Shadowbans and the BGS

[shadragon]

If an account is shadowbanned, can they still affect the BGS?

Interesting question as if they can (and I suspect they still do), then shadowbans lose a lot of their edge. Shadowbanning bot accounts or those players who abuse the BGS through exploits are in no way limited via a shadowban and those abuses will continue. We just won't see them.

Either a straight up account game ban is required, or make BGS be unaffected by any shadowbanned account actions.

 

[CoyoteXStarrk]

Yeah I would like some clarification on this as well.


On a side note "Shadow-Ban" would be a REALLY awesome name for a black colored combat ship.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I can't remember the exact source, but FD did - I think - state that players subject to shadowbanning would have no ability to affect the BGS until their ban had expired.

 

[Dommarraa]

Shadowbans do not effect the BGS. IIRC, the Shadow BGS state is a copy of live from some point in the past, and does not even tick. (a bit like Beta, but worse)

 

[MottiKhan]

I suspect that shadowbanned people can't affect the BGS or Power Play, but an official answer would be nice.

 

[rootsrat]

IIRC (live stream ages ago) "Shadowban" means they play on a separate and dedicated "shadowban server" with other shadowbanned people - without any ability to affect the galaxy state whatsoever even on that separate server. I may have misinterpreted what was said on the stream though.

 

[Majic-12]

Just me and my shadow
All alone and feeling blue...

 

[h347h]

IIRC (live stream ages ago) "Shadowban" means they play on a separate and dedicated "shadowban server" with other shadowbanned people - without any ability to affect the galaxy state whatsoever even on that separate server. I may have misinterpreted what was said on the stream though.

If that is possible why can't we have that work for solo&group/open so only open affects the BGS.

 

[Rob At Work]

Just guessing here but I suspect you wont ever get any dev to discus (in any detail) their penal policy.

 

[Asp Explorer]

If that is possible why can't we have that work for solo&group/open so only open affects the BGS.

Because the game was designed for BGS interaction in all modes for all players - except the ones that FD deemed deserving of a shadowban in the first place.

Limiting BGS interaction to Open only would lead to urm, people doing things they shouldn't be doing both for continued BGS interaction and the sheer lulz of it.

 

[h347h]

Because the game was designed for BGS interaction in all modes for all players - except the ones that FD deemed deserving of a shadowban in the first place.

Limiting BGS interaction to Open only would lead to urm, people doing things they shouldn't be doing both for continued BGS interaction and the sheer lulz of it.

They redesign it now with everything else. Put it on the list.

 

[_trent_]

My understanding of it is that shadowbanned individuals are placed in a separate galaxy server from the regular players where their actions have no effect on the main galaxy server. A bit like when playing on the beta servers.

I also got the impression that shadowbanned players were not able to interact with each other in any way. A bit like being in Solo regardless of the mode you selected.

 

[Soulkiller]

Do you get a notification if you get shadowbanned? How would you know?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

If that is possible why can't we have that work for solo&group/open so only open affects the BGS.

Because - leaving aside whether that's a *good* idea for discussions in the Forum California - the fact that you can switch freely between open and solo makes it incredibly difficult to implement.

Go to Open: buy cargo
Go to Solo: launch, travel, dock
Go to Open: sell cargo

Is that Open affecting the BGS (where all the relevant transactions take place) or Solo (where all the "risk" takes place)?

Would it mean that CG traders in Solo - because they don't affect the BGS - didn't cause the commodity supply to deplete at nearby stations? Is there an exploit where they then switch to Open, and give the cargo to a wingmate there to take it to the CG? Would that cargo count - having been for some of its life in Solo - even if the eventual seller was a 100% Open player? What if they then while travelling to the CG got pirated by a different 100% Open player?

(Remember that the "rules" should be clear, intuitive and free from loopholes)

 

[GG7]

The Shadow Ban idea would be more effective if it was PERMANENT!

I still can't believe that all those accounts that were caught running BOTS were only Shadow Banned for 30 days!

Talk about a TOOTHLESS policy for dealing with well documented CHEATING!

News of this idiocy pretty much spelled the end of PowerPlay participation for hundreds of previously dedicated human players, including myself.

Now that BOTS are being allowed to run roughshot over the BGS with little more than a slap on the wrist from Frontier, and then allowed back into the main game in 30 days, the whole BGS aspect of the game has been reduced to little more than a running joke.

Those of us who know what is going on behind the scenes have washed our hands of BGS gameplay. Complete waste of time.

 

[Riverside]

The Shadow Ban idea would be more effective if it was PERMANENT!

I still can't believe that all those accounts that were caught running BOTS were only Shadow Banned for 30 days!

Talk about a TOOTHLESS policy for dealing with well documented CHEATING!

News of this idiocy pretty much spelled the end of PowerPlay participation for hundreds of previously dedicated human players, including myself.

Now that BOTS are being allowed to run roughshot over the BGS with little more than a slap on the wrist from Frontier, and then allowed back into the main game in 30 days, the whole BGS aspect of the game has been reduced to little more than a running joke.

Those of us who know what is going on behind the scenes have washed our hands of BGS gameplay. Complete waste of time.

A permanently shadow-banned account could be sold on to an unsuspecting buyer. If it's going to be permanent may as well just disable the account imo. But then I'm not the one who has to pay the lawyers

 

[GG7]

A permanently shadow-banned account could be sold on to an unsuspecting buyer. If it's going to be permanent may as well just disable the account imo. But then I'm not the one who has to pay the lawyers

Good point!

I was primarily making the point that PERMANENT bans of documented, repeat offender CHEATERS does not exist in this game at this time.

Something I think any fan of ED should be more than a little concerned about.

I know of no other community oriented game out there that has such a PATHETICALLY WEAK EULA enforcement policy.

This forum has more aggressive enforcement policies than the damned game does!

But none of this is really news to anyone who has been paying attention. Frontier has long had a reputation in veteran gamer circles for worrying more about what people say on their forums, than what they do in the actual game. ;o)

 

[rootsrat]

This forum has more aggressive enforcement policies than the damned game does!

It does feel that way sometimes!

 

[CMDR Tom D]

From my understanding and what we've seen with our reports, shadow bans mean they can not effect BGS or Powerplay.

FDev won't clarify because they "don't comment on reports or investigations of individual players" despite us asking for a broad answer without naming names.

 

[Weps]

A permanently shadow-banned account could be sold on to an unsuspecting buyer. If it's going to be permanent may as well just disable the account imo. But then I'm not the one who has to pay the lawyers

Moot point since such an account should end up banned anyway (if discovered to have been sold between players):

Selling accounts isn't allowed and we would ban such accounts.

Michael