of nullifying 20 man hours completly.
b) i'll add, that i tend to publish all findings by testing here on the forums, beside those i consider blatant exploits, which i directly file with frontier (and put a notice to support, they please should show them to a dev dealing with the bgs, as some of them are hard to get otherwise...). frontier has repeatedly changed elements of the BGS, some for exampel in response to long running (afk...) macros. i think, we should not blurr the lines between somebody optimizing trade profits to influence the BGS with his/her t9 (which isn't, btw., me - outside of testing i'm a lousy ineffective, do what pleases me BGS player), and somebody, using tools which are against the tos.
___
as for the suggestion - differently to the anti-botting agreement itself, i'm not a fan of it. Changing player gameplay to make life harder for bots isn't the way to go forward imho - even if some changes to gameplay for making the game better for players would be appreciated - more so, if those wouldn't be easily botable. Conflictzones changes have been a great exampel how to go about it. but for exampel i totally hated the change introduced with horizons, when trade destinations changed during the mission, as it destroyed my game of planning trade runs/routes.
there are two main difference between maximising BGS effects (for exampel: of trade) and botting:
a) the difference between a min-maxed bgs effort and a non-optimized bgs effort are rather tiny. if you take for exampel the small bet jane Turner and me took here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/trading-for-influence-ii-fc-update.555082/post-8749390, the difference on a constructed edge case was 0,6% influence gain. so in daily gameplay you'll have a hard time even to see a difference. compare that to the effect of botting. bots should have no problem of nullifying 20 man hours completly.
b) i'll add, that i tend to publish all findings by testing here on the forums, beside those i consider blatant exploits, which i directly file with frontier (and put a notice to support, they please should show them to a dev dealing with the bgs, as some of them are hard to get otherwise...). frontier has repeatedly changed elements of the BGS, some for exampel in response to long running (afk...) macros. i think, we should not blurr the lines between somebody optimizing trade profits to influence the BGS with his/her t9 (which isn't, btw., me - outside of testing i'm a lousy ineffective, do what pleases me BGS player), and somebody, using tools which are against the tos.
___
as for the suggestion - differently to the anti-botting agreement itself, i'm not a fan of it. Changing player gameplay to make life harder for bots isn't the way to go forward imho - even if some changes to gameplay for making the game better for players would be appreciated - more so, if those wouldn't be easily botable. Conflictzones changes have been a great exampel how to go about it. but for exampel i totally hated the change introduced with horizons, when trade destinations changed during the mission, as it destroyed my game of planning trade runs/routes.
Last edited:
Jane being a moderator has no bearing on this, moderators do not moderate their own threads.
I agree the flat-earther's analogy fits better than climate change deniers. I wouldn't have an issue with someone asking me to sign an agreement that if it turned out the earth was flat to grab a spade & start digging away at the edges & lumping the rock in the middle to make it round. I would check the small print for caveat traps though
And thats the important thing- its cutting down exploits and tightening mechanics which for me is the most impactful change possible, especially with more linear features like Powerplay. Do that, you cut down on grey areas and make the game better.
As an example, I have the option of working from home 5 days a week. Even if we successfully remove bots, what's stopping me picking up hundreds of influence a day running delivery missions in between phone calls and emails since I can use supercruise assist and the ADC.
Even being interdicted by an NPC mid phone call just requires 4 pips to shields, submit and outrun it until I can end the call and get back into SC.
What if David Braben started this thread? Would you have given this issue more legitimacy? I mean, David wouldn't be moderating the thread, so it wouldn't make any difference, right?Jane being a moderator has no bearing on this, moderators do not moderate their own threads.
I agree the flat-earther's analogy fits better than climate change deniers. I wouldn't have an issue with someone asking me to sign an agreement that if it turned out the earth was flat to grab a spade & start digging away at the edges & lumping the rock in the middle to make it round. I would check the small print for caveat traps though
But you and I both know, someone connected to Frontier in any way, lends legitimacy to a campaign connected to the game.
btw, still waiting for proof that there is an issue with bots.
as for those wondering whether there are actually bgs-influencing bots in game and whether they influence the bgs a lot at soem places(i was wondering the same, when i heard of the AB-A ) - just ask around, i had no problem finding people more knowledgeable i personally trust by experience, who told me, it is a real problem (and the group i mainly play with signed the agreement for that).
or join the AB-A discord (I'm not there) - i think part of the charm of that group will be forensic, and forensics can always only win from scepticism. also a group like the AB-A will spread knowledge of not identifying any bgs not going to plan with botting, while it will help to identify clear cases.
or join the AB-A discord (I'm not there) - i think part of the charm of that group will be forensic, and forensics can always only win from scepticism. also a group like the AB-A will spread knowledge of not identifying any bgs not going to plan with botting, while it will help to identify clear cases.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Absolutely. I am particularly enjoying the discussions between traditional antagonists, trying to find solutions to identify/nullify a common "enemy".
there is this problem, that posting a link to that is against forum rules. but i'm pretty sure if you ask nicely, somebody will send you a pm (as it happened in that other thread).
I've seen no evidence of botting. Communism Interstellar immediately blaming bots for their loss feels like someone immediately blaming hacks for dying in PvP. Maybe you just lost?
Mods are hall monitors nothing more and they are just as able to voice views on the game without everyone thinking they're speaking for Frontier.
I've seen more evidence of a forum moderator giving legitimacy to an issue, than evidence of bots being a problem.
I think Jane has me on ignore. If I had any sway within the community I'd use it to convince people to believe my point, isn't that what we all do?
I've provided examples of occasions where work I did (or know who did it) was attributed to botting, with enough evidence that they can be cross-checked by Jane if she wishes. As far as I'm concerned the agreement is harmless (speaking as someone already 'accused' of botting), proposals to change the game are not, and cheating (as I define it) is so endemic to faction support now the way the OP describes it is hypocritical. Which is fine (play your own way) as long as it doesn't disrupt the gameplay for those uninterested in BGS manipulation.
Somebody send me that info please, I'd love to cross check it against stuff I've been involved with. I don't use discord (ironically I consider it cheating).
Or perhaps they're giving legitimacy to a person who happens to also be a mod.
Hi Mizbehave/ Folks etc.
Just as a FYI.
Moderators are allowed to take part in and create threads/discussions.
We are of course subject to the rules as everyone else, and most people would distinguish between an official stance and a Moderators opinion, point etc.
If you feel a post has broken the forum rules whoever posted it, feel free to report it with a valid reason why and it will be looked into.
Thanks.
Last edited:
