Proposal Discussion: Things that could help player groups identify a possible bot attack

Idk, the more data the better you can work things out. You just have to go at it with an open mind, not looking to confirm your view. At least that's my experience. There is already to much data available in game and out, really don't think more will be better.

I really dont get this, too much data already and more would be worse? Whats wrong with more in-game data for players? Whether you use it or not is optional like everything else. Assuming anonymity ofc and all data available to all not just the RP 'owners'..
 
Doesn't sound like identifying bots at all. Just sounds like identifying how many times an individual enters a system.

You would be very wrong in leading that as "evidence"

Oh no it isn't evidence a judge would accept. But it is part of the suspicious behaviour that thrown in with everything else gives people an idea if what's going on in their systems is abnormal. Traffic reports look a certain way in busy systems with random traffic, systems being attacked by other squadrons, systems with little traffic at all. And they look in a distinctive way in all the suspected bot attacks that have happened for a lot of squadrons (attacks which themselves leave other tracks, that helps tie them together).

This is one of the least intrusive ways to give people information, as well as being the kind of information that won't reveal everything happening in-system. Ie it won't help you calculate exactly what the other side is doing, which is a legitimate concern that came up earlier.
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Doesn't sound like identifying bots at all. Just sounds like identifying how many times an individual enters a system.

You would be very wrong in leading that as "evidence"
So it's a value-based objection, not a practical one. Its obviously a personal view, but for me it would do the opposite - it would mean I'd be more likely to shrug off a persistent BGS move as a well-played whoever it is, rather than - that's sufficiently odd a traffic pattern to make it worth troubling FD with.

Of course doing that would mean that any botters would change their current strategy to stay under radar - but that feeds into the "make it sufficiently time consuming/ a right clout-on to do - which would be a worthy goal on its own.
 
Doesn't sound like identifying bots at all. Just sounds like identifying how many times an individual enters a system.

You would be very wrong in leading that as "evidence"
In having 'numbers of visits' by 'number of CMDR' it would be very easy to interpret if a group were 'active' in any particular system. But 400 visits by an assortment of ships could be just a busy day for bounty hunters or traders.

Having statistics as laid out might help in identifying a potential bot - but would certainly identify, without doubt any 'action' by a rival group, affording time to 'react' - of course such information is being suggested as useful!
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Having statistics as laid out might help in identifying a potential bot - but would certainly identify, without doubt any 'action' by a rival group, affording time to 'react' - of course such information is being suggested as useful!

How so, more than the current aggregated traffic?
 
So it's a value-based objection, not a practical one. Its obviously a personal view, but for me it would do the opposite - it would mean I'd be more likely to shrug off a persistent BGS move as a well-played whoever it is, rather than - that's sufficiently odd a traffic pattern to make it worth troubling FD with.

Of course doing that would mean that any botters would change their current strategy to stay under radar - but that feeds into the "make it sufficiently time consuming/ a right clout-on to do - which would be a worthy goal on its own.
Oh no it isn't evidence a judge would accept. But it is part of the suspicious behaviour that thrown in with everything else gives people an idea if what's going on in their systems is abnormal.
And this is my entire problem. None of this is evidence, just "opinions" of what is and isn't botting. What one person sees as evidence of botting will just be business as usual for someone who knows what's going on.

My problem is with a lynch mob of 20k-odd signatories bandying about those opinions as "truth and fact", resulting in bullying other players needlessly who don't conform to that opinion.
 
I really dont get this, too much data already and more would be worse? Whats wrong with more in-game data for players? Whether you use it or not is optional like everything else. Assuming anonymity ofc and all data available to all not just the RP 'owners'..

If you could avoid being on those lists via gameplay then I'd not object to it. The problem is having reams of data means legitimate sneaky gameplay is kicked hard in the balls- for example Powerplay snipes are harder because stations report levels of attacks. There is a logic to having reports, but at the same time it makes defence way too easy.

But in the end it comes down to what the BGS 'should' be. FD themselves seem confused, as on one hand they want a certain level of 'fog' to muddy the waters, while on the other they give out INF tips- after all FD did not expect the BGS to be pushed like it has. If you 'de-box' the BGS would it change the character of the BGS?
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
And this is my entire problem. None of this is evidence, just "opinions" of what is and isn't botting. What one person sees as evidence of botting will just be business as usual for someone who knows what's going on.

My problem is with a lynch mob of 20k-odd signatories bandying about those opinions as "truth and fact", resulting in bullying other players needlessly who don't conform to that opinion.
Only FD can decide, and they rely on players to report incidents. I really do see a tiny change to current in game info as a route as reducing false positives, not increasing them.
 
I think for who has visited the system ( the traffic report ).
There should be anonymity, only if you dont dock.
If you dock then you are known to the system authorities and your details can be recorded.
But in the traffic report it should list how many different pythons for example have jumped into the system and not say 20 pythons if it was the same python 20 times.
As for the Docking list it should give Ship name, Ship id and Cmdr name.
You supply those when asking for docking and so it cannot be avoided except by not docking.

Edit: if you are scanned by security without docking you should loose the anonymity too.

Isn't such information confidential? Or are we proposing to police each other? Or letting some players police others?

:D S
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
If you could avoid being on those lists via gameplay then I'd not object to it. The problem is having reams of data means legitimate sneaky gameplay is kicked hard in the balls- for example Powerplay snipes are harder because stations report levels of attacks. There is a logic to having reports, but at the same time it makes defence way too easy.

But in the end it comes down to what the BGS 'should' be. FD themselves seem confused, as on one hand they want a certain level of 'fog' to muddy the waters, while on the other they give out INF tips- after all FD did not expect the BGS to be pushed like it has. If you 'de-box' the BGS would it change the character of the BGS?

Power play is where I expected the most well-articulated objections to come from - but [limiting his to just traffic] is there any additional loss of surprise to know that the 150 Cutters that turned up are 5 accounts or 100?
 
How so, more than the current aggregated traffic?
So 100 ships visit a system, with a bias on 'big cargo' for example - then the stats point to those same ships only being a single player each. If I understood the suggestion, the 'new' information begins to be very specific.

If the only information to hand is 20 Cutter, 15 Anaconda and 12 T-9 is there currently a way to tell how many of those visits were the same ship?
 
Power play is where I expected the most well-articulated objections to come from - but [limiting his to just traffic] is there any additional loss of surprise to know that the 150 Cutters that turned up are 5 accounts or 100?

Powerplay reports attacks as well as having near real time UI feedback- so, if the PP bountyboard is registering massive bounties / shipping is lost but no UI update you know a snipe is coming....and since fortification is 'won' at 100% there is little an attacker can do other than snipe as late as possible and hope no-one notices. Here information availability has (IMO) made defence far too easy, meaning less spontaneous attacks (that could drop territory and drive the feature).

Also worth noting- the BGS is all about INF, PP is the voucher- they work differently. Numbers matter in the BGS because effort is capped, whereas in PP there is no cap on effort. If I wanted to go 24/7 I could and I would see no diminishing returns. Thus in PP its the values that matter and not the amount of players really.
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
So 100 ships visit a system, with a bias on 'big cargo' for example - then the stats point to those same ships only being a single player each. If I understood the suggestion, the 'new' information begins to be very specific.

If the only information to hand is 20 Cutter, 15 Anaconda and 12 T-9 is there currently a way to tell how many of those visits were the same ship?
What would it tell you?

What would it tell you in a more extreme situation where there is a 1k pop system with 200 pythons and no other thraffic if it were 200/200 200/10 200/1?
 
Is there anyone who would object to the number of accounts showing in addition to the ship types? And if so why - it's not a trick question!

On one hand I think more data will just be used for the bgs bots predictions. On the other having a measure how much of a ship types traffic is the same ship would be nice. I wouldn't tie it to accounts but individual ships. So if I have 5 Cutters and fly each one once into a system it should show as 5 ships, same as using a Cutter and an Anaconda for example, it should show as 2 ships. But using the same Cutter 5 times should show 5/1. So you get some measure, but it still can be obfuscated a bit.

I really dont get this, too much data already and more would be worse? Whats wrong with more in-game data for players? Whether you use it or not is optional like everything else. Assuming anonymity ofc and all data available to all not just the RP 'owners'..

Because you can automate the data analysis and the more data you have the better and more important accurate you can build predictive algorithms and bots(out-of-game). Most people I know don't run anymore the 3rd party plug-ins because of it. Also hypothetically if the alleged bot attacks weren't bots but players understanding the bgs interactions better the extra data could make it possible for the attacked to understand what the attackers were doing and use the newly gained knowledge for themselves without needing to think outside the box. Ironically most likely bots would be used to crunch the numbers. In my eyes it's against the spirit of the game to use out of game automated analytics to get an edge against your opponent or have an easy way to maintain large areas. That's why I would like to see more data restricted so these out of game bots have not much data left to feed on.
 
What would it tell you?

What would it tell you in a more extreme situation where there is a 1k pop system with 200 pythons and no other thraffic if it were 200/200 200/10 200/1?
It would tell me nothing, Jane - I lost interest in being active in BGS manipulation completely, boredom set in after too long doing things just to move an invisible number. Now I just play to amuse me - although am 'careful' to trade in systems that are not controlled by PMF's when going about my everyday fun.

I'm pretty certain that the 'Queen of BGS' might find more data to feed into her spreadsheets extremely useful (acknowledging your obvious expertise rather than being derogatory) in both protecting existing assets (is it over 1,000 now?) as well as planning further expansions.
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
BGS prediction-wise I can't see that it make any difference, reducing suspicions-wise and reducing false positives of investigation-worthy information [be it possible botting or possible hacking] it would make a big difference.
 
Yup, personally if people are concerned about the mob mentality, this is a great suggestion. It makes false positives less common, not the other way around.
 
🐎

Or is it dead already? I see no common ground on any of the proposals here on which to continue. I guess changes are in order to make BGS more entertaining. And this is likely to reduce botting at the same time or at least complicate the ease of botting.

False positive are more likely to occur when the other side is not trusted. More data is likely to lead to even more false positives. The rule of numbers.
 
Top Bottom