Last edited:
Proposal Discussion: Things that could help player groups identify a possible bot attack
- Thread starter CMDR Jal'Bur
- Start date
I suppose a renewed emphasis on PP might drive people away and thus reduce botting, so maybe you're onto something!
Compulsory PP now you're talking!
Agreed, simple things like a cargo delivery mission not rewarding the same as a 50 ship kill massacre mission, or something that instantly fails on a ship scan would go some way to fixing it.
If FDev aren't willing to tweak the numbers for mission influence rewards, I don't see how they're going to pull more information and put it in the station services boards.
My other thought is that FD brought this on themselves by making the BGS in particular less antagonistic. Rather than directly attacking a faction its easier to just push another faction which makes less waves using easier to do activities.
It should be BGS attacks are overt- killing sec for example requires skill (i.e. you can't automate it) and reduce the influence of BM or wacky trading (which with FCs can be gamed silly).
It should be BGS attacks are overt- killing sec for example requires skill (i.e. you can't automate it) and reduce the influence of BM or wacky trading (which with FCs can be gamed silly).
Have you considered how this granular level of detail on the activities of other players can and will be abused by bad actors and griefers?
The reason there are bots is because people play the game. And some people like to cheat.
I suppose a renewed emphasis on PP might drive people away and thus reduce botting, so maybe you're onto something!
No, its because FD don't seem to know how each part of their game interacts with other parts.
Do we know enough about the economy/security meters? If not, I would suggest research specifically into them and how they interact - especially in simulated traffic. Most public research seems to have been focused on influence. As far as I know most, if not every influence action will also impact one of either, including the negative ones.
I feel like those meters already gives a good peek at what's getting done in the system. It lets you see random noise, or if your actions were fully unopposed on that tick, and if you do a lot of positive actions and still see the meter fall, you can know that A LOT of negative actions were done.
I feel like those meters already gives a good peek at what's getting done in the system. It lets you see random noise, or if your actions were fully unopposed on that tick, and if you do a lot of positive actions and still see the meter fall, you can know that A LOT of negative actions were done.
Last edited:
No so guilty M'Lud...this time.
Got picked up by Polygon and an OA vid.
Impressive 20K signatories on the ABA though, but absolutely no idea how that relates to player base or unique players as dont have that info.
Logically, probably some bots are in play, but a lot more are worries that even if right now it doesnt affect them it may well do in the future and either way just isnt good for the game. How to identify and how to have confidence in the reporting is what drives the headlines and sudden interest.
Nah - some of them know. They just don't spend all their time trying to out-think their player base. Because there are more players than devs.
Bots are the dark-side of all the "we're amazed by the things CMDRs do in the game!" posts. Hopefully all this publicity will get them to look at the few instances of botting that actually exist. Not that we will (or should) hear anything about it.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
I think that the idea is to do just that - put it out there and let people consider it, raise issues. I am minded of an attempt I made a couple of years back, to go beyond the endless circular mode discussions to ask WHY people calling for it were calling for it, not if it should happen. and despite 33 pages, there were only 3 basic reasons at the time - repeated here with non-mode restricting possible solutions that were mentioned in the thread.
| Knowing who is undermining my faction/who to contact for diplomatic resolution |
|
| Make PvP more relevant in player group BGS conflicts/Be able to take more direct action against players we know are working against us, rather than indirect grinding |
|
| I want the game to feel more alive/adds to emergent gameplay |
|
this is a 4th.
But even then its silly. I get they can't catch them all but there are some shockers that are caused by overlaps that looked at individually would sort the situation out.
For example AFK turretboats- just by removing (or simply nerfing) heal beams they'd be more secure. Or update Powerplay to use new CZ mechanics. Or actually balance shields.
Just a note though. Negative security and economy and their relevant states aren't necessarily bad. For example, famine is a great state.
Well ofc it did nothing gets clicks like a good ol outrage thread.
20k signatures or player groups claiming to represent 20k players?
Frontier Support
Yup. 99% of any "bot" issue is because of bottable activities needing a redesign, not the inability to prove botting or some agreement not to bot.
Good example - but in this case an even easier thing is to look for AFK turret-boats, maybe adding more telemetry to identify them - and then ban them if they look 'botty' (however you define that).
The problem with all your suggestions is fdev ends up in a race against the botters - and the botters have nothing else to do, where fdev are supposedly doing an update sometime.
For the purposes of this thread I'm just looking at them as a way to measure activity. OP wants to know about, for example, loss trading (which from my experience does hit for negative economy) and wants to go completely overkill on taking "background" out of BGS. They can just do a ton of trading and see on the next tick how the economy slider behaved - if they get hit by an even more massive amount of loss trades, it should show by how much the slider swings.
My suggestions assume that people will try and abuse them anyway- its making the systems as robust as they can be to reduce low level problems at source. FD have not even got that far yet, because they release updates spaced far apart rather than dealing with the issue at the time, so problems become baked in.
How will all this stop auto-carriers between bubble-colonia, which is a much bigger problem and one thats actually been prooven exist?
Drama. People like drama. Ive lost the ability to be surprised any more.
Theyre fairly open and explicit about their counting methods and accepting group 'leaders' to represent their groups ethics. I wouldnt stay in my group if they signed up to something I disagreed with though.
The stats are funny, although inconclusive at this stage obviously that certain player 'styles' are less prone to publicly and purely for honour agree not to cheat or bot..
thats the 'how to report' link, doesnt really answer the 'how to identify' or 'have confidence in the reporting' which drives the posts.
But lest we digress, the issue is could more info be given to the players to either make the galaxy feel more alive or real or for more responsive more dynamic BGS and PP or for possibly IDing suspect accts.....and not the ones where youve trained your 7yo to 'fly' or your 2nd & 3rd acct run by VA and minimal input while you play your main acct.. And how identifiable should that info be? Players can draw attention to systems and timescales, Frontier can see who was actually involved.
It's funny because this not only helps with identifying bots, but helps discern information about the usual solo/pg only jokers. Despite this, the usual suspects in this thread that are so openly against Solo/PG and have repeatedly said in the past that it would be great to know what is happening behind the scenes, are now flocking to oppose it with little discernible reason.
While they complain about Solo/PG, and they complain that there is a lack of evidence of botting, you would expect them not to mock a suggestion that is non-intrusive, helps better identify Solo/PG activity, and potentially sheds more light on the issue of botting altogether.
I guess some people stand for absolutely nothing.
As for the proposition itself, I'm all for it. It doesn't have to be exact, and it doesn't have to necessarily show CMDR names either, in case some people have a problem with that and enjoy the anonimity. But it wouldn't be unheard of considering bounty boards already display CMDR Names in a top 5 breakdown, including exact bounty numbers.
In truth what is trying to be accomplished here, is for FDev to help us help them. They don't seem to be actively looking for bot activity, rather rely on reports by the community.
It's easier to figure out what to report, if not all the information is hidden. The way the system is currently set up, is that it benefits those who want to hide their activities.
That being said, once again, it doesn't have to be detailed enough to identify who is behind all of it (as in, show Squadron names and CMDR names), but rather, what is going on in the system.
While they complain about Solo/PG, and they complain that there is a lack of evidence of botting, you would expect them not to mock a suggestion that is non-intrusive, helps better identify Solo/PG activity, and potentially sheds more light on the issue of botting altogether.
I guess some people stand for absolutely nothing.
As for the proposition itself, I'm all for it. It doesn't have to be exact, and it doesn't have to necessarily show CMDR names either, in case some people have a problem with that and enjoy the anonimity. But it wouldn't be unheard of considering bounty boards already display CMDR Names in a top 5 breakdown, including exact bounty numbers.
In truth what is trying to be accomplished here, is for FDev to help us help them. They don't seem to be actively looking for bot activity, rather rely on reports by the community.
It's easier to figure out what to report, if not all the information is hidden. The way the system is currently set up, is that it benefits those who want to hide their activities.
That being said, once again, it doesn't have to be detailed enough to identify who is behind all of it (as in, show Squadron names and CMDR names), but rather, what is going on in the system.
Last edited: