Bot attack in eranin?

[Ian Doncaster]

Which leaves only one real question: Does it matter in any meaningful way who controls this, or any other system?
I'm going to guess "No".

Depends on your definition of "meaningful". But if we stick to things with measurable in-game consequences, rather than the personal satisfaction of players who find meaning in supporting one faction or another...

...on an individual station level, changes in faction ownership can open or close certain services (black market, interstellar factors, material traders) on a semi-permanent basis. The government type of the station controller also affects which modules are offered in outfitting, and which goods are legal in the market (which can cause rare goods to semi-permanently vanish from the game [1]).

...on a broader level, there are advantages and disadvantages to the independent trader, pirate or bounty hunter from having all stations in a region controlled by different groups or having them all controlled by a single faction. For example:
- all stations controlled by the same faction will share a BGS state and therefore a set of trade price effects. This makes profitable trading between them usually less effective and can lead to regional supply shortages
- all systems controlled by the same faction share a jurisdiction (which in many cases is part of a superpower), meaning that the impact of crimes committed is more substantial
- different configurations of factions, especially as they sprawl across many systems, are more or less vulnerable to the significant economic states of Lockdown, Civil Unrest, Famine and Outbreak which provide major opportunities ... or not ... to various professions. Similarly this can affect mission availability a bit.

...government types in most of the bubble also affect the ease of Powerplay control of particular spheres, which even if you don't directly care who "wins" Powerplay this week ... most of the Powerplay spheres further apply global effects to trade prices and/or service availability.

...there are feedback effects (in that you don't have to care who owns a station for the fact that other people *do* to affect you) on things like CG placement, Thargoid raids, etc. Occasionally these - e.g. Lave - get big enough to be more obviously noticeable.

Of course, the bubble is large enough that one can avoid having to care in the slightest who owns any particular station or set of systems - if the local configuration is unfavourable, there will be plenty of other places which are better, and if one of those becomes unfavourable later it's always possible to move on again. That's not the same as the local changes being unimportant, though.

[1] If LRN had picked "Theocracy" as their government type it'd make the current cycle of complaint threads look mild

 

[Aashenfox]

Depends on your definition of "meaningful". But if we stick to things with measurable in-game consequences, rather than the personal satisfaction of players who find meaning in supporting one faction or another...

...on an individual station level, changes in faction ownership can open or close certain services (black market, interstellar factors, material traders) on a semi-permanent basis. The government type of the station controller also affects which modules are offered in outfitting, and which goods are legal in the market (which can cause rare goods to semi-permanently vanish from the game [1]).

...on a broader level, there are advantages and disadvantages to the independent trader, pirate or bounty hunter from having all stations in a region controlled by different groups or having them all controlled by a single faction. For example:
- all stations controlled by the same faction will share a BGS state and therefore a set of trade price effects. This makes profitable trading between them usually less effective and can lead to regional supply shortages
- all systems controlled by the same faction share a jurisdiction (which in many cases is part of a superpower), meaning that the impact of crimes committed is more substantial
- different configurations of factions, especially as they sprawl across many systems, are more or less vulnerable to the significant economic states of Lockdown, Civil Unrest, Famine and Outbreak which provide major opportunities ... or not ... to various professions. Similarly this can affect mission availability a bit.

...government types in most of the bubble also affect the ease of Powerplay control of particular spheres, which even if you don't directly care who "wins" Powerplay this week ... most of the Powerplay spheres further apply global effects to trade prices and/or service availability.

...there are feedback effects (in that you don't have to care who owns a station for the fact that other people *do* to affect you) on things like CG placement, Thargoid raids, etc. Occasionally these - e.g. Lave - get big enough to be more obviously noticeable.

Of course, the bubble is large enough that one can avoid having to care in the slightest who owns any particular station or set of systems - if the local configuration is unfavourable, there will be plenty of other places which are better, and if one of those becomes unfavourable later it's always possible to move on again. That's not the same as the local changes being unimportant, though.

[1] If LRN had picked "Theocracy" as their government type it'd make the current cycle of complaint threads look mild

GARD (my future guild), will have a permanent mandate to rid the galaxy of theocracies. Just sayin', ad maius bonum! lol

 

[the100thmonkey]

"It's a secret" isn't a convincing argument.

As I said, I'm not party to it - I'm simply reporting what I've heard, which is that certain parties believe that bots are involved.

If you took the time to read my previous posts on this thread, you'll see that I haven't precluded players playing the game - I've already indicated that I think it was quite possible for players to have done it, but that they would have needed to be both knowledgeable and very organised.

Yep the system population is less than half a million one player could put it in lockdown in a couple of hours.

Lockdown wasn't the issue: It's an agri, next to a starter system, in a busy region of space, that also happens to sell a rare good. I know several CMDRs that will happily relate to you how difficult it is to even have the opportunity to push the right BGS buttons at the right time to achieve the result we have seen. That's why I posted how CI admire the ruthless efficiency of the operation.

I'm personally still sceptical that bots were involved; all I've said is that there are sources I'm less inclined to disbelieve than believe (because they have demonstrated that they know what they're talking about BGS-wise)--i.e. credible--that have said they believe bots are involved.

If you don't believe me, go and help TCF try to flip it back - see how much work it takes.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Depends on your definition of "meaningful". But if we stick to things with measurable in-game consequences, rather than the personal satisfaction of players who find meaning in supporting one faction or another...

...on an individual station level, changes in faction ownership can open or close certain services (black market, interstellar factors, material traders) on a semi-permanent basis. The government type of the station controller also affects which modules are offered in outfitting, and which goods are legal in the market (which can cause rare goods to semi-permanently vanish from the game [1]).

...on a broader level, there are advantages and disadvantages to the independent trader, pirate or bounty hunter from having all stations in a region controlled by different groups or having them all controlled by a single faction. For example:
- all stations controlled by the same faction will share a BGS state and therefore a set of trade price effects. This makes profitable trading between them usually less effective and can lead to regional supply shortages
- all systems controlled by the same faction share a jurisdiction (which in many cases is part of a superpower), meaning that the impact of crimes committed is more substantial
- different configurations of factions, especially as they sprawl across many systems, are more or less vulnerable to the significant economic states of Lockdown, Civil Unrest, Famine and Outbreak which provide major opportunities ... or not ... to various professions. Similarly this can affect mission availability a bit.

...government types in most of the bubble also affect the ease of Powerplay control of particular spheres, which even if you don't directly care who "wins" Powerplay this week ... most of the Powerplay spheres further apply global effects to trade prices and/or service availability.

...there are feedback effects (in that you don't have to care who owns a station for the fact that other people *do* to affect you) on things like CG placement, Thargoid raids, etc. Occasionally these - e.g. Lave - get big enough to be more obviously noticeable.

Of course, the bubble is large enough that one can avoid having to care in the slightest who owns any particular station or set of systems - if the local configuration is unfavourable, there will be plenty of other places which are better, and if one of those becomes unfavourable later it's always possible to move on again. That's not the same as the local changes being unimportant, though.

[1] If LRN had picked "Theocracy" as their government type it'd make the current cycle of complaint threads look mild

Great post.

I'd add that having all stations controlled by your faction is a fundamentally bad idea, as you end up with no pawns to protect the king. Any conflict with the controlling faction is definitely going to put your faction at risk of losing control of the system. It's useful to have a second faction available to block a rising faction with a war/election. Factions with no assets tend to languish, often below 5%, so it's easy for an expanding faction to push in over the no-war threshold and go straight for the jugular.

 

[cyberir]

I notified them and i hope they will come up with more proof and believe me i would rather have in mind there are no bots involved I dont like to even think of idea that its possible or that was the fact since it breaks my immersion of gameplay.

 

[Stigbob]

As I said, I'm not party to it - I'm simply reporting what I've heard, which is that certain parties believe that bots are involved.

If you took the time to read my previous posts on this thread, you'll see that I haven't precluded players playing the game - I've already indicated that I think it was quite possible for players to have done it, but that they would have needed to be both knowledgeable and very organised.

​

I'm not saying you believe it, I'm saying we have proof of bots but won't share it is unconvincing. Which is what you were told by someone else, not your opinion. ​

​

Lockdown wasn't the issue: It's an agri, next to a starter system, in a busy region of space, that also happens to sell a rare good. I know several CMDRs that will happily relate to you how difficult it is to even have the opportunity to push the right BGS buttons at the right time to achieve the result we have seen. That's why I posted how CI admire the ruthless efficiency of the operation.

I'm personally still sceptical that bots were involved; all I've said is that there are sources I'm less inclined to disbelieve than believe (because they have demonstrated that they know what they're talking about BGS-wise)--i.e. credible--that have said they believe bots are involved.

If you don't believe me, go and help TCF try to flip it back - see how much work it takes.

I used lockdown as an example of an easy state to trigger in a low population system even doing it solo, to highlight the effect small numbers of players can have on systems. It wasn't a direct reference to this.

The thing that makes me think it was just players and no shenanigans at all is that to lose the station they must have lost a war (non-BGS boffin warning), yet there's been no mention of that at all. It sounds like they had their eye off the ball and got trounced by surprise.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

they must have lost a war (non-BGS boffin warning)

TCF are Confederacy and EPP are Communist, so it would have been an Election rather than a War. Doesn't make a lot of difference for which side wins, most of the time.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

There has been strong evidence before of botting in PP. The Eranin case is another likely one, and we have noticed others, where it also may seem the case. New and unexpected rises in mission running, and distinctive type ships with sudden massive traffic increases, and high increase in influence for selected factions.

Of course, the game doesn't allow much information, so proving anything is hard. AOS got nowhere, even when they had videos of bots that were quite compelling.

If botting has now made it to the BGS, this game is in real big trouble. It would be a new low point, and removes all skill out of BGS play. If FDev's reaction to BGS botting is going to be like it has been for PowerPlay, I can foresee an exodus out of the game. Fighting bots is a pointless exercise. If this becomes common, BGS play is dead, and whole player groups might move to other games.

BGS players are a minority in the game, but they are highly likely to be daily players. If there is no response to botting from FDev, we will ​see a drop in daily active players.

 

[xondk]

There was a wild inf swing in eranin recently that resulted in a faction i used to support losing the largest starport in the system as well as control of the system.
One of the faction supporters i was just chatting with said that if upnp is not enabled then you cant get into the bots instance and there is no defense against it. Is this true?
Im pretty sure i disabled upnp at one point experimenting with network performance and i dont recall that it made much difference.
Anyone know anything about what happened in eranin?

Before you begin accusing bots and such, realise that there 'can' be active people working for other factions, that you simply will not meet due to timing, they aren't where you are where you are looking, they are so far apart from your geo location that you won't get matched together since you wouldn't get a good connection, and so on, actually meeting someone and killing them, will at best be a waste of time because the background simulation does not care if you kill players, at worst, you waste your time killing people and people fighting for other factions, keep working for their faction, and your own faction loses even more because you aren't working for it.

That's just my personal view on it, because if we've reached the point where bots can rightfully be blamed for such things, its greatly depressing.

 

[Vasious]

Isn't this the thread from a coupole of days about this?

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/448784-Revolution-in-Eranin

People announcing success in restoring the Eranin Peoples' Party to power

 

[Morat]

Yes, but -this- thread contains baseless accusations of botting on behalf of someone or other, Altogether a better framing for drama.

 

[Vasious]

Yes, but -this- thread contains baseless accusations of botting on behalf of someone or other, Altogether a better framing for drama.

Oh I wasn't meaning "there is already a thread for that" more an answers to the why the system changed hands, people are opening claiming they did it so it isn't a sudden unexplained change that must be mysterious bots (unless bots made victory posts now)

 

[the100thmonkey]

I used lockdown as an example of an easy state to trigger in a low population system even doing it solo, to highlight the effect small numbers of players can have on systems. It wasn't a direct reference to this.

And the point of my reply was essentially that anyone can trigger a lockdown. Triggering an election is far harder in a high-traffic system such as Eranin due to the incumbency effect.

The thing that makes me think it was just players and no shenanigans at all is that to lose the station they must have lost a war (non-BGS boffin warning), yet there's been no mention of that at all. It sounds like they had their eye off the ball and got trounced by surprise.

The TCF got into a war in Morgor between the 11th and 14th of September that neutralised the non-combat BGS inputs in Eranin (trade, mission running, explo data) in the days leading up to the election. The influence declines across all TCF systems is clear in the Inara faction summary - that was the opportunity that was so ruthlessly taken by our phantom flippers.

 

[DNA-Decay]

people are opening claiming they did it

There's been a few instances particularly around UA bombing where those who are actually doing it have stayed in the shadows, while Ollobrains stepped forward and waved the flag: "Look what I did".

Vasious - botting is fairly well documented: Here's Obsidian Ant discussing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG9Ed7Kc4MY

There was a thread with video posted by Vectron filming the behaviour of Bots that ended up in Open after automated board flipping.
I can't find it right now, and I have to get back to the coal face at work.
Can one of the folks who knows the history on this post that video please?
Vasious - you should find that old thread and follow it. Botting is well established.


There's a lot of "oh rubbish you're just sore cause you lost" which is to be expected.
And there is a lot of attitude on this forum about "why would you care about anything except credits?'"
But BGS groups get that credits are only a tool.

Botting technologies exist and have been demonstrated in the past.

I don't believe they are widespread. A small core of players with a particular intent
But the bots are being adapted to more uses.

That potentially leads to an escalating situation where the only way to counter bots is with bots.



Those who are doing it will be reading this thread.

Is this what you want?
BGS groups will leave the game or the BGS will become the sole playground of the bot writers.
A sandbox where the only thing that will count is: Who can write the least detectable, most efficient bot?

 

[Twrchuk]

DNA DECAY and myself are poles apart on most issues but I do agree with his ultimate conclusions re 'Botting"

I'm currently not convinced that it exists in this case as a population of this size (450k) can easily be swung by 1 determined player using the in game tools.

I am though "happy" for want of a better word to be convinced.

IF it exists then it needs to be rooted out and removed - and the players responsible should be removed from the game permanently.

 

[Deareim]

Botting is existing in PP, for sure. It was widely used against Mahon and used also by some PP like Yuri Grom in private group.

Regarding BGS, I don't know besides AOS proof but what is bothering me, is that the bot discussion is coming out every time an ALLIANCE faction is losing something... Not others... Coincidence ?

 

[xondk]

Are there bots, definitely, has it reached a point where every time something happens to the background system that blame can clearly be placed on bots? I hope not, and all I am suggesting is that until we know, lets not settle on blaming the worst scenario, lets find proof, instead of going down a depressing road like thinking everyone is cheating/botting.

 

[Twrchuk]

If botting exists then evidence is required before accusations can be made although a suspicion can possibly be inferred from other data.

I'm not aware of the specific examples quoted here but hope that any evidence was presented to FD and appropriate action taken against those responsible based on that actual evidence.

As for the AEDC losing something and blaming 'botting' for the loss - they themselves (to my knowledge wholly innocent of the charge) have in the past been accused of doing so - but in reality it was them simply utilising the transaction based nature of the game.

This was simply something they understood at the time but others didn't and the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind is king.

In my view though actual evidence is needed 1st rather than supposition and it also appears non specific suggestion.

All those who enjoy the BGS should want and expect a level playing field within the black box we experiment with and play.

If there is 'botting' it should be removed root and branch and those responsible permanently removed with those bots.

 

[Vasious]

I am not saying bots don't exist

I am wondering where the proof that it is bots is or even just one player supporting the EPP

 

[Twrchuk]

To my knowledge AEDC are going through a wide range of difficulties at the moment as a result of an appallingly bad strategic decision and a lack ironically of Diplomacy.

I can claim only one part of this misfortune as my doing and although I have an idea what's going on have no proof but I'd say it's players.