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

[Phoenix_Dfire]

How many times must FDev reassure people that cheating is being monitored and handled? What do these people expect, that if they report bots, as soon as they click the reporting system "submit" button, we should see the accused instantly vanish before our eyes? FDev has their process, they don't want to talk about it to ensure it keeps working, and they take action where necessary.

I think its felt that people need reassurance that something has been done about it. Although this player "slaver" issue got jumped on quite quickly, there is a lingering feeling that Cheaters are not being dealt with. I.E. Combat Loggers, Abusive Griefers (See the SDC when they invaded Mobius), the old engineering exploit which helped in the Salome event and obviously the botting issue.

All that's probably needed is once in a while a statement from fdev saying, 'We've shadow-banned X number of accounts for breaking the rules.'

 

[Rat Catcher]

All that's probably needed is once in a while a statement from fdev saying, 'We've shadow-banned X number of accounts for breaking the rules.'

Or just take their word for it that they are doing whatever they deem necessary for the 'good' of the game?

Perhaps they should just pluck a random number between 196 & 8762 each month and announce they banned this number of players for ToS / CoC infractions, that should work very well!

 

[Darth Ender]

So which bit of my post is untrue?

Your comment appears entirely unrelated to my content... nothing unusual in that on this forum though...

Oh, sorry - Frontier should rewrite the game to account for botters... My apology.

No. but nice job at ignoring all of the other things (partially listed out) that would be solved by adding (not rewriting) to game mechanics/roles. Even if you disagree with the importance of bots ...there are a multitude of other issues which are not in dispute at being important and caused by this repetitive skill-less riskless gameplay.

Unless you think "exploration" in this game as mechanic is worthy of being proud of (and unless you're a designer of load screens, it's hard to see how). or that any of the other aspects that can apparently be played via a script (or even set of macros) is something we should be happy with. At best, they are acceptable grind mechanics and/or version 1.0 implementations to get a playable game out. 6 years on though, one would expect there to be something built on top of the infrastructure to give the game mechanics depth and improve the game experience for players across a wide range of skill levels. Having that would allow the more grindy game loops to be devalued to where they should be ...which allows you to solve way more issues than just botters. You get the botters for free.

 

[Rat Catcher]

No. but nice job at ignoring all of the other things (partially listed out) that would be solved by adding (not rewriting) to game mechanics/roles. Even if you disagree with the importance of bots ...there are a multitude of other issues which are not in dispute at being important and caused by this repetitive skill-less riskless gameplay.

Unless you think "exploration" in this game as mechanic is worthy of being proud of (and unless you're a designer of load screens, it's hard to see how). or that any of the other aspects that can apparently be played via a script (or even set of macros) is something we should be happy with. At best, they are acceptable grind mechanics and/or version 1.0 implementations to get a playable game out. 6 years on though, one would expect there to be something built on top of the infrastructure to give the game mechanics depth and improve the game experience for players across a wide range of skill levels. Having that would allow the more grindy game loops to be devalued to where they should be ...which allows you to solve way more issues than just botters. You get the botters for free.

Your opinion of the 'ills' in respect to the game is of course 100% correct...

My opinion of the game is also, of course, 100% correct... We are at odds in our perceptions, but then - that, too, is to be 100% expected - the principle difference between us only being that I refer to the first person and you opt to use a collective in expression our respective opinions.

 

[Wrecked]

Or just take their word for it that they are doing whatever they deem necessary for the 'good' of the game?

Perhaps they should just pluck a random number between 196 & 8762 each month and announce they banned this number of players for ToS / CoC infractions, that should work very well!

Lol, I like this idea. Let's take it one step further and go full government conspiracy... how about FDev create a weekly process that produces X number of accounts each week up to a maximum value, make all of them Bot driven accounts, wait until they get reported and there is a big stink on the forums, then "ban" all of their own accounts and report it back to the community.

Observed bots go away, people think FDev are doing something, bada bing bada boom, everyone's happy and FDev can get back to making a cool game.

 

[Darth Ender]

Your opinion of the 'ills' in respect to the game is of course 100% correct...

My opinion of the game is also, of course, 100% correct... We are at odds in our perceptions, but then - that, too, is to be 100% expected - the principle difference between us only being that I refer to the first person and you opt to use a collective in expression our respective opinions.

No, the difference is I can provide objective reasons why the current mechanics are repetitive riskless and skilless game loops and how supplementing them with loops that aren't resolve many problems fdev has in trying to balance various aspects of the game and players. You have not ...and almost certainly cannot provide reasons for why the status quo is better or has any hope of resolving any of those issues.

 

[Wrecked]

I think its felt that people need reassurance that something has been done about it. Although this player "slaver" issue got jumped on quite quickly, there is a lingering feeling that Cheaters are not being dealt with. I.E. Combat Loggers, Abusive Griefers (See the SDC when they invaded Mobius), the old engineering exploit which helped in the Salome event and obviously the botting issue.

All that's probably needed is once in a while a statement from fdev saying, 'We've shadow-banned X number of accounts for breaking the rules.'

See this as a way to placate people :

Lol, I like this idea. Let's take it one step further and go full government conspiracy... how about FDev create a weekly process that produces X number of accounts each week up to a maximum value, make all of them Bot driven accounts, wait until they get reported and there is a big stink on the forums, then "ban" all of their own accounts and report it back to the community.

Observed bots go away, people think FDev are doing something, bada bing bada boom, everyone's happy and FDev can get back to making a cool game.

However, I still think that every time FDev give an inch, people start expecting a mile as if they are entitled to it. I think feedback is good, but to a point. It seems as though some people forget that this is not their game, they have no ownership over its direction. They may have influence, but not ownership. As you pointed out, the slaver thing got their attention, they decided it was a big problem which was bad for the game, and so they took action. This botting "problem" must not require a grand public exhibition in FDev's opinion. I think we should respect how the developer wants to run their game on this issue as it has been raised multiple times and acknowledged as being handled as seen fit. If something was a huge problem for me and I raised the issue to the devs and they acknowledged my concern but still had not addressed the issue to my satisfaction, I'd be an adult and choose to accept the situation or quit playing the game. I applaud FDev for maintaining their position on this issue and doing things they way they want to do them. I may not like every decision, but they're not my decisions to like.

 

[Northpin]

No big surprise here. It was nothing new, just repeat of their old stance, that suspicious activities should be reported.

That's how policing the game works in ED.
They dont have CSR in game 24/7, they dont have tools actively monitoring player activity.

So we had a Beluga stuck for many hours in Jamesons mailslot in a Saturday evening, when someone was dead set to prove that cheating exists. Eventually he managed to prove that perma-banning also exists

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

That's how policing the game works in ED.
They dont have CSR in game 24/7, they dont have tools actively monitoring player activity.

So we had a Beluga stuck for many hours in Jamesons mailslot in a Saturday evening, when someone was dead set to prove that cheating exists. Eventually he managed to prove that perma-banning also exists

I'm pretty sure that guy had been cheating for months too. It just took a public, hours long protest by cheating in the busiest station in the game + a livestream with the cheat on screen to get banned.

Almost like FDev relies on player reports and is not actively monitoring the game looking for such things. And how can you report an army of bots that thrives in the lack of information the BGS provides, from the comfort of Private Group/Solo Play? They shouldn't be able to do what they do without leaving any tracks.

 

[Just Paul]

Almost like FDev relies on player reports and is not actively monitoring the game looking for such things. And how can you report an army of bots that thrives in the lack of information the BGS provides, from the comfort of Private Group/Solo Play? They shouldn't be able to do what they do without leaving any tracks.

Unfortunately that's the reality of P2P. You suspect cheating, botting, or something against the EULA/ToS use the report function to report it. FDev will take it from there.

The problem is that they maintain cutters at a constant 200 traffic for... months? You can predict the traffic too. Tomorrow the station they are supporting with trade enters a lockdown, and suddenly 200 cutters dissapear and 200 Condas show up, switching their efforts to failing missions by dumping passengers and a few other activities.

Or when you say "tomorrow their best move would be to hit the outpost" and they replace 300 ships torn between Cutters and T-9's into 300 Pythons. All of this goes on for months. What you are suggesting is a great way to hide if you're a real player... but not a good way to hide a constant, 24/7 never ending effort of automated accounts.

This one is from the other thread. I think this would be enough to report suspicious behavior, no new or extra data needed. Again report and then it's up to FDev to look into it and find out if it's botting or not. They wont publish the results of their investigation though so if everything continues as before the report is a little bit Schroedinger's cat. Either they didn't punish the botters or there were no botters to begin with.

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

Unfortunately that's the reality of P2P. You suspect cheating, botting, or something against the EULA/ToS use the report function to report it. FDev will take it from there.




This one is from the other thread. I think this would be enough to report suspicious behavior, no new or extra data needed. Again report and then it's up to FDev to look into it and find out if it's botting or not. They wont publish the results of their investigation though so if everything continues as before the report is a little bit Schroedinger's cat. Either they didn't punish the botters or there were no botters to begin with.

Aye, nothing to disagree here. It's rather unfortunate that it is like this, but I bet there are legal reasons with Frontier being based in the UK that they just can't share that sort of information, and if they could get around it, they're just not willing to do so, and I don't berate them for that.

I would just really love to see some of that enviroment in which the botters thrive being trashed a bit. There's no transparency in the BGS whatsoever, I don't need to see CMDR names in the station board, but surely there are ways to give people better tools to identify bots, without being intrusive giving out info normal people would rather not give.

A big problem with even getting into the stage of reporting botting is that lots of people don't know what's suspicious and what isn't. A lot of other people lose 10% influence and think "bots!" at once. The lack of transparency as to what is going on doesn't help in the slightest.

 

[Just Paul]

Aye, nothing to disagree here. It's rather unfortunate that it is like this, but I bet there are legal reasons with Frontier being based in the UK that they just can't share that sort of information, and if they could get around it, they're just not willing to do so, and I don't berate them for that.

I would just really love to see some of that enviroment in which the botters thrive being trashed a bit. There's no transparency in the BGS whatsoever, I don't need to see CMDR names in the station board, but surely there are ways to give people better tools to identify bots, without being intrusive giving out info normal people would rather not give.

A big problem with even getting into the stage of reporting botting is that lots of people don't know what's suspicious and what isn't. A lot of other people lose 10% influence and think "bots!" at once. The lack of transparency as to what is going on doesn't help in the slightest.

The no transparency is for me one of the best parts of the bgs. It does on the other hand, as you said, make the distinction between botting and legit strategy/game-play very hard.

For me personally finding out new things by doing science is one of the most enjoyable part of the bgs, plus seeing it actually work then put to the test against another group. If we would have more data and/or transparency that would go away as once you deploy your "science" the other side will know right away and can counter/use it.
In the end it is a balancing for FDev and similar to the cheating stuff a while ago FDev will not give any indication on what they found or decited to do with the offending accounts. You only hear about it or get confirmation if the offender post it somewhere. Would I like to see some info on what FDev did or found, absolutely, but I don't have hopes that it will happen.

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

The no transparency is for me one of the best parts of the bgs. It does on the other hand, as you said, make the distinction between botting and legit strategy/game-play very hard.

For me personally finding out new things by doing science is one of the most enjoyable part of the bgs, plus seeing it actually work then put to the test against another group. If we would have more data and/or transparency that would go away as once you deploy your "science" the other side will know right away and can counter/use it.
In the end it is a balancing for FDev and similar to the cheating stuff a while ago FDev will not give any indication on what they found or decited to do with the offending accounts. You only hear about it or get confirmation if the offender post it somewhere. Would I like to see some info on what FDev did or found, absolutely, but I don't have hopes that it will happen.

Personally I'm sure there's lots that can be done without actually revealing all sorts of intelligence that make the "knowing what you're doing" part of the BGS useless. I understand the concerns with that though. But I am still in the side that bots are enough of a problem that there should be better ways to clear out the false positives so that people in general know what they're up against. Imo all of it becomes kind of irrelevant when you're being botted against. Player groups have zero defense against this kind of behaviour.

 

[Several Puffins]

But I am still in the side that bots are enough of a problem that there should be better ways to clear out the false positives so that people in general know what they're up against

I suspect that bots are a problem- I remember a large BGS op where we couldn't seem to win a single influence push and couldn't seem to lose a single war- but I understand people being hesitant about a lot of suggested fixes- if I flagged my example, it might have turned out to be 20 pg truckers who were naff at combat. Any system that gives players access to information about docking patterns/times will lead to some false accusations and arguments about open/solo either we'll get false bans, or no more action than we see already. Not-exactly-CAPTCHA docking sounds irritating, frankly.

The one fix that is unambiguously good is the hardest- make game loops less repetitive and more complex. Have BGS hauling based around sourcing goods that one faction needs dynamically for some internal project, rather than on any old profitable trade route. Have power play hauling involve clandestine handovers while running silent at a hacked cargo bay on an installation. Even though I have mostly played for BGS/PP I doubt I would agree with another approach to the problem.

 

[Rat Catcher]

No, the difference is I can provide objective reasons why the current mechanics are repetitive riskless and skilless game loops and how supplementing them with loops that aren't resolve many problems fdev has in trying to balance various aspects of the game and players. You have not ...and almost certainly cannot provide reasons for why the status quo is better or has any hope of resolving any of those issues.

Really?

Why, thank you! I'm almost speechless by your own perceived awesomeness. You obviously meant to say that you could provide opinion on these things but needed to express it in a more verbose manner.

Why should I need to provide reasons to support my opinion? You, of course, are free to publish a 278 page diatribe on why your opinion is correct - it wouldn't make my opinion less than 100% accurate, would it?

 

[Several Puffins]

You, of course, are free to publish a 278 page diatribe on why your opinion is correct - it wouldn't make my opinion less than 100% accurate, would it?

Depends on the contents of the diatribe tbh. Your opinion is only guaranteed to be 100% your opinion!

 

[Rat Catcher]

Depends on the contents of the diatribe tbh. Your opinion is only guaranteed to be 100% your opinion!

Absolutely correct!

The diatribe would, of course, reflect perceived shortcomings (of which I am sure there are many considered by some) and provide a solution tailored to address those perceptions and presented as a fact, understandably such solutions would be proposed to support the agenda of the writer.

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

Absolutely correct!

The diatribe would, of course, reflect perceived shortcomings (of which I am sure there are many considered by some) and provide a solution tailored to address those perceptions and presented as a fact, understandably such solutions would be proposed to support the agenda of the writer.

I’m not a fan of diatribe to be honest; I prefer a good ol’ rant, followed by a ragequit and the proper distribution of stuffz to be haz.