-
Patchouli_Knowledge
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:57 am
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
Last edited by Patchouli_Knowledge on Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

-=The law of inverse desire=- The chances of dropping what you want is the reciprocal of how much you want it.
-
barra
- Posts: 446
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:08 pm
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
Edit: Yes. Big punishments if caught means few villages will take the risk, even if you can't catch ever bot with 100% certainty. But I don't like the either-or option and "bots" are hard to define.
The devs try to design away tedious gameplay that encourages botting, but the bots themselves are a fix for that gameplay. I'd rather the bots could somehow be made available to everyone (eg all custom clients must be public). Bots are an extension of the convenience/automation thing that all custom clients provide, but if they provide a big advantage to an exclusive group, then maybe it's bad.
The devs try to design away tedious gameplay that encourages botting, but the bots themselves are a fix for that gameplay. I'd rather the bots could somehow be made available to everyone (eg all custom clients must be public). Bots are an extension of the convenience/automation thing that all custom clients provide, but if they provide a big advantage to an exclusive group, then maybe it's bad.
loftar wrote:You do appear to need a good trolling.
-
flagmaster
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 8:03 pm
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
Ok with any solution which puts everyone on equal terms.
Either automate the default client to an extent when the game becomes ProgressQuest.
Or just put in some effort to detect and punish the bots.
And yes, I am botting in all MMO games where it is technically possible and economically reasonable. Partially including Haven. I'm just too lazy to write a well-working bot.
Btw, it IS possible to allow people contribute into vanilla client, be able to test it and at the same time be unable to play it on the main world until their features are approved and integrated into vanilla client. Think about test server and closed proprietary client-server protocol and auth module.
Either automate the default client to an extent when the game becomes ProgressQuest.
Or just put in some effort to detect and punish the bots.
And yes, I am botting in all MMO games where it is technically possible and economically reasonable. Partially including Haven. I'm just too lazy to write a well-working bot.
Btw, it IS possible to allow people contribute into vanilla client, be able to test it and at the same time be unable to play it on the main world until their features are approved and integrated into vanilla client. Think about test server and closed proprietary client-server protocol and auth module.
-
Vaku
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:03 am
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
I vote Yes to punishments. Not nuking.
And here's why: Types of Punishments for Botting
...And the Ethics for punishing Out-of-game behavior that have In-game consequences.
And here's why: Types of Punishments for Botting
...And the Ethics for punishing Out-of-game behavior that have In-game consequences.
Smell of Arrogance-
Sollar
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 2:53 pm
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
I have said it again that bots are the worst plague on this game. Now that I have played more I knida think the root of the problem are the chores. There would be no be bots (or less bots) if some things in the game could be done in a more simple manner. I sign for nuking the bots, but I'd really like to see some ease on boring and repetitive tasks like farming, feeding animals, terraforming, etc.
-
lachlaan
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:32 pm
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
Nuking a town cause one of their members botted will make room for PvP strategies where one infiltrates a town to bot shamelessly when the other people aren't looking, then report himself with plenty of evidence to get said town punished. Do agree something could be done, not sure what, hopefully the PvP/siege changes make it less of an issue if there are titans and scrubs in the same world. As it stands the stat cap idea already made free to play people easy targets, so I'm presuming they're already making an effort to balance siege and PvP around that so all brackets of customers can coexist.
-
springyb
- Posts: 695
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:39 am
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
I hope the devs realize that no change they make to the game will stop the people who want to "win" from botting on day 1.
+1
+1
-
Pickard
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:23 pm
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
Where proper voting? I cant say no, so this thread is not democratic and illegal ![Trollface ¦]](./images/smilies/troll.gif)
w16 nope! w15 Trust me bro(Arcanum) w14 Arcanum w13 Arcanum w12 Action w11 Willowroot w10 Dis w9 Hive w8 Core w7 H.A.W.X/Progress w6 Dis/Disneyland w5 Peace/Late Project w4 Hermit
-
Amanda44
- Posts: 6485
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:13 pm
Re: Petition: Nuclear option onto bots
Well, not yes to 'w/e mechanics', that's not specific enough ... but yes to nukes and account deletions.
Koru wrote:
It is like in Lord of the Flies, nobody controlls what is going on in the hearthlands, those weaker and with conscience are just fucked.
Avatar made by Jordan.
Animal lovers - Show us your pets! - viewtopic.php?f=40&t=44444#p577254
It is like in Lord of the Flies, nobody controlls what is going on in the hearthlands, those weaker and with conscience are just fucked.
Avatar made by Jordan.
Animal lovers - Show us your pets! - viewtopic.php?f=40&t=44444#p577254
-
ydex
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:08 pm