More like how many steps to the toilet, coffee machine and cargo hatch and the most efficient daily routine.
Oh, I see where your error lies... The HOTAS patch is actually in the Swahili dictionary module...There's nothing I like more than connecting my HOTAS and firing up Libre Office and finding they're not compatible with each other.
THAT'S WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE!More like how many steps to the toilet, coffee machine and cargo hatch and the most efficient daily routine.
somehow ironic in this thread about more data to crunchED is not just about spreadsheet surfing,
i do that a lot, and believe me, seeing is not a phiysical input heavy activity. and now excuse me, i want to do moreit (hopefully) be about actually seeing the BGS via the lens of piloting a ship.
somehow ironic in this thread about more data to crunch
i do that a lot, and believe me, seeing is not a phiysical input heavy activity. and now excuse me, i want to do morebirdwatchingmontitoring the spawn of npc rare traders by some manifest scanning
(note: i like the ATC line of "sit back and relax" if you have docking computer clearance)
I guess that's where we differ - I reckon it wouldn't be that hard to make a bot play smarter than most of the players on here - and determining which CMDR are bots becomes more of an issue.But thats the issue for me- to combat bots you need to make complex piloting the goal. Do that, and make it central to the BGS bots go away naturally and you don't require huge amounts of data.
I'd have no issues with the traffic report having more details, it's the other specific numbers being available I'd not be happy with. Knowing how many players are coming in the system is probably useful enough without giving too much away.
The only thing is that I'm pretty sure jumping in on a fleet carrier gets round this.
I see it like this though, if your squadron is supporting that faction or its your player faction, why would you not have access to the Docking list of a station.
If its your group that is controlling the station you should at least be able to check who docked at it IMO.
I guess that's where we differ - I reckon it wouldn't be that hard to make a bot play smarter than most of the players on here - and determining which CMDR are bots becomes more of an issue.
For a start anyone doing Ceos / Sothis is probably a bot - who would do that for hours? As for CGs ...
Yup. Exactly this.Having the existing information exported to the journal would be nice.
Not to stop bots or anything, it'd just save me some effort retyping it.
To kick off the discussion on the first point in this thread [ Anti-Botting Agreement | Frontier Forums ] and to continue on from the discussions on the [A-BA Discord] there are a few practical changes that frontier could make to the game to allow players to better identify suspect accounts and report them to frontier for verification.
The open-only discussion has been thrashed to death and frontier have made no indication that they will ever implement it. It would only be a partial solution to BGS and PP botting anyway, due to how p2p networking works. A clever operator of a bot could ensure that they never instance with other players via p2p. Even if one were able to instance with a botter at best open-only would lead to video evidence of robotic flight behaviour or video evidence of god-moding, which frontier would still need to verify.
So the ideas that have come up so far centre around providing players with better information regarding activity in a system beyond the existing in-game panels, including:
- more detailed traffic reports. Currently there is no way to tell if 90 pythons on the traffic report is 90 different pythons or 1 python making 90 visits. Showing the top 10 visitors to the system and how many times they visited over 24 hours could be a way of flagging suspect pilots.
- longer bounty boards, not just top 5 but maybe top 20 and better crime reports - showing a more detailed break-down of who is picking up bounties
- a better bounty report, showing for example the top 10 CMDRs dropping bounties over 24hrs
- better trade reports, showing not just what is being sold but how much, including the average profit margin
The intent of this post is to kick off discussions on this one area of how to spot a bot and how to make it easier for players to spot bots and report them to frontier. There are holes in this idea. Go ahead and point them out
What does that matter for spotting bots?
Id like to see Trade stats, lore wise If my group ran the station then we'd expect a tip-off from the market regulators that someone is dumping goods as a loss-maker. This is economic crime or even a terrorist attack in all probability. Either way its probably an attack on the system.. Same could be said for Crime Stats and a potential attacker becomes known.
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?
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.
I see it like this though, if your squadron is supporting that faction or its your player faction, why would you not have access to the Docking list of a station.
If its your group that is controlling the station you should at least be able to check who docked at it IMO.
Yep, that is true, and agreed. I mostly just want to look at certain activity and see whether or not it is sus.
I'm pretty sure seeing the exact numbers of absolutely everything, wouldn't even be benefitial for us. I just want things to be a bit clearer... some of the evidence of botting constitutes naming and shaming and even then, most if not all that can be done is reporting to FDev so they take action. A bit more clear information might help make better decisions when it comes to informing FDev.
Indeed.Having the existing information exported to the journal would be nice.
Not to stop bots or anything, it'd just save me some effort retyping it.
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
- Augmented top 5 boards, eg name and locaition of hostile commanders or combined positive and negative effects
- Information about state buckets
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
- Require murder to be redeemed to balance the effect
- Is there a way a PvP murder/bounty/war bond could have a bonus effect
I want the game to feel more alive/adds to emergent gameplay
- Find ways to allow consensual and BGS affecting PvP outside CZs in a way that doesn't affect people who have no interest. E.g. squadrons having hostile, neutral and ally status or allowing combat-keen players pledged to warring factions interact outside CZs
this is a 4th.
Does it really help identify bots?
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. If you suspect a bot, report and FDev will have a look. What they do from there is on them and no amount of extra data will change that.
I would object, because it has no in-game bearing, and would just fuel further ill-evidenced speculation of bots. Again, one account entering and leaving a particular system lots. Sounds like a normal day in the life of a BGS runner.Indeed.
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!
I would object, because it has no in-game bearing, and would just fuel further ill-evidenced speculation of bots. Again, one account entering and leaving a particular system lots. Sounds like a normal day in the life of a BGS runner.
Doesn't sound like identifying bots at all. Just sounds like identifying how many times an individual enters a system.Except it does have in-game bearing... being counted multiple times is very misleading, and the "and would just fuel further ill-evidenced speculation of bots." sounds a lot like "It would help people identify bots". I don't see how that is a bad thing in any way.