API Coincidence detection against botters and a quick answer to Shadoo

You might noticed I don't like botters since they essentially cheat the game. They also flood the market with cheap things, supporting risk-free play (you don't care losing cheap stuff).

Today I post an idea of mine that could help CCP fighting botters and other cheaters by identifying their non-violating mains. The CCP policy is to ban the player by banning all his account, including non-violating ones. However to do so, they must be able to link accounts. In case of legitimate players it's not a big deal: same IP, same login pattern, often same e-mail or similar account name. However cheaters - for obvious reasons - try to hide their main account from the bot accounts by proxies, maybe even different computers.

The idea - as the title says - is API Coincidence detection. What is this? Several third party programs query your API key (that's why it's there). For example EVEMon asks the API using your keys to read the skill progression of your accounts to update the skill training plan. Accounting programs ask for your market API keys. The idea is that if the botter is lazy (and most people are), he doesn't have various instances of EVEMon. So when he starts EVEMon, it queries all his accounts at the same time, legitimate and botter alike. Using the API server log, CCP can calculate API coincidence: Q_both/min(Q_Acc1,Q_Acc2), where Q_both is the number of events when both accounts were queried within a time window. This number is zero for accounts that never query together and 1 for accounts that are always queried together. Of course accounts can be queried together by blind chance or by a third party site that queries lot of APIs (like killboards). However I believe that alt accounts will have a significantly higher coincidence number than random accounts, allowing detection of alts. The best thing is that this can be used on gathered old data, finding alts that were not found before, even if they stopped linking behavior long ago.

---

A quick answer to the post of Shadoo who is thinking about wargames to replace the "horrible" Sov grind. I was there with him on Sov grinding three regions and didn't find it horrible, because I'm one of the "few who've not actually ever ran or been in the FC side of running a large block war." The problem isn't Sov grind. The problem is that it waits for the same veterans who did it zillion times and don't want the Sov at the first place. Pandemic Legion which is leaded by Shadoo has 19 system Sov, practically staging systems in various points of space. The Sov they grind won't be theirs. They don't need it. They don't want it. Making someone grind down hundreds of multi-million HP stationary structures they don't want at the first place with no fight (besides bombers killing their fighter-bombers) is indeed horrible.

But the solution isn't simpler Sov grind. Without Sov grind, a weaker alliance would have no chance to rally troops, or find allies before losing everything. HBC would conquer all nullsec overnight just because they can. The solution is making people want to have Sov. Making them wanting to live there. A Sov war would be much more fun for PL if the new owners of the Sov would grind it in dreads, PL would only be cynoed in if someone shows up with force threatening the dreads. But why would anyone want Sov or even moons? Just buy a battleship V pilot and run lvl 4s in highsec. I'm damn sure that the man hours needed to capture and hold a even a Tech moon would be better spent missioning.

The solution is making living in nullsec profitable enough that "carebears" flow to it, grind it down and pay to PvP-ers to protect them. As long as nullsec Sov is nothing but bragging right - or even worse, to trigger a "good fight" - only a handful of bored nerds would try to get it who simply have nothing better to do.

Read More

TEST expansion, best expansion

The developers of EVE are now rebalancing. That can stop losing subscribers and can even cause a limited increase. But rebalancing is eventually bugfix: you change the ship to be like it supposed to be at the first time it was introduced. Also, rebalancing isn't giving to everyone: nerfing an overpowered ship or feature will make its (ab)users sad. EVE haven't seen a genuine new feature for years. And looking at the long term stagnation of subscribers, it needs one.

When I realized that the New Order stopped at the level of "watch miners explode and have fun", I started to plan my own corporation. It had an ambitious plan: be #1 on EVE-kill with less than 100 members. 100 pilots beating Pandemic Legion and the 10K+ GSF and TEST would make impact on the community. It was also something I was proficient in: I did gank 52B in a month myself, ready to provide 2-3% of the goal on my own. Also had enough income to fill the war chest myself. Where is this corp?

Nowhere because my "list of things to do" became too long, full of elements I'm neither proficient in, nor really would like to do:

• A forum with proper rights management, moderators, linked to EVE pilots
• Skillpoint checking to weed out those who can't even fly a T2 Cata or have no Orca alt. Outperforming PL won't happen with random lollers flying T1.
• Killboard with tools to remove low/null kills that would make our results debatable
• Some voice chat because let's face it, social people love to chat and stopping them decrease available recruitment pool.
• Jabber. If someone finds a deadspace Mack in 0.7, a fleet should be assembled fast, grabbing people not logged in.
• Reimbursement tool. Like it or not, many veterans are dirt poor. They need that pathetic 10M for the lost cata. Hell, the time of processing a reimbursement request would cost me more than 10M in opportunity cost.

Let's face it: I was spoiled by IT services while in TEST. The IT services allows TEST to operate with very low management/member ratio which is great for two reasons: there aren't much people wanting to do it, and those who do are usually the worst assholes playing the game, so you want the bare minimum of them around. I attributed the success of TEST (and Goons) to their large, monolithic corporation and its management automated by IT services. Don't ask me which was first (IT allowed them to grow or growth demanded IT).

Then it hit me. This is the Jesus feature CCP needs. CCP should re-create all the IT services of TEST, integrate them into the game and make them available for every corporation and alliance. This way an aspirant corp leader would need "only" players, and not a bunch of IT experts to create the tools needed to run his corp. A bunch of streamlined IT services would also decrease management cost, which would decrease leadership burnout and the very source of their terrible manners: "if you don't like how I run it, try doing it yourself". On this front I myself failed. While I think James 315 doesn't run the New Order well, I am not skilled/dedicated enough on the IT/management front to do better, so I have to keep suffering the "let's see some miners explode and chill" slackers or quit (picked the second).

The pure existence of TEST IT shows how much EVE needs such services (otherwise TEST wouldn't spend enormous human resources building them). Let the game developer provide it so everyone can enjoy it. The major barrier stopping new leaders appearing (and leader defines the corp) is the extreme management overhead. I'm sure that a "TEST IT expansion", which decreases this overhead would make corps and alliances flourish like never before.

Also, you might say that there is already EVE Voice and chat channels and people don't use them. The problem with these is being bound to the pilot and not the player. These communications break if I log off or relog to alt. What we need are services that are player-bound and not pilot bound. It need a standalone application which is linked to the client but does not need it. So an alliance leader can configure the chat to accept every players who have pilots blue to his alliance without a single click. Also, the standalone nature of these software is needed to allow players do other things and stay alert to things happening. Just like the TEST Jabber informed me about fleet forming while I was doing something else with no EVE client on.

Read More

The meaning of "playing for fun"

Enjoying what we do is needed to be happy. A happy person enjoys or at least doesn't hate his day work, his family, his neighborhood, or change them for the better. Enjoying our gaming time should be as obvious as breathing. However the post isn't about that. It's about the declaration "I play for fun". Why would anyone declare something obvious? I mean there is no one who would claim the opposite (I play to feel bad), so this statement is redundant, meaningless at best.

Social people aren't good in explaining their own actions, as they aren't logical beings. But sometimes one comes up with something clear - and usually shocking. I find this gem when I suggested a way how the minerbumping crew could make serious impact on EVE: be #1 on EVE-kill on ISK destroyed (#1 ship kills is trivial, blow up the frig of your alt until you can't make yourself log in again). It would be surprisingly easy. I mean I alone destroyed 1/20 value of what TEST did and they are #3 on the toplist. A corp of 25 players like myself ganking in different places could be the #1 ISK destroyer. Again: a corp of 25 players could beat GSF, TEST, and PL. But instead of enthusiasm to make one of those stories of EVE, I found whining and the epic "we play for fun" nonsense from members. Then I got this: "Play for fun" is this: rejecting any form of metric that would allow you to be defeated. If you "play for fun" you can never lose as no one can claim that you are not having fun (assuming you aren't 12 and cry on some chat or forum). If you set a goal, any goal, you can fail to reach it. "Play for fun" is a complete lack of goals, therefore the theoretical impossibility to be defeated. Of course it works both ways: since you can't prove anyone that you are having fun, you can't be victorious either. "Play for fun" is removing victory and defeat from the game. Actually removing the game from the game, turning it into a Skinner box: press button, receive candy.

I'm not happy that James 315 yielded for the "play for fun" crowd instead of giving them a "step up or step out". Not only New Order failed to make an epic story that would be great for his CSM candidacy, but he aligned with the very spirit he is fighting against. "I mine because it's relaxing" is a miner bingo field. Cheap minerals allow low-cost "fun" PvP. He is trying to take away both, and it won't happen unless he can display a serious playerbase that will not quit EVE if it becomes risky or hard. Garth is damn right, the first victim of the changes championed by James would be "for fun" griefers and those who want to "farm tears" should not vote for James. James must understand that you can't have a "play for fun game" and a "game with consequences" at the same time.

While I stopped ganking (why should I make effort if no one else does) and express my disappointment here, I still support James 315 with my votes and posts. He is like Romney: not the brightest man, but fighting for the good cause, while others trying to make EVE even easier and "more accessible". I was beaten out of WoW by "accessible", so I'm ready to join with the Devil if he offers to stand against changing EVE into a "press any key, receive reward" game.


PS: don't miss the post for Monday. I found the "Jesus feature" EVE needs. No, it's not removing L4s. It's not a rebalance, it's not taking away anything from anyone. It's adding a feature. Why am I sure that it would make a difference? Because it's already working! See you on Monday!

Read More

Business Thursday: industrials and their rebalancing

The announcement that among many other ships, industrials will be rebalanced was already overdue. This posts shows not only why they are a mess, but - as a Business Thursday post should - but helps to find the best possible ship for the job.

The first problem is that - unlike all other ships - you fit the industrials of the various races exactly. The max-cargo version has Cargohold Expanders in lows and Cargohold optimization rigs in highs, meds have shield tank. The "max-tank" version has a Damage Control taking the place of one low and Core Defense Field extender rigs. Armor tanking an industrial would make its cargo space laughable. The max-cargo version of all ships have 1.94x larger cargo, the max-tank has 1.75x more EHP on average (STD: 0.05, no outliers), for all ships. A Merlin and a Rifter are both frigates but you fit them differently and fly them differently. But you fit and fly all 12 industrials and 4 "deep space transports" the same. Let's see the EHP and cargo space of the "max-cargo" versions of all ships: So, this is the problem: they are all stepping stones towards the Deep Space Transports and even these transports are much worse than the Orca (which is faster to learn) and much-much worse than Freighters. Since Freighters can jetcan and scoop, there is simply nothing left of the Industrial ships than newbie freighters. While the frigates are not "combat ships for newbies", these ships have no field where they are better than Orcas or Freighters assuming there is enough cargo to fill them. The only exception is Iteron Mark V which has OK-ish cargohold but no tank, so you can carry cheap things in it until you get an Orca/Freighter. For dangerous zones there are covops haulers and jump freighters beating them again.

So which industrial you should use? Neither, get an Orca or Freighter! If you can't afford it yet, you can haul in any of them temporarily. We can see now why this class need a rebalance: they are all the same and they are all inferior to other ships. How could they are rebalanced? The different races need to do different things, like fast, fast aligning, tanked, large. The problem is that in order to be more than just stepping stones (ships that newbies use), they must be competitive compared to Orca, freighters and covops haulers. Not an easy task. If you have ideas for a role, please comment, I'll list them. I also list problematic ideas:

• Fast hauler: I mean 500m/s without afterburner, it's good doing distribution missions on autopilot. Distribution missions are the only hauls where you need to move medium sized things that are not typical sucicide gank targets.
• Tanky hauler: Problematic because of the Orca. It is only competitive if it's more tanky (200K+) and has other competitive property that offsets its smaller hold (faster, aligns faster).
• Fast aligning hauler: Good for doing distribution missions manually.
• Specialist hauler: tiny cargohold, large specialist hold for items like planetary materials, minerals, ores, fuel
• Combat hauler: moderate cargohold, large ammo hold. Moves similarly to a battlecruiser, tanks like a battleship, has a non-zero DPS and can supply its fleet with ammo, nanite paste and some spare parts.
• Interdiction nullified hauler: passes bubbles like a T3
• Scanner hauler: bonused for scan probe strength, so can scan itself in and out of wormhole chains
• ECM bonused industrial: can protect itself with ECM and ECM drones

Read More

"Your trading reports are fakes!"

Some commenters figured out a "clever" way to counter my "elite PvP can easily be faked" article: "faking elite trading is just as easy." So how can I prove that I'm indeed an elite trader and not just faking it by PLEXing thousands of real $s I earned flipping burgers or by farming L4s 12 hours a day?

The answer is simply: I can't. There is no way I can prove that I'm an elite trader. Which isn't much of a problem since "elite trader" is a term I never used. I never claimed that I have "skillz" in trading. I claimed that the methods I displayed work. The point of my blog isn't "look at me, I'm awesome" but "look at economics, it's awesome" and "look at a-social thinking, it's awesome". I detailed my methods to the last bit, making you able to fully reproduce them. You can judge them after your knowledge of economics, or simply by trying it out and seeing for yourself. Actually, if I really never traded and got my ISK by PLEX-ing, would any of my post less true or relevant? If I never hauled a single Drug Manufacturing skillbook from nullsec to Jita, would it magically lose profitability?

The main problem with "elite PvP" videos and stories isn't being fakes, but being utterly useless and serving no other purpose than bragging even if not fakes. They - purposefully - omit the important pieces of information and make the viewers believe that the situation was solved by "l33t skillz" instead of applying basic knowledge. The key of winning the encounter isn't what on the video (how he piloted) but what's hidden: he had a scanner alt on 3 gates earlier, so he knew the weakness of the target. Instead of teaching people to have scanner alts and how to design a hard counter which is also cheap, he acts like he wouldn't be piloting the hard counter and won an uphill fight by "skillz".

"Skillz" do not exist. Knowledge exist. Since anyone (besides morons and slackers) can learn, anyone can perform on that level. Again: I believe anyone can earn equal ISK as me. If anyone can do it, it's not "elite" and the performers are not "awesome", just ordinary guys who read the available information. Those who babble about "skillz" and "elite" are trying to hide the relevant information and act like the success is based on something inherently present in their person, something only a few "elite" possess and it can only be gained trough "experience" and by "learning from the best". Bullshit, bragging and faking, that's all!

If you choose to believe that economics doesn't work, the best way of gaining ISK is ratting day and night and I'm ratting too to get ISK, be my guest. Don't forget to buy some implants on the way out to ratting!

Read More

I'm a carebear and I'm not happy about it

Care bears are extra cute and extra nice cartoon figures. They are also used as a term on people who do not engage direct competition, instead stick to safe methods of progression. I barely undock and farm ISK instead sitting on a station. I never engage in financial speculation either. I simply buy a bit lower than equilibrium and sell a bit above equilibrium. Even miners take more risks than me. I'm probably the biggest carebear of EVE Online.

"Carebear" is used on such players because they are too soft to dare to stand face to face with an opponent, so they settle with inferior results that they can gain without competition. I'm not like that at all, you saw it countless times that I see no problem doing things that enrages lot of people. Hey, I'm the first guy who was kicked from TEST - the alliance of trolls - for trolling. The reason why I'm a carebear is that my methods aren't providing inferior results. I'm making 35-45B/month with my completely safe trading methods. When I did a PvP test, I killed 52B ISK a month solo, dozen times more than "real PvP-ers", again without risks as AFK mining barges rarely win encounters.

I did not choose to be a care bear, I choose to win and as Sirlin taught us if the optimal move is "cheap", than we do that move. Just like the camper in counterstrike (God how much they hated me in the University for being able to camp until the end of the match), the station trader and the ganker are playing in an optimal way that is "no fun" according to most. If the best way to get ISK is sitting on a station, then I sit on a station. If the best way to get kills is farming Retrievers, then I farm Retrievers.

It's not my job to fix the game. The developer must make the game "fun" while winning. As soon as the best way to get ISK will be fighting in nullsec, off I will go to nullsec, providing fights to PvP-ers. But as long as the best ISK/hour is in a station, can you give me any reason to undock?

I am supporting James 315 in his CSM campaign exactly to change the game in a way where winning doesn't mean sitting in a station or farming AFK retrievers. I agree with most that these kind of activities aren't fun. Where I disagree, is that I rather be bored than a loser who doesn't have a billions in his wallet and has a few billion ISK damage done. A fix to the EVE economy would remove this distinction, you'd be able to win while having fun.

Read More

Elite PvP: Cormorant kills 3 Taloses

After I got 52B/month solo kills, the Elite PvP folks weren't amused. Actually they raged in 140+ comments on EN24 over my kills because they aren't "real" kills as the targets had no guns. I felt really bad that these great guys I want to belong don't approve my performance, so I went on a solo roam with a Cormorant destroyer, to get real, "l33t killz".

On my way to lowsec, luck shined upon me in the form of a suspect Talos sitting on the highsec side of a lowsec gate. Despite I was only in a Cormorant - like every l33t peep - I engaged. While it seemed to be hopeless, only by l33t skillz I emerged victorious. The ebbil piwate was mad and reshipped to another Talos to get revenge, but again he was no match to my mad skillz. Raging, he demanded one more round and as a honorable PvP-er, I granted him, but yet again l33t skillz defeated ship size. Now without doubt I've proven that I'm a real PvPr and should be respected for my knowledge of the art of pew.

OK, I think you are just as annoyed by this disgusting bragging written in kidspeak as I am writing it. Obviously, the 3 Taloses belonged to my alt who just idled peacefully while being slowly eaten by the destroyer. But still, I have 3 API verified kill reports of a Cormorant defeating 3 Taloses and there is absolutely no way for you to prove what really happened. Just like you have no way to prove that any of the worshipped "elite PvPers" are legitimate. I can call each and every one of them altkilling, remote-repped and boosted fakers who had a whole fleet of corpies clearing up gatecamps in his way, removing any threat and supplying easy kills. Again: I can call every single "elite PvP" videos and stories fakes, cheats, lies and there is nothing the author can do to disprove it, probably because most of them are indeed fakes, cheats and lies.

The only way to prove the "value" of a kill is a developer guarded tournament, like AT. Surprisingly we don't see a single ship destroying several larger ships on its own there, we see balanced encounters.

Creating "l33t killz" isn't even expensive, thanks to the several forms of welfare CCP provides to "for fun" PvP-ers. The largest - without doubt - is insurance:53M ISK was created from thin air by CCP and given to the victim for each kills, just for being AFK while killed. But insurance isn't the only form of welfare, there are also bounties. While they aren't created from thin air, there are always idiots who have money to waste on this feature: Add 18M more in drops and salvage and the cost of creating 316M kills was only 112.3M. Yes, you can turn every ISK you have into 3 ISK "elite solo" kills and I have no doubt that many people do so.

There is no such thing as proven skill in EVE. Ourside of AT, there is no way to tell anything about a kill besides that it happened. Therefore the only difference between PvP performance of players is ISK destroyed. So highsec gankers and alt-killing rich people are the best PvP-ers, no matter what the "elite" claims in their fake videos, made-up stories during their quest to gain false prestige among fellow lolling fakers.

Update: even if we accept that a properly skilled board of players can spot fakers by some pattern, such board does not exist so there is nothing that would stop a faker to gain elite status. Remember, CCP had to change neutral logies to suspect because using neut logies in highsec 1v1 was rather the norm. Despite the victim usually wrote a comment to the kill, no one cared and anyone looks up the pilot will accept the kill as a valid 1v1. My point is that without such board no one can be called elite, therefore the term "elite PvP" cannot exist.

Read More