Ah, this is one of the biggest issues for me in PP. The lack of variation in activities, which leads to mindless grinding. PP missions would help a lot with this, and perhaps i might even become interested in PP.
[POWERPLAY] Disable all autopilot features when pledged (existing and incoming April update)
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
Ah, this is one of the biggest issues for me in PP. The lack of variation in activities, which leads to mindless grinding. PP missions would help a lot with this, and perhaps i might even become interested in PP.
In a nutshell, without these modules, bot users have to be fairly "sophisticated." By which I mean, they have to know where to get the various apps needed to make their bots, and then get those apps to work together to get their desired result.
With these modules, bot users need fewer apps, which in turn makes it easier to make the ones that remain even easier to work together.
For example, I am absolutely positive I could design a pips management "assistant" using the TARGET software of my HOTAS. All the little errors that I make, all the missed opportunities, I could program away and be a much better combat pilot than I am right now. I don't because I would consider that cheating, and I'd much rather develop my own skills at the game, than rely on my ability to program a TARGET script.
Using that same TARGET software, which comes with any Thrustmaster controller, I'm also fairly sure I could program in an "autopilot" that would require my input only twice per trip. Everything else could be done via a script, or the new modules. It would be horribly inefficient compared to me piloting them myself, but it also means I could run multiple accounts simultaneously, effectively tripling my efficiency in the long run. An "off the shelf" program would remove even that little bit of required input.
Ok, but those bots already exist, so what is the actual impact on the botters? Yeah, it makes it easier, but those bot scripts are done, so the new modules, while able to perhaps make the scripts simpler, that actually requires extra efforts from those coding the bots, since it actually means changing the existing code to work with the new modules, when (presumably) the existing code works just fine.
You're calling powerplay a grind? I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!
I'd be writing my own bots if I were on PC. Another reason for more people to support my "Fix broken shadows on PS4" campaign
I wouldn't go that far. But a game that can be won by a script isn't a game that is difficult, and that is Powerplay's greatest flaw IMO: the ways to fill the various buckets involve either ABA cargo runs, or combat farming. The former can easily automated. And the power creep in the game is so great, the latter can be done with an AFK turret boat, effectively trading skill for time spent grinding for materials.
Imagine what would happen if both activities were replaced by missions. Instead of hauling the same commodity to fortify a system, sourced from a single system, you instead accept a chain of missions to deliver several different different commodities, each from a different economy type, with passengers and combat missions mixed in, with something similar for undermining, preparation, or expansions, the mix of mission types depending upon the Ethos of the Power.
I'd be writing my own bots if I were on PC. Another reason for more people to support my "Fix broken shadows on PS4" campaign
I'm sure a fine upstanding member of the community such as yourself would never write a bot to exploit the game.
It's less about the bots that exist already, and more about how much lower the bar will now be, thanks to these new modules. Personally, I think the bar is being lowered so far that the Open Only crowd is starting to make sense to me.
That isn't a good thing.
And don't think I haven't dreamed of wiring up a Raspberry Pi to my DS4. Don't worry, I'll be using my bot to find Raxxla, not to deliver dumb pamphlets in a half-baked wannabe strategy sub-game (no offense to those who actually enjoy PP).
It's less about the bots that exist already, and more about how much lower the bar will now be, thanks to these new modules. Personally, I think the bar is being lowered so far that the Open Only crowd is starting to make sense to me.
That isn't a good thing.
Isn't this a bit like worrying about the impact of cars when jet planes have already been invented?
I too am amused by all this "the bots are coming, the bots are coming" prophecy, when in reality the bots are ALREADY HERE.
I'd say it's more being worried about siafu, when all you've seen so far a few stray carpenter ants.
Well I still support PP being Open-only (and I was stuck in Solo all winter long due to bandwidth issues). This seems a simple, eloquent fix, and from what I'm observing lately, people around here complain about EVERYTHING, so what's one more thing? Just make sure to we can get the modules through other means like the Tech Broker.
Hello, Rubbernuke.
I've not tried PP since it first appeared in beta (it always felt a bit too gamey for me), so I've no strong feelings about it, although I've certainly far less appreciation for the bot-wielding scum who want to cheat their way to victory.
I have to ask, though: isn't this all something of a moot point? I mean, if they've already gone to all the trouble of building software that can play the game for them (in however limited a fashion), why would they turn part of it off for an autopilot they don't need, when the same optional slot can be used to carry more PP materials?
I find it difficult to envisage a cheat-builder that would see your suggested measure as anything more than a very minor and brief inconvenience. By contrast, if someone on your side is struggling to get a PP-focused Beluga through the letterbox, this could potentially hurt them quite a bit - and in somewhat longer-term fashion, economically, what with the rebuy costs on a badly-botched docking or launch.
Sorry, Rubbernuke, I don't prefer to be unkind about others' ideas, but is a countermeasure that likely hurts legitimate players vastly more than the opposition really worth it? Sacrificing some of your players' security for the game's security doesn't seem like the best of trade-offs. Making such a sacrifice for a measure that doesn't really seem likely to work at all, even less so.
- - - - -
As far as workable measures go, I think countering bots is likely to be something of an endless arms race. That said, if there's the will and resources to do it, some form of streamed, server-rendered video Capcha might be the best approach for cutting down much of the lower-hanging fruit, as it were.
Articulate it in game as a naval PP hyperdictor, only seen on very large, experimental anti-Thargoid / anti-AI ships. Suspicious or random PP player or bot jumps and gets a hypertunnel slowly splitting in multiple directions. A different procedurally-rendered monochrome pattern is mixed in with each exit-direction, while the correct rendered moving pattern to look for is displayed in the info panel.
A genuine human - or well-resourced scum with excellent cheat software and rig - should have little trouble successfully recognising the correct exits three times in a row, unless the human's eyesight's truly appalling. The average bot, however, will presumably be running simpler code (at least for a while) on cheaper rigs, which don't have the processing power for that kind of live video analysis. They'll fail too often and can be marked as more suspicious by the server, the more often they fail. Once a reasonable suspicion-threshold is reached, the most suspicious ships can be interdicted by the navy, dropping at the starting jump point - and all their prior and subsequent contributions for the week discounted as suspected electoral interference at the next PP tick.
This would all take a certain amount of work on FD's part, needs at least one new video-server (albeit one that only needs to connect to a very few players / bots at a time) and might well lead to something of an arms race between FD and the cheat devs - but it has the advantage of reducing much of the unwanted interference, while staying very true-to-lore and adding new (if simple) gameplay for all players affected. That seems like more of a win to me.
I've not tried PP since it first appeared in beta (it always felt a bit too gamey for me), so I've no strong feelings about it, although I've certainly far less appreciation for the bot-wielding scum who want to cheat their way to victory.
I have to ask, though: isn't this all something of a moot point? I mean, if they've already gone to all the trouble of building software that can play the game for them (in however limited a fashion), why would they turn part of it off for an autopilot they don't need, when the same optional slot can be used to carry more PP materials?
I find it difficult to envisage a cheat-builder that would see your suggested measure as anything more than a very minor and brief inconvenience. By contrast, if someone on your side is struggling to get a PP-focused Beluga through the letterbox, this could potentially hurt them quite a bit - and in somewhat longer-term fashion, economically, what with the rebuy costs on a badly-botched docking or launch.
Sorry, Rubbernuke, I don't prefer to be unkind about others' ideas, but is a countermeasure that likely hurts legitimate players vastly more than the opposition really worth it? Sacrificing some of your players' security for the game's security doesn't seem like the best of trade-offs. Making such a sacrifice for a measure that doesn't really seem likely to work at all, even less so.
- - - - -
As far as workable measures go, I think countering bots is likely to be something of an endless arms race. That said, if there's the will and resources to do it, some form of streamed, server-rendered video Capcha might be the best approach for cutting down much of the lower-hanging fruit, as it were.
Articulate it in game as a naval PP hyperdictor, only seen on very large, experimental anti-Thargoid / anti-AI ships. Suspicious or random PP player or bot jumps and gets a hypertunnel slowly splitting in multiple directions. A different procedurally-rendered monochrome pattern is mixed in with each exit-direction, while the correct rendered moving pattern to look for is displayed in the info panel.
A genuine human - or well-resourced scum with excellent cheat software and rig - should have little trouble successfully recognising the correct exits three times in a row, unless the human's eyesight's truly appalling. The average bot, however, will presumably be running simpler code (at least for a while) on cheaper rigs, which don't have the processing power for that kind of live video analysis. They'll fail too often and can be marked as more suspicious by the server, the more often they fail. Once a reasonable suspicion-threshold is reached, the most suspicious ships can be interdicted by the navy, dropping at the starting jump point - and all their prior and subsequent contributions for the week discounted as suspected electoral interference at the next PP tick.
This would all take a certain amount of work on FD's part, needs at least one new video-server (albeit one that only needs to connect to a very few players / bots at a time) and might well lead to something of an arms race between FD and the cheat devs - but it has the advantage of reducing much of the unwanted interference, while staying very true-to-lore and adding new (if simple) gameplay for all players affected. That seems like more of a win to me.
Last edited:
