Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

How will Intrepid combat botting?

KebenKeben Member
in General Discussion
I bring this up because other MMOs have become infested with bot farmers and it's really annoying for regular players not to mention extremely damaging to the games economy.

This also relates to the multiboxing issue. Take Wow for example everywhere you go you can find parties of 5 boomkins botting afk farming mounts, gold or levelling and Blizzard can do nothing because it's not against to ToS and it's very hard to prove they are botting, even if you can clearly see they are. All it takes is for a person to be there to reply if a GM sends them a message.

Now the problem WoW has is there's dynamic respawn meaning the more mobs are killed in an area the faster they will respawn until it's literally instant respawning. I would highly recommend not having a similar feature. Other than that I don't have many ideas but I really hope you guys at Intrepid will keep on top of this problem because it's a plague in other games.

Comments

  • TragnarTragnar Member
    Multiboxing is definitely harmful to the game - maybe even more than botting, because you can basically watch transactions of botters and ban RMT when it happens and afaik Steven said that they want to have dedicated GM staff that will take care for the needs of the players - that I hope will include multiboxing in the same area (or even any multibox) and botting
    “Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil.”

    ― Plato
  • CaptnChuckCaptnChuck Member
    Yet another thread about multiboxing/botting/gold selling. I recommend you just search about it using the search bar, as there have been countless amounts of posts discussing the topic already.
  • nidriksnidriks Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Yet another thread about multiboxing/botting/gold selling. I recommend you just search about it using the search bar, as there have been countless amounts of posts discussing the topic already.

    They're three different topics. Lumping them all together is a little restrictive. The issues of botting might merge into issues associated with gold selling, but there is nothing to say discussion separately is not warranted.

    @Keben Steven has said that there are plans to have tools that will watch accounts in various ways to detect problematic activity. There will also be an active GM team in Ashes.

    We, the community, are just as important though. It is up to us to report any botting we might see.

    Multiboxing is a contentious issue. It is the opinion of many, including myself, that boxing two characters is not as easy as some may think. Especially if the boxer is not using bot commands. If Ashes can prohibit these bot commands then Multiboxing will be done by skill.

    There was a dev discussion on multi boxing if you want to see thoughts.
  • CaptnChuckCaptnChuck Member
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.
  • nidriksnidriks Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2020
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    And new people are arriving in this community every day. How are we welcoming new fans if the first thing we say when they ask a question is "oh great, another thread about this...go do a search"?

    Just say "you might be interested in the following thread that has discussed botting at length". You might say "welcome to our community" too.

    Let's not have newcomers think we're a bunch of snobbish prudes. :p
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.
  • volshvolsh Member, Alpha Two
    edited August 2020
    I remember the bots from Elder Scrolls Online, they manifested in huge numbers and totally ruined the game for me (flying through rocks/solid objects, gathering around a single herb in groups of 5-6 and picking the buggery out of it the millisecond it appeared) this went on for such a long time i just gave up, the devs didnt act quickly at all to even try a make a differance so i walked away from the game, shame really as it had promise and must of taken a long time to develop. Let's hope the team on this have a plan up their sleeves to combat this as we all know bots are everywhere and probably here to stay
  • GrimmLibertyGrimmLiberty Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2020
    I personally think that they should make a public spectacle out of botters and gold sellers when they ban their account, bring the characters (played by GM's) to the public square of the node they were active on, and publicly "execute" them! Examples for all!

    The node get's XP for how many people attend the executions. Win-Win.
  • volshvolsh Member, Alpha Two
    GrimmLiberty wrote: »
    I personally think that they should make a public spectacle out of botters and gold sellers when they ban their account, bring the characters (played by GM's) to the public square of the node they were active on, and publicly "execute" them! Examples for all!

    The node get's XP for how many people attend the executions. Win-Win.

    Ha!..brilliant idea :)
  • VarkunVarkun Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    With my sword in their skull, I will take the corruption hit if its an obvious bot.

    But I do really like the execution idea.
    3KAqRIf.png
    Never write a check with your mouth you can't cash with your ass!.
  • CaptnChuckCaptnChuck Member
    edited August 2020
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.
  • nidriksnidriks Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.

    Multi boxing doesn't require botting software. People can box two characters without if they have the skill. You can't stop that because there are too many factors that make it hard to prove it is one person with two accounts.

    Ban the software from being used with Ashes by all means. I hope they do. But you can't ban non-botted multi boxing.

    That is why they can be classed separate issues.
  • CaptnChuckCaptnChuck Member
    edited August 2020
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.

    Multi boxing doesn't require botting software. People can box two characters without if they have the skill. You can't stop that because there are too many factors that make it hard to prove it is one person with two accounts.

    Ban the software from being used with Ashes by all means. I hope they do. But you can't ban non-botted multi boxing.

    That is why they can be classed separate issues.

    I was talking about mass multiboxing, i.e. more than 2 or 3. If you're boxing two characters without any software, then that's not a problem. But you cannot multibox 3 or more characters by mere skill alone.
  • nidriksnidriks Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.

    Multi boxing doesn't require botting software. People can box two characters without if they have the skill. You can't stop that because there are too many factors that make it hard to prove it is one person with two accounts.

    Ban the software from being used with Ashes by all means. I hope they do. But you can't ban non-botted multi boxing.

    That is why they can be classed separate issues.

    I was talking about mass multiboxing, i.e. more than 2 or 3. If you're boxing two characters without any software, then that's not a problem.

    But then it comes down to a question of whether Ashes will have in game commands. The simplest of these would be /follow, but in EQ and EQ2 I know I used more elaborate commands such as assigning a spell to a hotkey and having my character tell the group that he was casting a heal on a named group member.

    Is Ashes going to allow the assigning of hotkeys like that? I think they are very valuable tools to improve immersion. I loved using them in EQ2. Everybody could see in group chat my character say something like "casting heal on Steven, don't move yer arse cos I ain't chasing ya".

    Multi boxes, if especially skilled could control 3 characters with them, but does that make them problematic? I don't think so. Do we ignore the few skilled multi boxers and let them do their thing, or so people start shouting pay to win.

    Its a minefield of an area, and much more broad than lumping botting and boxing together.
  • CaptnChuckCaptnChuck Member
    edited August 2020
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.

    Multi boxing doesn't require botting software. People can box two characters without if they have the skill. You can't stop that because there are too many factors that make it hard to prove it is one person with two accounts.

    Ban the software from being used with Ashes by all means. I hope they do. But you can't ban non-botted multi boxing.

    That is why they can be classed separate issues.

    I was talking about mass multiboxing, i.e. more than 2 or 3. If you're boxing two characters without any software, then that's not a problem.

    But then it comes down to a question of whether Ashes will have in game commands. The simplest of these would be /follow, but in EQ and EQ2 I know I used more elaborate commands such as assigning a spell to a hotkey and having my character tell the group that he was casting a heal on a named group member.

    Is Ashes going to allow the assigning of hotkeys like that? I think they are very valuable tools to improve immersion. I loved using them in EQ2. Everybody could see in group chat my character say something like "casting heal on Steven, don't move yer arse cos I ain't chasing ya".

    Multi boxes, if especially skilled could control 3 characters with them, but does that make them problematic? I don't think so. Do we ignore the few skilled multi boxers and let them do their thing, or so people start shouting pay to win.

    Its a minefield of an area, and much more broad than lumping botting and boxing together.

    I'm not saying that 3 man skilled multiboxers are bad ffs. You keep misunderstanding me.

    Multiboxing is a problem when the people that multibox utilize third party software to do so, instead of skill. 90% of players can't dual box effectively let alone triple box. So they resort to software to help them do so. This is solved by banning third party software. Guess what else uses third party software? Botting. So, IN GENERAL, decisions that affect multiboxing also affect botting.
  • WarthWarth Member
    edited August 2020
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.

    Multi boxing doesn't require botting software. People can box two characters without if they have the skill. You can't stop that because there are too many factors that make it hard to prove it is one person with two accounts.

    Ban the software from being used with Ashes by all means. I hope they do. But you can't ban non-botted multi boxing.

    That is why they can be classed separate issues.

    I was talking about mass multiboxing, i.e. more than 2 or 3. If you're boxing two characters without any software, then that's not a problem.

    But then it comes down to a question of whether Ashes will have in game commands. The simplest of these would be /follow, but in EQ and EQ2 I know I used more elaborate commands such as assigning a spell to a hotkey and having my character tell the group that he was casting a heal on a named group member.

    Is Ashes going to allow the assigning of hotkeys like that? I think they are very valuable tools to improve immersion. I loved using them in EQ2. Everybody could see in group chat my character say something like "casting heal on Steven, don't move yer arse cos I ain't chasing ya".

    Multi boxes, if especially skilled could control 3 characters with them, but does that make them problematic? I don't think so. Do we ignore the few skilled multi boxers and let them do their thing, or so people start shouting pay to win.

    Its a minefield of an area, and much more broad than lumping botting and boxing together.

    no skill macros, no follow, no auto-run in AoC
  • nidriksnidriks Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Warth wrote: »
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.

    Multi boxing doesn't require botting software. People can box two characters without if they have the skill. You can't stop that because there are too many factors that make it hard to prove it is one person with two accounts.

    Ban the software from being used with Ashes by all means. I hope they do. But you can't ban non-botted multi boxing.

    That is why they can be classed separate issues.

    I was talking about mass multiboxing, i.e. more than 2 or 3. If you're boxing two characters without any software, then that's not a problem.

    But then it comes down to a question of whether Ashes will have in game commands. The simplest of these would be /follow, but in EQ and EQ2 I know I used more elaborate commands such as assigning a spell to a hotkey and having my character tell the group that he was casting a heal on a named group member.

    Is Ashes going to allow the assigning of hotkeys like that? I think they are very valuable tools to improve immersion. I loved using them in EQ2. Everybody could see in group chat my character say something like "casting heal on Steven, don't move yer arse cos I ain't chasing ya".

    Multi boxes, if especially skilled could control 3 characters with them, but does that make them problematic? I don't think so. Do we ignore the few skilled multi boxers and let them do their thing, or so people start shouting pay to win.

    Its a minefield of an area, and much more broad than lumping botting and boxing together.

    no skill macros, no follow, no auto-run in AoC

    Is that confirmed for definite? I can't see why banning /follow, /assist or auto run is needed. These commands have been in MMOs since the year dot.
  • nidriksnidriks Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    nidriks wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    @nidriks Yes they are different topics, but solutions to one affect the others as well. Gold selling apart, any decisions made to combat multiboxing will combat botting as well.

    This is not true.

    It is perfectly possible to bot with accounts that are running on computers that are physically in different continents.

    Yea but you would need to control them through third party software. Multiboxing requires it as well. So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.

    Now if they are running that third party software on a separate computer that isn't playing the game, then that's a problem. But what I said is a general rule. In general, decisions taken to combat multiboxing will affect botting as well.

    Multi boxing doesn't require botting software. People can box two characters without if they have the skill. You can't stop that because there are too many factors that make it hard to prove it is one person with two accounts.

    Ban the software from being used with Ashes by all means. I hope they do. But you can't ban non-botted multi boxing.

    That is why they can be classed separate issues.

    I was talking about mass multiboxing, i.e. more than 2 or 3. If you're boxing two characters without any software, then that's not a problem.

    But then it comes down to a question of whether Ashes will have in game commands. The simplest of these would be /follow, but in EQ and EQ2 I know I used more elaborate commands such as assigning a spell to a hotkey and having my character tell the group that he was casting a heal on a named group member.

    Is Ashes going to allow the assigning of hotkeys like that? I think they are very valuable tools to improve immersion. I loved using them in EQ2. Everybody could see in group chat my character say something like "casting heal on Steven, don't move yer arse cos I ain't chasing ya".

    Multi boxes, if especially skilled could control 3 characters with them, but does that make them problematic? I don't think so. Do we ignore the few skilled multi boxers and let them do their thing, or so people start shouting pay to win.

    Its a minefield of an area, and much more broad than lumping botting and boxing together.

    I'm not saying that 3 man skilled multiboxers are bad ffs. You keep misunderstanding me.

    Multiboxing is a problem when the people that multibox utilize third party software to do so, instead of skill. 90% of players can't dual box effectively let alone triple box. So they resort to software to help them do so. This is solved by banning third party software. Guess what else uses third party software? Botting. So, IN GENERAL, decisions that affect multiboxing also affect botting.

    I know what you are saying. I'm just looking at the bigger problem. There is so much to this issue that makes it hard to police.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    CaptnChuck wrote: »
    Multiboxing requires it as well.
    Multiboxing does not require third party software.
    So banning all forms of third party software affect both these groups.
    The problem with banning all forms of third party software is that windows is third party software, so are Chrome and Firefox.

    In regards to your agreement with Intrepid, any code on your computer that you didn't compile (which would be second party software) and that Intrepid didn't compile (which would be first party software) is by definition third party software.

    Also, if you compile an application yourself, then that software is second party software. This means that it isn't that hard to distribute instructions so that people can make their own second party software, which would get around any third party software conditions in any EULA or ToS. This is why such documents do not actually really lean on third party software.

    If you read the Blizzard EULA you'll see that the only real mention of third party applications is in regards to you giving Blizzard consent to monitor your system - they don't actually have any action they take based on the notion of third party programs - they take action based on if you are hacking, botting (well, they say they will) or exploiting.
  • ZhabZhab Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2020
    You described a 2nd party software as something developed by the user of a first party. That was confusing to me as that do not match the definition I had for years. So I did a google search of this and indeed 2nd party can mean 2 different thing depending on context.

    Context 1: I'm having a contract with you and we are laying down rules, responsibility, liability and whatever. As the instigator of the contract I'm the first party to this contract and as the customer you are the 2nd party to this contract. Anyone else who isn't directly related to you or me is a 3rd party.

    Context 2: A big company developed a software and then sells it. That software is said to be first party. The big company want a software to be made and sold, but for whatever reason does not make it itself. Instead it officially hire a contractor to do this job instead but the resulting software still represent the big company's brand and is sold under it's umbrella. That software is 2nd party. A good example of this is Microsoft owning different video game studios. Those game are 2nd party games. A completely independent studio merely releasing the game on the platform is 3rd party.

    If intrepid says that you can't run 3rd party software I believe that the correct interpretation here is that you can't run software that wasn't made by or for intrepid studios. Which would include software created by the end user.

    That would indeed include a net browser open as you play the game. But I don't think Intrepid is being this vague. I think they are saying no 3rd party software that directly interfere or interact with the game. That includes bots, UI mod such as damage meter and any software that generate any simulated key and/or mouse inputs into the game (which would include macro software like those often paired with keyboards or mouses).

    It is an open question whether or not software paired with a keyboard or mouse will be tolerated if one button press only result into the equivalent of one action. Because otherwise typical "MMO mouse" with a legion of buttons becomes unusable. However all those software usually offer exhaustive macro/automation features. If you allow such software at all it becomes hard to track if you are using it just to enable your mouse buttons or if you are also using macro/automation features. It is absolutely feasible, but significantly harder then just checking if xyz software is running in the background.

    However considering that they want to crack down on any simulated key inputs they are probably already planning on running an anti-cheat software doing exhaustive monitoring of the computer along side the game.
  • BobzUrUncleBobzUrUncle Member
    Here we go again. Oh well, another multibox / botting thread to ignore.
  • arodicusarodicus Member, Phoenix Initiative, Hero of the People, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    to answer how will it be combated, the devs and GMs will be very prominent in the game world. if there is a character suspected of botting you just report them and they will investigate.
    They have software that will detect 3rd party apps if someone is macro farming etc. they will detect it on their own.
    Ban hammers will fly for bot accounts
  • BeekeeperBeekeeper Member
    GrimmLiberty wrote: »
    I personally think that they should make a public spectacle out of botters and gold sellers when they ban their account, bring the characters (played by GM's) to the public square of the node they were active on, and publicly "execute" them! Examples for all!

    The node get's XP for how many people attend the executions. Win-Win.

    They could do it like the Runescape team does it, that would be hilarious.
  • KhronusKhronus Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    With open world pvp, I don't see how botting will survive in AoC. I will slay every single person who appears to be botting and I will camp them if needed. Takes me out of the fantasy world and reminds me of RMT's when i see bots. The scum.
  • ChaostasticChaostastic Member
    The runescape method would be best. Have someone stream regularly and ban botters. Not showing the actual catching since that will help botters find ways to avoid it. Other gms find the botters and once confirmed the streamer tps over and starts messing with them before eventually banning. Good deterrent for botters as they will be publicly shamed and very enjoyable content that's gonna be good marketing as well.
  • ShaladoorShaladoor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2020
    GrimmLiberty wrote: »
    I personally think that they should make a public spectacle out of botters and gold sellers when they ban their account, bring the characters (played by GM's) to the public square of the node they were active on, and publicly "execute" them! Examples for all!

    The node get's XP for how many people attend the executions. Win-Win.

    I love it! In addition, I suggest putting their characters in prison for all everyone to see. If they are banned from playing for a period of time, they can spend that time in prison so everyone can see the offenders. Even if they log out, the game could keep their characters visible.
Sign In or Register to comment.