Talk:Bot

Problems on Page

Ugh. I have no desire whatsoever to get involved in a revert war on this page; however, there is not consensus, policy, or guidelines requiring citations in articles. Those tags should not be there. MisterPepe talk 06:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I won't be involved in multiple reverts either at the moment. So I took it to the source (see Fact). --Rainith 06:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Altrumm Ruins, Bot Land

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

I must have reported the situation there five ro six times, and I'm sure you are not ignoring such a major problem. But can I ask what the status is on the war against bots there? Is there anything besides reporting that we players can do to help? Perhaps lead boycotts of the offending companies? I think I speak for all Kurzicks when I say we are dang sick of having our capitol's entrance post filled with bots. Counciler 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you saw Granite Citadel? It's full of Mo/W bots --Gret 07:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That only accentuates my point. There are two well known reported bot towns. What is the status on the war on bots? If 5000 accounts are being banned every day, why do we still to this day see that many bots online en-masse? Put a GM/Dev/whoever-bans-people with a banstick in Granite Citadel or Altrumm Ruins and let him go haywire on the obvious bots! Now of course thats overly simplistic, seeing as how every banning is done under investigation. But something more drastic must be done to combat this invasion! .... I sound like an Ascalonian General talking about Charr now, don't I? Counciler 12:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: No one said that 5,000 bots are being banned a day! Whoa, that sort of action would be impossible with the care we take to research and verify each suspected bot. Here are some meaty numbers for you: In June, the Support Teams found, researched, verified and banned 9,009 bots. In July, they are already approaching 4,000 banned bots. As you can see, they're getting very good at this, and in nearly all cases, there is no appeal or the appeal is not supported by the facts upon undertaking a re-check. So we're making very good headway. You should be assured that the team visually checks at least 10 "hot spots for bots." Two of them are indeed Altruum Ruins and Granite Citadel, so they are very much on target. --Gaile 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question about the verification process as I've been wondering about this for a long time now.

I was once on a trip to Mineral Springs and had to wait for a friend at Granite Citadel for 30-60 minutes. In a few minutes I had figured out the behavior of the bots. (move to the sign post on the south portal, move to the merchant, sell stuff, move to the sign post on the north portal, move out) The same names could be spotted multiple times doing the same routine. There is no way that a regular player would do such an awkward move repeatedly and always with the same pattern. Anyone could accurately spot dozens or hundreds of bots by spending a few hours watching the character names that follow that exct routine. My question is, why do you need a more complex way to verify bot accounts as this one would be 100% accurate and a lot faster than your mehod. -- (gem / talk) 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I realised that 9000 bans within 30 days is ~300 bans per day. I guess your ban team is pretty efficient indeed if it doesn't consist of really many staff members. I guess my question is moot. :P -- (gem / talk) 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to answer the question, anyway: There are a significant number of markers for being consider a potential bot. I agree that there are a lot of "visual signs" that point to botting, and I have discussed those with the Support Teams during our weekly conference calls. If multiple visual signs are in place, I am unsure if the Support Team would still take the time and effort to do further account verification. I'm thinking of an expression I rather like: "If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." :) By this I mean that those "players" who are exhibiting a number of visual cues to being bots may be blocked more quickly that a reported potential bot that doesn't give the cues.

Currently, I am upset with the "Ban Team." I was farming at Rilohn Refuge and I guess somebody mistook me for a bot... The ban team may be banning innocent players within the bots so I recomend the banning be more "Dolphin Safe," and Just because somebody has a routine doesn't mean there not there sitting in front of there Monitor clicking away. And I agree with the person above my "speech" that the ban teams arn't taking the time to furtherly verify who they ban as "bots" because I am a personal victim of a faulty ban team, who noticed me coming in and out of The Floodplain and said "Wow!That person has been showing "Botlike" behavior! Lets ban them even though we don't really know what there actually doing!"......................

And I agree, 300 per day is pretty impressive. We all wish it was more, but judging from the July numbers, it's rising to around 400+ a day, with about zero false positives, so we're definitely getting better at the process. --Gaile 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. :) Would you be able to reveal the size of the ban team? -- (gem / talk) 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

About 2 foot tall, brown, hairy, and likes bananas! Just kidding ;) --Lemming64 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shhhh, now, you know Morty is sensitive about his height! ;)

Sorry, I don't have information about how many are working on this. We have a few tiers of the Support Team and they're working in more than one region. I don't know that anyone is assigned to this full-time, but many are working on it as part of their duties. That's how we get so many per day. --Gaile 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was just curious so it's not too bad to not get an accurate answer. :) (And lol at Lemming :D ) -- (gem / talk) 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this brings me back to my original question, is there anything besides reporting well known botting areas over and over that legit players can do? Or do we just ignore the problem?

Also... Have you considered IP banning? Finding the source of the bots and banning that playing IP range altogether? Is this even possible? Counciler 00:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More on the subject

(reset indent)
I have to say I found this an interesting topic, but I'm curious as to the research that goes into the other side of the spectrum, i.e. the buyers. It's always been my philosophy in this case, that I would hope the same effort is being made to research and ban those that actually buy the gold. Stop the demand and the supply will move on to another game. Gold farmers can continue to purchase keys as long as the money is rolling in. Though I would think it more difficult to research this, unless ANet can monitor transactions between players. Obviously the best places for these meetings would be in easily accessible areas for both parties, e.g. The Great Temple of Balthazar, and obviously in an international district.

I also wouldn't be surprised if my account was looked at once or twice. I used to farm for hours with my monk switching between mostly bot heavy areas. Now that would be funny if an admin's account would be banned for emitting bot-like behavior. :P — Gares 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Highly doubtful, Gares. You would never be as efficient nor as repetitive as those guys. Each bot following a specific program does the EXACT same things over and over. No human does that. When they head to their spots, they walk in straight lines. Very easy to recognize them in observer mode. --Karlos 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Karlos is quite right, and I'm happy to say the number of "false positives" is very, very low these days. Also, players can be very sure that we look at all aspects of this problem, from the individual who is using a bot to the people to whom he/she passes the goods to the person who holds them to the company that advertises the wares to, yes, the buyer of the gold or item(s). The protocols for finding each vary, but we're intent on halting gold sales and put concerted effort into every level of the pernicious industry that supports them. --Gaile 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was joking about being watched....but ouch on the "I'm not efficient" :P And Karlos, if you've forgotten, I am one year away from technically being considered a senior programmer. I know programs are better at tasks than humans, which is why we create them. Though I do usually walk in a straight line, unless it's the weekend ;) — Gares 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No insult was intended. When I solo things with my monk (I usually dual smite with Tahlkora, so I'm not even a suspect), I stop to admire my handy work, I type in guild chat, I take a sip from my diet pepse.. You get the idea... If you watched my monk without seeing me, you'll see these gaps where he's just standing around. That's what I meant by efficiency. Everyone goes through such bouts, except bots. --Karlos 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No insult taken, which is why the :P was placed. I can't hold a candle to the software I write. I can write the algorithms for them to perform their calculations, but in no way can I solve the calculations as quickly or as efficiently as them. — Gares 22:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To an extent you can measure the level of success if you watch the price on these sites go up and up for the same amount of gold, this means it is costing them more to produce it (which means bot banning is working). Eventually it will get to a level where players who pay deem it too expensive and stop buying altogether. --Lemming64 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

to counciler about the IP banning. i dont belive thats an option. considering the fact that most ppl now adays sit on an ADSL line, means they most of the times also have a dynamic ip. which in turn means all they have to do is shut off the modem, reconect and they have a new ip to play with. also it could be a whole family playing on that ip. so just because lets say the older son tries a bot, the whole family gets punished for it. that doesnt really make sense either :) -ArcticWind 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Punkbuster practices hardware banning to prevent cheaters. Blizzard uses Warden to find third party programs. While these avenues are most likely not going to be employed by ArenaNet, more drastic methods such as these CAN be looked into. I'm sure they have already considered these options, and obviously for some reason said no to them. But I thought it would be worth noting that ANET is not strictly stuck into simple case by case banning the old fashioned way. Counciler 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm am Very Angry at people who report every single E/A at Rilohn Refuge... first of all, I was farming by playing, not using a bot. Also I was wearing expensive armor, something bots don't have, but I was still mistook for a bot. Now I'm permanetly banned. I'm still waiting for a response from ANet, on there absurd actions agaisnt my account when there is proof contradicting the accusations of whoever reported my account for using a bot. Also, I was "Whispering" some friends during it, which is further proof that I was not using a "Bot." Just a suggestion to gain more substantial proof that somebody is a bot... like, the bots at rilohn, are always wearing cheap Canthan, Shing Jea, or Ascalon armor. And banning someone for third party programs because of there profession is ABSURD! Try talking to the person you think is a bot before you ignorantly report them. Getting permanetly banned because of ignorant children who think that since Rilohn refuge is laden with E/A bots that all E/A's farming there are bots. I expect an apology or explanation for this, might sound stupid, but you stereotype all the E/A's who try to make a game-living at Rilohn Refuge. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.86.26.232 .

Its not just altrum ruins where people bot. Bergen Hotsprings constantly has botters that run the same straight paths, get stuck on the same obstacles, and follow it exactly to the letter every single time. I farm there myself and I would hate to not be able to do so, but something needs to be done about reporting these botters. It ruins the economy, and it rewards the lazy cheap slimebags that resort to it. autoclickers are a different situation in my opinion, I think they are not ethical, but that comes down to personal opinion, I am talking about people that run full fledged bots going in and out of towns killing things. Is there any sort of plan to allow reporting of this in game? or is there a way to report it on guildwars.com? I am tired of working hard to make my money and seeing people take the easy way out and gain their money without working for it, without having to care. I say have a few GMs sit in every district Euro and American (and any others) in Bergen for 1 week, and ban everyone they can see is a bot, even if it is just for 48 hours, just to send the message.

Ethical botting questions...

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

I know of quite a number of players who use botting software (mostly auto-clickers) to achieve their Drunkard and Sweet Tooth titles, Drunkard being the main thing.

To start off, I want to say that the Drunkard title is THE worst title in the game. When I went for it, it was THE hardest thing to do. To be online but not do anything. Stand around in guild hall, open my hero window and carefully observer my drunkard minutes. I could not alt-tab to another program for fear of missing a minute, I could not watch a movie on my PC... All I could do was chat in-game. After 1,000 minutes of this torture (17 hours of play standing around doing nothing), I switched to the drunkard zoning glitch. And while this glitch cost me two more drinks per 5 minutes (i.e. I ended up buying 60% more alcohol than I needed) I preferred it morally to the use of those auto-clickers.

However, I find it hard to begrudge those people the use of bots on this case. I despise people who use botting for farming, because if you just play the game, you easily make 10k a day just killing stuff along your way in missions and explorables. Not to mention the massive botting that is used for gold selling and wrecking the economy. But these guys are harmless. They are using a bot to repeat a mundane stupid task. They do not circumvent the process (i.e. it still takes them 10,000 minutes to get 10,000 minutes) it's just that they don't sit in front of their PC's doing nothing. It becomes problematic as an officer when I know that a guild member or alliance member is doing it because we warn and kick people for doing things that violate the EULA.

So, the question is, would ANet ban someone like that? Do you guys even care about drunkard botting? Should I feel guilty for knowing about a few guildies/alliance members and not kicking them? I know that technically, they are botting and are in violation, but do you guys even care? --Karlos 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about the whole thing too much, but I feel that the title was introduced to the game as a rewar to those people who spent time sitting around drinking and partying. It's a shame that this reward for doing something fun has turned into a min-maxing fest of title hunters. -- (gem / talk) 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shame on who? ANet made it a title, made it count towards max titles, and then said titles will help your chars in GW 2... Can't blame the player base for taking the title too seriously. I refused to partake in the title (I don't drink alcohol in real life, and I am against everything this title represents), but in the end, my ele which is one of THE greatest PvE characters in the game (by any measure you wanna put out there) was stuck at 4 titles when the game came out and Johnny B. Bot had 5 and could prance around in a Kind of a Big Deal title and my ele could not. ANet was saying his character which was made a year after mine, hardly did anything of any worth or pioneered any PvE conquests of any sort, was a greater character than mine which pioneered FoW, UW, Urgoz, DoA and came back to help others conquer those places. Unfortunate, but true. I did not care till I had the wealth to do it, but once I could do it, I certainly owed it to my ele to remove that handicap. --Karlos 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that very well, it's just that I think that it's a shame that something that was intended as a reward to some people for having fun was turned into something else. But that's the nature of games, so I don't take it seriously at all. -- (gem / talk) 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an ethical dilemma, though I haven't read through the EULA before I write this, I do believe it states it is illegal to use third party software. It is a rather mundane task, but in any game there are many mundane tasks, e.g. quests for killing x number of monsters. As for the title, ANet isn't making anyone have to max the title, but Gem is correct. I have seen a lot of players get title-crazy, almost like they were on steroids. I don't see it as a big deal. People should just do what they like to do in a game and the company should always try to accommodate as much of the player base as they can. Love the modesty though. ;) — Gares 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that it doesn't matter what the purpose is - Gares is right. The EULA does forbid third party software (specifically, bots), so this is a moot point. MisterPepe talk 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the relevant documents on the website's legal pages. Where does this situation even raise a question, ethical or otherwise? --Gaile 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I never questioned that the action itself defies the EULA. The whole "dilemma" was whether one should turn a blind eye towards it. I suppose your stand is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Drunkard title.

I guess you don't share the original assumption herefore, this whole section is moot. Archive away. Thanks for your time. --Karlos 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really want to archive out an interesting discussion, Karlos. What assumption am I not sharing? That getting the Drunkard title is difficult and that the difficulty (or the repetition, or the "boring" factor) justifies the use of a bot program? If that's the question, then yes, I don't share it. I don't think that players should use bots. Our UA agrees. No matter the supposed non-impact on other players, or the defense that this bot is "harmless" or benign, is it really? Shouldn't titles be earned, not gained through wrongdoing? When some get a title through an exploit, that title may become more common, thereby diminishing the accomplishments of those who earn it through legitimate means. I know it's not a major anti-social act, not at all. But it is against the UA and it does have potential consequences.

In my opinion, botting does not become more palatable because there are fewer rewards in comparison to other bot uses. It's right, or it's wrong, and I feel it's wrong. But what I feel, as a gamer, isn't important. You ask if someone could be banned for the use of such a program. The answer is yes. That person could be actioned. The Drunkard bot is not as pernicious a botting for gold, but it's still a block-able offense. How you handle that on a guild level is entirely up to you. There's no guarantee that the person will be caught and punished. I would even go so far as to say that it is not a high priority to catch such a person. However, there's no guarantee that he will not be banned, and should a ban be put in place, there would be no legitimate appeal that would override it.

I'm awfully sorry if that sounds harsh or unreasonable. Hopefully the changes to the titles and the raising of other types makes it less likely that someone will venture down the bot path in the future, but I'm more than willing to hear your recommendations on this matter. --Gaile 06:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that if it's wrong it's wrong. In general, my official stand as an officer has been to tell them not to use bots and if anyone tried to bring it up in general chat as a "viable" option to let them know it's not. However, I can't ignore the elephant in the room. The fact is, of the 5 or so players that I personally was aware of how they were getting the title, 100% used a bot of some sort at some point (include some pretty disnguished players on some pretty distinguished alpha guilds). It's quite disheartening. These are good players (character wise, regardless of skill) who never scam or use a bot to farm or gain any such edge. So, I know there is no desire to gain an unfair advantage because they are able to gain an unfair advantage at much more lucrative avenues and they refuse to. They just could not bring themselves to commit to 167 hours (HOURS) or clicking in the same spot. Most were not as rich as I am and were unable to just buy 60% more wine and "zone" their way to the title like I did.

I disagree with you that those who "clicked" on the drinks themselves somehow "earned" the title vs those who used a bot. I fail to see the "earning" part. In a marathon, you can see the virtue of those who jog to the finish line vs those who take a cab. But how can the game have a title that requires you to idle and not play and then reward those who idle but stay in front of the game vs those who idle while watching TV? Where is the earning here? That they resisted the temptation of automating that mind-numbing process? I'm not asking that you say "you're right, this specific use of bots makes sense" I am more asking, do you agree that the Drunkard title itself is flawed? It is possible that I just know a bunch of insidious people, but I am more inclined to believe that the title itself really pushes people to botting (not forces them, but increases the inclination). --Karlos 08:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Karlos about how much the title sucks to get. Spent the thousand minutes for tier 1 with my gf in Shing Jea; most miserable time of my life. I decided then that I was not going for tier 2, and I would definitely never go for even tier 1 on any of my other chars. The agony of the title suggests something is wrong with it. -70.95.73.60 08:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

well there are other ways to get the title then just standing there and clicking, u can do quests and missions with your character at the same time and still get drunk whilst doing it. If can get the protector for each game and get drunk will doing it, vanquishing will being drunk would also cut down on the "bordom time". i also wouldnt say this is the worst title in game, cause the all pretty cool, i just think the champion title track is a bit elitistSneaky Take a Bow 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a very efficient way. You can't keep eyeing your hero window in the middle of a foundry run. And if I saw a character drunk in a serious PvE mission I'll tell them to stop drinking because I'll know they're busy checking their hero window for that minutes count. I had a bonder (bonding is the easiest of any job in DoA) constantly drop bonds while drinking, what do you think the other guys with the harder jobs can do? --Karlos 10:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it all comes down to the good old "You can avoid the grind, but you can never escape it." GuildWars, while having a claim to fame with 'minimal grind', certainly DOES have its share of it. Several other titles are subject to grinding. Faction titles, Sunspear and Lightbringer titles for example. Now its true that you can get them by normal play, but very few people would just come upon the max title without really doing SOME grind. Like it or not, the game wants you to grind. In this case... grind your left mouse button. Counciler 10:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For obscene amounts of time. -70.95.73.60 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course it has grind. As is already so obvious, there are soooo many people willing to do the grind... and then complain about having to grind... (not targeted, generally speaking). Kinda like, "don't like grind, but do it anyway". If you totally take away the grind elements, I'd envision a large number of people complaining how boring GW is. The game does not want you to grind. The game offers it. I personally have not drunk a single bottle of alcohol because I, on first reading about it, already figured out it would be an incredible waste of time (and gold) to even contemplate trying it. -- ab.er.rant 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Grind is nice and fun as long as it's purely optional... and fun. Personally, I'd go for drinks being replaced by a constant amount of minutes awarded if you drink like a madman. And I'd plug in my joystick on autofire, and go afk a few hours. Everybody agrees that the work (merit) is in acquiring the alcohol anyway. Alaris 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the Grind. The PvE side of the game, in the end, is all about grind. And every other PvE game is the same. You grind to get higher in your titles, you grind to make enough money to get the precious skins you love, you grind all the time. Those people complaining about grind are generally either a) lazy or b) PvPers oblivious to what makes PvE fun. Grinding to an obective, achieving it and being content with yourself (whether it's money, a title or just a town you're trying to reach) is the heart and soul of PvE and ANet has realized that all along. --Karlos 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I find this discussion pretty interesting. I agree with you Karlos, that there is something about the Drunkard title that needs to be changed. As is the case with most players, I am deeply and sincerely opposed to botting in general in regards to the game, but the drunkard title is ridiculous. There's only so much time I can spend chatting with guild mates - not because we're not friends, but because they only want to talk so much while they're doing FoW or something and I'm sitting in the GH drinking. I have enough alcohol that if I wanted to I could make more than tier one, but I don't want it because of the time it would take. I Hero/Hench almost every mission and vanquisher area that I do, so I suppose I could try to get the title then.

I think a nice change would be to see you be able to stack beyond level 5 and have the left over count for its time when those minutes come if you're still online. This would still require you to idle and would allow you to attain the title much like the botters without botting. It would still cost the same, etc. The benefit of this is that you could have the fun experience of your screen warping while playing in missions without the annoying hero panel being open the whole time. Another cool option would be to have the drunkenness effect carry between zones, so you could explore/vanquish somewhere, be drunk the whole time, and have it carry over when you went to the next area. I see why this wouldn't be implemented, both of these ideas, but I think the first one would really help with this title and would totally eliminate the need or desire to bot your way to this title.Kami No Kei 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that botting in any way shape or form is not right, no matter if it doesn't "harm" the economy or whatever. Perhaps a way to make people not use an auto click for that drunkard title, make it so instead of minutes it is done the same as the Sweet Tooth title where it is just points. I personally am going for Sweet Tooth because it doesn't seem as boring, and I don't want to waste 17+ hours of just sitting there waiting every minute to click. Foxysheri 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if they make it simply a clicking title (like sweet tooth), the botting would go away. However, I think the design idea is for people to sit there and interact socially. In this regard, I think they should remove the minute watching somehow. If people can run around in-game, drinking and blathering out funny stuff, I would not mind it (and would have a few laughs myself) if they did not have to have the Inventory and Hero windows open and constantly eye their drunkard minutes. --Karlos 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think they just didn't realise (or recall) that some players are very efficient and resourceful. By introducing the "levels of drunkenness", they just didn't think that there would be people who would just sit there for hours on end and left-clicking. They probably thought people would do it in short bursts. Maybe they didn't take into account the cost factor. I think if they split the drunkard title into more tiers, it might alleviate things, as it gives more points where people can take a break. -- ab.er.rant 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly feel that resetting the Drunkard title into new, different levels could be disruptive and a net negative for the title system unless the timing is right and the matter is looked at in a more "global" or system-wide sense, that is, taking a peek at all the titles, not just this one. I think that if we're going to do any reconfigurations, we would want to do them in a batch, thereby removing the chance that we're putting emphasis or making what some might call "special concessions" for this title. Some would ask, "Well, (this other title) is also time-consuming, can you give it more levels, too?" Now, I certainly understand the challenge in obtaining the Drunkard title, and I grasp the time-consumption concern, too. Having said that and with all gentle regard intended, the title is, like all others, fully optional. In this very thread, some have chosen to eschew it in favour of other options, which is as it should be. Since that title is no longer "required" to get the higher-level titles, I think the urgency of a modification has been reduced, don't you?

With that said, I will ask the team to take a look at this when there is an opportunity to do so. As you can imagine, that likely will not be for a while, what with so many other projects -- large and small -- currently on the table. --Gaile 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a possible solution that we should consider is to allow people to load up on booze. i.e. If, when I enter the Ravenheart Gloom. I can bring a stack of 45 drinks and just consume them all at the start and that would last me for 43 minutes, then I would not have to keep checking my hero window every minute or every three minutes. and When I do lose the drunken haze, I will only lose 2 drinks to ramp up back into a drunken flurry. In DoA it's more of a gamble because you can get killed and lose your drunkenness, but certainly in vanquishing/mapping it would help a great deal if I can stop and drink in 30 minute increments instead of constantly having to eye my hero window. --Karlos 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that that amount of alcohol would kill anyone who drank it that quickly. Just a thought. MisterPepe talk 19:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

True Mister Pepe, but I don't think most people have defined levels of drunkenness that bring about nothing but warped vision either :p Kami No Kei 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reseting Indent: I think it's funny A Net has a problem with botting for the Drunkard title, ie sitting in town afk with a macro pushing a button repeatedly, yet they ENCOURAGE afk playing for another title, ie the Legendary Defender of Ascalon. Neither title involves a character actually playing the game for the most part, (legendary defender requires people to pull the mobs to the shrine to level them but it takes hours for each mob to lvl up enough for exp and many mobs, but compare this to the time taken to aquire the alcohol needed for drunkard). The legendary defender title isn't based on skill, and it's no longer based on ingenuity, its an afk fest with a kill every 10 (what I've been told) hours and then a short pull. I'm sure there are frenzy macros out there for this as well. Read the pre searing community forums, the legendary defender title is gained by people who turn their monitor off and go afk. Kinda like the people who enter Fort Aspenwood. Ban the botter who wants Drunkard but encourage the afker in Aspenwood and Pre-Searing. I don't use a bot, and wouldn't know how to to begin with, nor do I condone using them. I just think it's ironic A-Net differentiates against botting for drunkard and near identical aquisition of another title, minus the bot. Dancing Gnome 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Grind

This whole discussion points towards the bigger problem and, yes, it is called grind. Anet stated early on that GW would not be a grind game and mostly, they have kept their promise. You get something for grind, but it is vanity items only. However, lately there has been a disencouraging move to "reward" grinders. Giving those 2% bonus for spending hours on chest runs wont make me something I regard as a waste of my time, but it is a move in the wrong direction. Rewarding titles in GW2 opens up much worse possibilites. One of the very few things that would keep me away from buying GW2 would be the realisation that I need to go back to GW1 and grind titles to get some needed benefit in GW2.

I have stuck to those titles which require me to do something I would have done anyway: Play the game (Guardian, Protector). I dont want to be forced to do grind simply to keep up with other players. --Xeeron 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But at the same time you have players who have been playing for a long time, and want to be rewarded for that. Players who say they have been "loyal" to GW since the beginning, and think they deserve compensation. And people who just want to become more powerful than everyone else and want to grind to get it. I don't agree with any of that - as far as I'm concerned, the little grind the game would have should be limited only to aesthetical things - but those are thoughts of some players, and apparently players Arena Net wants to listen to. Erasculio 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask everyone in this discussion to consider how difficult this matter is for the designers. I think, for the sake of simplicity, we can divide the interested parties into two groups:

• Some players want to spend a few hours a week and have everything that everyone else has.
• Some players are eager to spend a lot more time, but feel that their time should be rewarded.

Now, in the first case, it's no fun to have everyone be a cookie-cutter of everyone else. And if everything is easily attained, the challenge and the fun of playing the game surely would diminish over time. After all, being able to achieve or acquire unique, optional rewards is a way to set your character apart. For those willing to invest the time, we cannot reward them in a way that imbalances the game. However, we can give them the "extras" (or "vanity items" if you wish) that reward the time investment, and make it worthwhile and pleasing.

This option seems very much in keeping with our statements of the past. For we have said that we will not imbalance the game so that you must grind to get something that is essential to you as a player. A title is not essential. A special skin has no inherent bonuses. The PvE-only skills do not give you an advantage in PvP, where balance is so critical. (The skills are desirable, of course, but no one needs them to complete the game.) Although some players state (and sometimes with great vehemence) that the addition of certain game elements means a change in a "no grind" position, I don't agree. Because you do not need to get the bonuses if you do not want them, and giving the bonuses to those who are willing to work for them feels, to me (as a gamer first, and a dev, second), as something that is entirely appropriate, fair, and just.

So take two players: Player A says, "I don't choose to play a lot of hours; therefore those who do so should not receive rewards beyond what I can get." Player B says, "I want to play a lot, and I'd like to receive something that acknowledges that fact." Now, if they ask for the Uber Magnificent Sword of Stupendous Mightiness, +50 to Slice-n-Dice, -20 to Enemy Reaction Time, Causes All Foes to Hyperventilate in Fear," they will be out of luck! :) But giving titles, or other acquisitions or the other things currently offers seems like a good answer to this conundrum. In the end, I do believe that what we've offered -- what we've added as an option within the game -- is in keeping with our basic philosophy, and that is upholds our objectives of fairness and balance. --Gaile 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are comming from and I agree that titles were a great way to introduce rewards for grind without unbalancing. However it has slowly crept from being pure vanity to being essential. Noone has an advantage of displaying their sweet tooth title, but the kurzick//luxon skills are among the most powerful in the (PvE) game, yet they can only be used if the player spends days and days grinding at faction farming runs. I am worried about the direction this has taken: Giving more and more substancial rewards for grind. Titles alone are a great concept, but introducing real rewards to grind is when it starts to go wrong. GW is a skill based game ... there are tons of other grind based games out there, that play the grind game better. --Xeeron 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when it is possible to create a character and play through the game without upgrading anything but armor, that indicates to me that this game requires little grind. Yes there are small bonuses for grinding and such, but as Gaile said none of them are required. Have you ever played WoW or many other MMORPGs? Grinding is literally required to be effective in most of those. I think Guild Wars has a nice balance. To be honest, I enjoy taking a break from playing through the game to farm items or lb/ss points or various other things, but I know I don't need to. It sure makes skill capping easier because I don't need to drain my storage to cap all those skills because of farming - but I don't NEED to farm to do it. Kami No Kei 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In all due honesty Xeeron, I think they are still doing a great job at not "necessitating" grind.

I think the way the titles that DO affect PvE skills (like Lightbringer, Sunsear and Kurzick) are designed is brilliant. Almost all my guild got rank 7 on the Kurzick title in that one double faction weekend. People who had ZERO faction, got 1 million donated in the Altrumm farming we were doing. That's rank 7 of 12. And you'll notice that the skills don't really get that much more powerful from rank 7 to rank 12. The same is true for LB or SS. If you just play the game and quest about, you get to rank 4 LB and rank 8 SS with little grind if any. You suffer no serious setback compared to those who are Rank 8 LB and rank 10 Sunspear. (With LB it's a bit of a setback, but those who need t the most, also get it the most, i.e. with bounties in DoA and RoT).

On the flip side, I think the role of GW1 titles in GW2 will be ornamentary at best. Not something that will require people to actually go back and get the old titles. I don't know this, I am just guessing. --Karlos 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So doing 2 days full of stuff I hate, on a weekend I am not at home, with a PvE guild I am not in, will get me 25% towards having max title effective skills? Sorry, I decline. Not to forget, I like all of my five characters equally, so I would have to do any LB farming x5. All titles BUT the PvE skill ones do a great job, by giving people rewards but not making grind a requirement for any advantages. ANet had it all dead perfect by valuing skill, not grind. However lately they have losened the stance and given real rewards to grinding. I hope they will not continue that path. --Xeeron 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gaile, in the meaning that this is something hard to balance. My problem relies on the same thing Xeeron mentioned - how the little grinds here and there began to give in game advantages, with things such as the Sunspear points (that don't require that much grind to reach rank 8, and that's enough for everyone who does not want to grind, IMO), then Lightbringer points (that require a bit more grind to increase, but it's ok since the difference isn't that big) and then the big boooom with the Luxon and Kurzick skills, that require a huge ammount of grind in exchange for tangible benefits. Granted, this isn't anything like the Uber Sword Gaile mentioned, but skills are something precious in GW, changing gameplay far more than a better skin. This change - something that requires a huge grind (like the Luxon and Kurzick skills do) but gives a considerable advantage - is what really bothers me (and truth be said, I get a bit worried that we will see more things that require that much grind in GW:EN and GW2). The Sunspear system is, in this regard, much better - it allows those who play a bit to get a high rank, but keeps the real deal, the two maximum ranks, for those who grind for them. That's perfect, at least to me.

(Although this discussion is slightly out of context in this page, I mean... : D)-- Erasculio 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron, what are you talking about? Did you even understand my example? Let me rewrite it to you in a clearer way:

a) Farming 1 million faction is now much easier than ever, and you can now get the points as part of regular PvE exploration, and it counts as double towards your title and it's a GLOBAL title that all your chars get. So, the 1 weekend example was to show how easy it is. In your case, just work on vanquishing the Echovaled forest and you'll get there. Or farm the wardens for gold armor and you'll get a decent amount of faction. That 1 million that my guildies got in a weekend, you can get in 4 months if you want. Nothing compels you to do it right away.

b) The other point is: The PvE skills are powered quite nicely so that the amount of wrok from rank 0 to rank 75% is a quarter of the amount of work from rank 75% to rank 100%. There fore, you do VERY little work and you get high dvivdends. You want no work at all, but that's just ridiculous. You can do just fine without any of the PvE skills if thats your stand. --Karlos 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly well. You are saying that now, needing less farming, it is much easier than before. However, I hate farming (btw, I count vanquishing as farming), no matter the quantity. I indeed want no work, why would I? I am playing a game to have fun, if I wanted work, I'd stay in office some longer. The more the game choses to give rewards not based on skill, but on amount of time spend doing activities that require 0 skill, the more I'll search for a better place to spend my free time. --Xeeron 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then stay on the PvP side of the fence. That's where you get to use pure skill and where grinding provides no edge what so ever. You're saying that your gaming experience is spoiled by the fact that the game rewards me (very modestly) for grinding. You're objecting to the pirnciple of it, no matter the perk, you want none of it, and I think that's a very impractical stand to take because, frankly, the PvE side of te game is the one that sells, not the PvP side. I think that's the discovery ANet made, after years of trial. Making a game based on pure balance, no grind, no PvE rewards of any sorts is not going to make happy return customers who play for a long time. Read all the remarks from the GW2 articles and you'll see they are moving towards a more PvE oriented game. I, for one, am very happy. I have lived under the oppression of PvPers for far too long in this game, and I am glad to be free of it eventually. --Karlos 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping, though, that Arena Net is able to see the difference between "PvE" and "grind". I want more of the former, not more of the later. Erasculio 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how my characters share 14 protector titles (and 2 guardian titles) between them, I'd disagree to being called a PvPer. I definitely do both. I have no problem with you being rewarded, as long as there is no disadvantage that forces me to grind as well. If I can get into any DoA group with LB rank 2 just as well as after grinding to 8, my arguement is moot, but I doubt that very much. --Xeeron 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You should try it, old man. We tank any rank in our groups (though we generally dislike pugging). There are positions where rank is completely irrelevant, like monks. Damage reduction of 8 vs 2 is not really going to make or break your run. Eles get a BIG boost out of being Rank 8. --Karlos 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)Its not like it's ANet's fault that players want people with higher LB ranks. I suppose you could argue that, in the long run, it's there fault for adding the titles in the first place - but you CAN do DoA with no lightbringer ranks. It might be harder, but oh well. You say others are being rewarded above you, but it's your choice not to grind and the rewards are NOT that huge. Big deal, so my PvE skills might work a little better, or I can get a DoA group (I detest DoA for the record, so that may influence my opinion) but ultimately, since the game is instanced anyways, it doesn't really affect you. If we played globally and I could gank your kills, or worse, kill you in explorable areas easier because of my PvE skills (which then wouldn't really be PvE only) then there would be a "need" for grind. As it is, you suffer little penalty for not grinding, IMO. Kami No Kei 02:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Up until recently I would agree with Gaile the grind was optional or fair but now if you want to experience all the PvE content in GW you need to grind. If you want to experience the new PvE skills for the luxons and the kurziks you are REQUIRED to grind. Previously in GW to experience everything in PvE no grind was necessary, and the titles in the game were completely optional, with no effect on anything aside from the little bar beneath your character. Titles were harmless to those of us who played for fun and not for a little status bar beneath our characters. Now titles have intruded on the rest of us, with the skills being tied to them. No-one is saying the titles are not optional. People are upset that to access all the content in pve we need to grind to get it. Sure 2 skills for each profession are not a huge part of the game to miss out on, but its pretty clear A Net had no intention of listening to people, listening not hearing, who didn't want this grind in PvE. 50 PvE skills tied to the factions in GWEN? Wow it didn't take long for the sunspear and faction skills to set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the game. Sure they are completely optional but now I miss out on content if I don't grind for those options. Why not make uber pve weapons like in WoW which are completely optional for people to access, or how about Razzah? He was optional, and how many people got him when there was a huge grind for him forcing players to miss out on a ritualist hero until it was fixed? These GRINDS were very unpopular with the casual gamers and imho contrast with the claim Guild Wars makes of no grind, or even optional grind, as techinically you can play WoW with an "optional grind", however without grinding you miss out on content. I just hope this creep away from how the game was founded doesn't get so bad they need to rewrite the original claims they made when promoting the game in the first place. Dancing Gnome 08:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If it comes to that, there will be no easy way out of it for ANET. They may not have promised it, but it WAS a major selling point for GW. They cannot 'rewrite' a claim that was made years ago. All they can do is admit that they failed to uphold that goal, and they did indeed include grind. KEEP IN MIND that I'm talking about the future. And honestly, I don't think the devs at ArenaNet are blockheaded enough to pull a stunt like that and include required grind. Counciler 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

question

What about a program that reacts to keys pressed and activates Hero skills? The program would basically move the mouse over the hero skill activation bar, generate a mouse click, and move the mouse back, but is activated by the player pressing a key combination, i.e., no automated play. Would this be considered a bot or elimination of one of the game client's shortcomings?

I don't see how this could be considered a bot. Sure it could be used as PART of a bot, but it does not control your character, nor is it even automated. Counciler 08:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Altrumm Ruins

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

Seems to be a LARGE amount of non human like persons Monk/Mez running solo out of Altrumm Ruins.... Chik En 23:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Opps sorry Gaile I did not think there was a place for this on the Wiki. Really there is a massive stream of constant bots running through that place at a rate of about 10 per second. I don't know what they are doing but man... there was lots of em. Chik En 01:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think banning accounts for bots works however perhaps a middle step can be done first. Perhaps this might be to much work for the developers. I think Anet should create a Jail which is a common security tactic. Flag an account as a BOT and disconnect them. When they log back in they are in jail. The jail can be like regular servers only with lag, slow response times... and sadly ... only other bots are in the jail... so they could only see other accounts flagged as bots. Isolating them from the rest of us and they would not be able to interact with us or have an effect on the economy. If a account is flagged a bot and then unflagged and the next time just ban them. This will allow real people a chance to continue to play the game till they can have the account unflagged. True bots might take a long time to figure out they are isolated. You can read more on this tactic here Jail Chik En 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Monk Bot invasion solution?

Since they are most likely 55 monks, why not make their build unusable in that area. Put an enchant stripper mesmer out there with those wardens they farm. Instead of conducting a war of attrition with banning/buying accounts between GMs/farmers, just stop the source. Make it so that it is no longer viable to use such an easy build. Counciler 01:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly one thing to consider. I'll pass it along, and thanks. --Gaile 02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That was me up there by the way, I'm having trouble keeping my PC logged in....Counciler 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't always work though. Typically, enchantment removal are "high-tech" skills that are only rarely available to "low-tech" mobs, where "low-tech mobs" would be monsters that fight with their natural abilities, like teeth and claws, instead of weapons, crafted armor, and magical training. For example, having Minotaur mesmers just doesn't fit them, flavor-wise. Also, making most AI-parties carry enchantment removal would also limit the usability of "legit" enchantment-heavy builds and non-bots.

Well the choices are not very pretty anyways. Either the war of attrition continues to fail, and the economy is flooded with gold, or ANET nerfs the skills the BOTS use.... ruining it in ALL instances. Personally, I will take the lesser of two evils. And there is always a lore description for something, ya just gotta put your mind to it. Right down to the footprints on solid Jade (Jade dust from the mines, coupled with foot erosion, and no rain/wind).

As for the legit enchant heavy builds? Well first of all, ONE enchant remover skill per group cant really do that much damage to a loaded party of 8 can it? Most of us are smart enough to kill it before it can kill us. But it sure can to a solo 55 monk, they wont have the protection to bring it down in time, not with 7-9 other wardens on em. Counciler 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

uh, Warden of the Spirit and of the Mind already have disenchant. they just don't have many spawns there. - Y0_ich_halt 20:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well not to be overly obvious, but..... why not just put them there? Haha. Counciler 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The other thing is that there are often real players where the bots are farming. For example, I farm the Cursed Lands daily, usually doing three or four runs a day and then taking a day off the next. Put an enchantment removal skill in there and you'll be hurting the average player, too. Armond 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

gotta give them something like Rend Enchantments for or add - Y0_ich_halt 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MISUNDERSTOOD BAN

Bunch of E/A's and some N/A bots running around. Not as popular as altrumm, but still a strong presence of bots. For about one hour one day, I need to raise some money, So I traveled my Elementalist/Assasin to farm off on Rilohn Refuge on the Floodplain of Mahneklon. I was farming the boss "Zelnehlun Fastfoot". I believe I was mistook for a "bot" and banned a few hours later. This angers me that the ignorance of players to report every single E/A in Rilohn Refuge, even though I wasn't using a third party program, clearly because I remember having an arguement with someone, who claimed that what I was farming wasn't worth much, but that is only relevant, because of interaction with other players. Which is very frustrating knowing that players of a game can report people with the scraps of evidence such as location, and profession. Being permanetly banned because of ignorant "Game vigilantes." I have nothing against reporting players for Third-Party Programs, but you should gather more substantial evidence the location, and profession. Whoever reported me, on 8/10/07 just cost me 140$ So you can tell why I'm not happy. If anybody wants to ownup to the Reporting that resulted in the permanent ban of my IGN, "Karen The Phoenix" I'll check this thread every day. Sincerely Yours, Karen (Sorry for the overuse of "Ignorance" but I found it neccesary)

Don't worry, you're not alone in this. There have been times when legitimate farmers have been mistaken for bots. I suggest opening up a support ticket and trying for an appeal. ArenaNet is very good about reinstating players from a ban if they indeed did nothing wrong. Take this as a lesson to not farm in the same location as bots with the same profession. Find a different farming spot, either that, or make it clear that you are not a bot by doing things like having a conversation in local chat. In addition, take screen shots of these conversations as proof every time you go farming alongside bots. This will help your case should you be re-banned. Good luck! Counciler 08:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

One idea to weaken bots

Fighting against bots by banning them, or making it hard to farm in the areas rich in bots, are both temporary solutions - more bots will come, and they will eventually find somewhere else to farm. One idea would be to fight bots by reducing the demand for gold, so buying gold becomes less important, as opposed to just fighting the bots themselves.

For example, we have Fissure of Woe armor: it's one kind of grind. Those are required in any game, as they give the players a long term goal to aim for, keep the players playing for a long time, and give a huge feeling of accomplishment when the players finally reach those goals. However, the entire accomplishment in FoW armor is getting enough gold to buy it - in other words, the accomplish is to farm enough. This is something a bot may do almost as well (or better, even) than some players, and something very easy to transfer from a bot to a player (it's just a matter of trading the gold).

In other hand, we have the Lightbringer title. It's also a source of grind, like Fissure of Woe armor, but with a huge difference: a player may spend a long time farming Lightbringer points, but that is something a bot cannot do, as there is no way to transfer those points between characters. In other words, the accomplishment here is something the player has to do himself - it's not possible for a bot to do it for him and transfer the points later.

Therefore, if Arena Net were to introduce a new kind of FoW armor, it could be introduced in such way that it would prevent bots from helping the players: instead of the accomplishment being getting enough gold to buy the armor, it could be getting enough points to be able to have the armor crafted. Using the current FoW armor as an example (as an example - now it's too late to change how people get FoW armor): instead of players having to pay a lot of gold to buy the ectos needed for the armor, it could have been implemented in such a way that the Forgemaster would sell it for the same price as other 15k armors...But only to players who had 100.000 Obsidian Points, and those Obsidian Points (similar to Sunspear points or Lightbringer points)would be earned by killing monsters. So instead of having to kill monsters to get enough gold, players would have to kill monsters to get those Obsidian Points, and then be allowed to craft the armor. The accomplishment would still take a long time (with some fine tunning, it could be made to take as long as farming for FoW armor currently takes) and would still give players a long term goal to look forward to, but it would become something bots would be useless for (as there would be no way to trade these Obsidian Points, just as today it's impossible to trade Sunspear points).

I believe this kind of change could be implemented in future GW games, in order to render bots useless, as accomplishments move away from getting enough gold, and move into something else that a player has to do himself. Erasculio 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

would sound good, if that wasn't helping grinding. both sunspear and lightbringer title just cry out loudly "Go grinding! Go farming!". you'd add another one that way. - Y0_ich_halt 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that while it is grinding (and I really don't like grinding myself), the idea is to replace one kind of grind (farming, that the bots do) with another (collecting points, that the bots cannot do). I definitely don't want to add more grind to the game; but if Arena Net is going to add it, I would like it to help bots as less as possible. Erasculio 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

i like the idea of getting rid of bots competely, but i think many bots aren't even thought to trade their gold later. so those would remain. - Y0_ich_halt 22:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>

Umm, on a slight tangent from this.... why not just make the gold easier to get for players? I like the idea that you can turn in Kurzick/Luxon faction for crafting materials, which can in turn be sold. Why not expand upon that idea? If the bots are no longer needed, if it is no longer difficult to get gold, prices will drop on illegal gold causing the bots to disappear... hopefully. I am not an economist so I have no idea how that would affect the system. Probably drive inflation up at first, and leveling out in the future? Counciler 07:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

if you can get money even easier, everything will become more expensive (at least runes, dyes...) because players have more money to spend on such things. this will leave 15k armor cheap and, in the end, new players, who can make money much slower than others, won't be able to buy anything at all. guild wars would then need something really cool that is really expensive to get rid of all the money and keep prices acceptable for everyone. so making money to get easier wouldn't be that good of an idea i think. but right now i don't have any better idea, either. - Y0_ich_halt 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we are fighting the age old issue of inflation. This isn't going to go down easy. Perhaps more gold sinks instead? Counciler 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

how bout 30k armor? :D - Y0_ich_halt 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually think gold sinks hurt more than help the game, though, mostly because I don't believe any gold sink is actually a "sink". To be effective, a gold sink has to be something the players want, otherwise it will be ignored. However, if the gold sink is something the players want, they will begin farming specifically in order to get that gold sink. So instead of being a sink (something that takes gold already in the economy and takes it away), it would only favor more farming and more bots (as people would want to generate more gold than what's already in the economy, so they may get the gold sink). Gold sinks also add more grind to the game. That's why they are the opposite of what I would like - I would rather have gold becoming less important, so there are as few incentives as possible for people to farm (and therefore as few incentives as possible for people to use bots). Today, I think the main thing that requires farming are FoW armor, some high end weapons, some titles (to max the Sweet Tooth title and some others) and a few other things, and for those (or rather, any new version of those, since now it's too late to change the old FoW armor) my suggestion above could apply. I'm not concerned about, say, 15k armor, as I think that's in the "sweet spot", economically-wise: it's hard enough to get so it's an accomplishment, but it's easy enough to get so someone who just plays the game, without farming at all, is able to get it without too many problems. Erasculio 22:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what about eliminating the high cost for 'rare skins' by not making them rare anymore? Introduce one weapons crafter to each campaign that creates ALL skins of a type of weapon with no inscription for a specific amount of collected points. These points are non transferable. Something that works similar to the Tormented Weapons set only without being able to buy what you need to get it. Something LIKE Sunspear points, but not quite. Perhaps killing a boss enemy will reward a specific amount of points to your character relative to the difference between you and it's level. The equation could be similar to the XP equation... awarding 100s of points for a kill way above your level, but only a few for a lower level one.

By cashing in these points, one can use the crafter to make, for free, a weapon with the skin of their choice. From Long Swords to Crystallines, from Bo Staffs to Platinum Staffs. These weapons are customized on receiving them. ((Odd, Firefox says the word Staves is wrong...)) This would SEVERELY cut down prices on these so called high end weapons since now, anybody who plays the game can get them, and nobody who gets them this way can sell them. Counciler 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To me that would be perfect - in fact, if that kind of thing happened to the game, I would be very, very happy (and I dare to guess that the majority of players would also be happy). Erasculio 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading up on what you guys've written, and I have to say Counciler's idea is a very VERY good one. I disagree on one point though, that they weapons would be customized. It limits you to use your weapons on that very character, which for me (just using myself as an example, I know not all players are like me, but I also know a lot of players are) would be devastating, since I play 90% on my monk. And if I would want to get say a Crystalline Sword for my warrior, I would have to start grinding for those collector points on my warrior as well, most likely meaning starting from scratch instead of using the already accumulated points on my monk. To avoid this (because I know a lot of players are like me in that they have one main character for 70-90% of their play time) I would suggest a change to the customized equipment system; weapons and off-hands are customized to accounts, not characters. This shouldn't, in my opinion, be done for all equipment, since I think using your main monk's armor on a secondary monk would just be wrong. One example of that not working would be if you created for example a new canthan monk, then you can use your main monk's 60+AL on it and be invincible, allowing you to easily get like survivor titles and such.

If my customization idea would be implemented, then I think Counciler's idea could be the best thing that's happened to the game in a good while, even if it wouldn't be implemented in GW, but rather in GW2. Otherwise I think it would just add more grinding to the game since you want even your secondary characters to have decent stuff, and you need to grind quite a lot to get that decent stuff for most/all of your characters.

On a side note, I checked on the wiktionary and apparently both staffs and staves are accepted (yay, another blow for firefox). Lerre 17:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What side of the line does this fall under?

Previously ANet had a contest that offered a GW Zboard keyboard. But the keyboard features "macros" and those can be viewed as bot's and the settings of the Zboard can be modified to macro something else instead. So does it matter only what you macro in GW to be really considered a bot? Does turning one keystroke into /dance really not count? So does one keystroke to do a prebattle warm up of hitting two skills with one key a bot? Where is the line of what is a bot and what is not a bot? Because I use a Belkin Device for my left hand instead of the keyboard. I do not use any macro features that it would allow me to use. I use just single keystroke mapping. I like my account unbanned :)

If you macro a emote that is ok? If you macro a item for sale is that ok? If you macro a warmup before battle is this ok? If you macro a complex setting of traps is that ok? If you macro your upkeep / enchantments for a tank is that ok?

I am not suggesting those that would not be at the keyboard to still control your character where they stand and which way they face and what creature they attack etc. I just mean in general. After all I am here to play... not have it played for me. But sometimes I would not mind to actually know if I could just save myself a few keystrokes.

I do only PvE btw. PvP this would truly be unfair no matter what. I realize macro a battle and pickup your loot and then zone (wash rinse and repeat) would be fully a bot. But where is the line?

Here is the Zboard Contest I was refering to. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Chik En .

i think it falls under botting once you change your gameplay experience. /dance or trade messages aren't really botting imo. but getting advantages over other players isn't fair. - Y0_ich_halt 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do Hardware macros really fall under the bot heading? After all they simply Link button press to the execution of several pre-defined commands which just means faster execution compared to going through these commands manualy. Of course it changes your gameplay experience but on the other hand you won't make me believe top gamers aren't using some macros to enhance their reaction time (spike macros, pressure combinations, ...).

One point to be precise on is that we all agree we are speaking of keyboard and mouse inbuilt macros here and not of more complex software macros which could relate to bot like complexity. - User:Darak

I wondered that. Like, if you mapped certain hero skills to certain keys and disabled them, then mapped all those keys to a single keystroke (or whatever) so that when you pressed it your heroes all effectively performed a spike. I do wonder since even if this gives you a minor advantage, it seems pretty innocuous (you're not leaving GW and doing something else while it wins/farms for you, you're just making your own life slightly easier) and at the end of the day, you could just mash all those buttons at once anyway, but on the other hand the wording implies that it might fall under bots. 82.13.36.35 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This was just discussed (and somewhat "officialized") on Gaile's page. Freedom Bound 16:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bots

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

Hello, Gaile. I just have a question about bots (something I've seen far too many of them in-game). 'How' do bots work? I've kinda noticed ANet's actions to stop bots have been mainly centered around taking away from the bots sources of money as opposed to banning their accounts. Generally, I want to ask: Why is it that you can't just have one person stand in Granite Citadel and take down all those bots? 65.95.8.93 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This question as been answered ten thousand times, see Talk:Bot ~ Kurd 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gaile... I don't know why but after I was farming in Rilohn Refuge, with an E/A I think somebody mistook be for a bot. Now my account is permanently banned. I ranted but there has been no response from ANet... any ideas of what to do? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.86.26.232 .

Anet would not respond to this because support tickets go to our publisher, NCsoft, who handles such matters on our behalf. Support does respond to all tickets, and they will research the matter very carefully. But given you seem to have posted this later in the evening on a Friday, you may not hear until Monday. Sorry about the ban, and I hope you get this sorted out quickly. --Gaile 04:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bots in Altrumm Ruins (not why and how)

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

Hi Gaile, me and my friend just noticed a huge amount of Mo/Me bots in Altrumm Ruins, we think they're about 50, perhaps way more. I have taken ~15 screenshots of them and will of course report them but also think it would be a good idea to put a GM (like yourself, which is why I contacted you) there for only a few minutes to delete at least the majority of the accounts that are botting there. They seem to come back to the outpost rather quickly after exiting, so getting most of the accounts shouldn't be too difficult. Anyway, it's something to consider. Have a nice day. Lerre 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been a discussion about that on the Bot talk page. Keep in mind, also, that banning everyone who looks like a bot may not be a good idea - we don't know if there isn't a real player who's just farming there as well. That kind of action would be quick, but it would risk banning innocent players more often than what happens today. Erasculio 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to post it, but there are many such topics in her archives. To recap what she has said, arena-net was banning around 400 bots a day with <1 false ban per day as of her last post here in July. Arena-net is banning these bots. however, as Erasculio said, some people actually farm in these spots using builds similar to the builds used by botters. The proscess for banning is also, i assume, much longer, sadly, than a GM just clicking an in-game button that says "Delete Account" (though the idea of it putting up a windo randomly placed on the screen to click to say I AM HERE, and not a bot seems good, or something idea like it. Anyway, these records are probably accessed both in-game and out-of-game, and as far as i can tell, GM commands are limited to and involve only popping a GM above your head, talking in purple, and starting fireworks, with the possible exception of the ATS server, as there are emotes that cant be done ingame. Beyond that, Gaile, as Customer Relations/PR, is not in charge, and has little to do with, the banning of accounts. Som other employees are in charge of that. And Lerre, you are doing the right thing to report them. Killer Revan 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize it'd been posted before, because they are still there and flooding the place even a week+ after that guy had posted. I don't see the problem; ban them for a couple of days, and if no one comes up with a legitimate reason for why they acted exactly like bots, delete them. I realize this is a harsh method and probably one that won't be used anyway, but the amount of bots there is just mind numbing. There're hardly ever less than 20 bots in the outpost and they don't stand around there for several minutes, they go straight out to the explorable.

Also, I think the lack of guild on 99% of the bots is a clear sign of a bot, because otherwise it would be easier for ANet to find out the large organization of bot farmers. But like I said, placing a GM there would be very efficient, since they would be able to see the exact same movement pattern executed by probably hundreds of different bots in just a few minutes.

I didn't say that they should ban everyone that farms/bots there, because I expect there are probably at least a small number of players (even if just one) that also farm there because it's probably easy. My post was meant as a notification (because I didn't know someone had already posted it) and suggestion as how to deal with it, though ANet must be aware of this by now. I don't like seeing bots, especially in that sickeningly large number. It makes me believe that catching and taking action against bots isn't a high priority task for ANet, and that (at least to me) is nearly as sickening as watching the bots roam about as if ANet have no idea, which they must have.

Stupid editing conflicts. The above was meant to be posted before Killer Revan's post, so you might as well disregard that.

I realize the deleting process isn't as simple as I may have implied with my first post, but GMs certainly have more power in that department than we do anyway because they can probably contact the people who are in charge of catching bots, or whatever it is that they do, directly.

Thank you, Killer Revan, it's usually my friends who report bots but they've done it so many times now that they're getting sick of it, and someone has to do it even if some other random person has done it before him. Those numbers were kind of interesting though. And like I said before you had a chance to read it, I realize regular people also farm in places like that, so I'm not a "violation! *kick*" kind of guy even if it might seem like it, I just want the bots to receive their appropriate punishment as fast as possible. Forgot to sign. Lerre 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good to mention this kind of thing to Arena Net once in a while, mainly to show them where bots concentrate. But keep in mind that not only Arena Net likely takes some time to figure out if an account is real or if it belongs to a bot, but also that bots keep coming back - in other words, if Arena Net banned 100 bots per day, but 120 bots were created per day, you would not see a difference. They have told us how they're often banning bots - but those unfortunately come back in huge droves as well. Erasculio 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's an endless struggle that will keep on going until the servers go boom, but it almost sounds as if you think ANet shouldn't keep banning bots and that I shouldn't even have bothered reporting these bots with the 14 screenshots I sent in (couldn't add anymore due to the 5mb limit). I really hope you're just trying to explain to me how the botting "industry" works and not how it's pointless to report them, because the more bots we (and by we I actually mean ANet) get rid of, the less bots we'll have in the game. If ANet just took a month off from banning bots, I'm 100% certain you'd see bots in nearly all of the easily farmed areas after 2-3 weeks, because the "companies" that sell gold are of course looking to broaden their stash, especially because their prices will drop because the other "companies" will do the same so they need to farm more in order to make up for that loss, thus leading to more bots flooding the game. I'm pretty sure you realize what I just pointed out, but like I said; it almost sounds as if you think it's pointless to report the bots, something I most certainly do not. Lerre 03:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry if you felt like I was saying it's pointless - quite the opposite, I think it's very important that people report those bots, just as it's important that Arena Net bans them. My point is not that you should not have reported those bots - that's a very considerate thing to do, and I'm thankful for you taking time to do it. What I tried to say is that despite everything Arena Net does, there will be a huge influx of bots, so the feeling you mentioned some paragraphs above (that this is a low priority for Arena Net) is one that I believe comes more from the high number of bots than from Arena Net not doing anything about it - they do, as is mentioned once in a while. The bots keep coming, but if not by what Arena Net does right now, it would be far worse than it is, worse even than the procession currently at Altrum Ruins, exactly as you have mentioned. Erasculio 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you aren't saying it's pointless, I was beginning to worry that people are starting to think that it's getting more and more pointless. Yeah, I realize no matter what ANet does the total amount of bots will probably stay at a consistant number, but that's definitely better than it increasing. What I would like to see from ANet is more visible monitoring of areas that are popular to farm, and perhaps adding little things that prevent botting. An example being perhaps adding a non-random Oni spawn very close to the Altrumm Ruins entrance to kill off the bots quickly. That wouldn't be hard to do and not hard for regular parties to overcome, but very hard to make a bot survive that attack. Lerre 03:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I appreciate the willingness to help, but believe me -- I do not often need to be told where the bots are congregating. First of all, I play the game. A lot! Secondly, my team member, Andrew, is also in the game every day and night. And thirdly, every time I go into the game to talk with players, I'm told the bot hot spots.
So first, please check archives and check topic pages (like "bots" or "Altruum Ruins" or something of that nature) before posting, and secondly, check my archives. I'd far rather tell you new information or research answers to new questions than provide the same info time and time again. (I'm sorry, that is not intended to be rude, but I want to be honest and show the "cost" of answering the same topic many times.)
To sum it up:

• The Support Team blocked 12,500+ bots in July; 9,000+ in June
• Most bots are using illegitimate accounts obtained through Internet fraud, so no, we're not making bucket-loads of money off of those accounts. (If you wonder, the accounts are not stolen through PlayNC or within our game or in-game store; they primarily are accounts created with stolen credit cards.)
• We know that bots are a problem, and we have someone physically in the zones several times a day. That someone is not me -- it's not my job and I don't have the time, with regret.
• We're doing what we can, and will continue to try to keep up!

I hope all that makes sense, and thanks. --Gaile 04:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not checking the pages you mentioned and for apparently annoying you with this.

I do have a question about the information you probably copy-pasted from another of your posts in similar topics though; You said the accounts are primarily created with stolen credit cards, does that mean the organisations that sell gold are mainly made up of criminals? Not that I don't consider them criminals in the game's sense for selling "products" online, but I'm talking actual worldwide laws. That's something I never even considered, but also something that makes a lot of sense now that I'm aware of it. Another thing in the same region; You said primarily, does that mean they also buy some accounts themselves and/or have a method to somehow randomly input codes while trying to create a new account in the login screen?

I'm sorry that my wording was wrong when suggesting the outpost should be monitored, I didn't specifically mean you but rather a colleague of yours because I realize your job isn't to find bots. Whenever I see a bot farming spot, where should I turn in the future to avoid annoying you? Should I just report them to support and/or can you give out means of contacting the person you mentioned who physically watches the "hot spots"?

Again, I apologize for annoying you with this matter and will avoid doing so again. Lerre 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to give you the impression that I was in any way annoyed by the question. And please know that I did not copy and paste a single word of my response to your questions then, nor am I copying and pasting now. Support has told me that the vast majority of accounts used for botting are fraudulently acquired, mostly through the use of stolen credit cards. I am sure that another small portion are purchased through actual purchases (for money or a legitimate credit card) because not all botters are part of an "industry;" some bot on an independent, individual basis. I hope that is helpful information. --Gaile 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't copy-paste that information, you really MUST'VE had to repeat it a good number of times like you said. I realize some buy accounts in legitimate ways and that most of the ones who do are probably independent players who just want to farm.

You didn't answer what I found to be my most important question though; When (because I will find more bots, even if I'm not the first to do so) I find more bots in a large number like these, where should I turn? Should I just report them to PlayNC and then leave it at that?

As you can probably tell I'm very keen on getting rid of the bots from the game as they kind of ruin some of the play experience. Lerre 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the places bots congregate are monitored by ANet. From what we know, their staff bans hundreds to thousands of accounts per month, but I'm sure that many or more get new accounts each month. -elviondale (tahlk) 15:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And still, his question is left unanswered. Allow me to attempt one. I have given up reporting bot swarms to ArenaNet because if they are banning them in the thousands each month, they already know about it and more reports only clutter the support team. If they are not banning them (which of course is not true) then they will ignore your ticket anyways. So whichever way the ball bounces, it's useless to report these swarms. Counciler 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Infestation

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

I know this is one topic no one likes but it must be addressed, especially with what I've just found out. It seems that Gold selling advertisers who usually spam a district with adds then take off before they can be banned are beginning to spam people through whispers. If this actually continues we can expect these ads popping in at all times not just in town. Similarity these advertisers wont mention it but chances are that gold they have is bot farmed. Most of the time when I go into Granite Citadel theres about 20 Mo/w with the same armor running in a line from entrance to the merchant to Tasca's Demise. Neways, How is Guild wars working on cutting off these misdealers? Another thing, is there an actively playing admin team? I never see any admins in the game unless there being just regular players. Many times I spy these infringements and wish I could contact an admin instead of having to take pictures and submit it to the support site. At least this is the only serious problem I have, which is more than I can say for other games I play. Thanks! ~ Zero rogue x 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I just got a whisper in Kaineng American dis 2.. --Lemming 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will ask if we have any means of controlling bot selling via whispers. But for now, I will move this to the Bot section. --Gaile 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems the record names or collect them when you are in towns. I just got a whisper when I was in the middle of an explorable area on my own. --Lemming 16:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This happens to me almost every time I go to Great Temple of Balthazar International-1. I believe that they detect when someone's arrived in the district and send a whisper to them. I'll admit I rarely report these, mainly because it's quite a hassle going through NCsoft support. If there was a more convenient way to report, it would be better, not just for reporting bots, but for reporting all rule-breaking. —Ebany Salmonderiel 16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hero Faction Farming Bots

→ moved from User Talk:Gaile Gray

I feel it hasn't yet been noticed yet by ANET because this has been an on going problems for many months now but still nothing seems to be done. Hero Faction Farming bots are further becoming used and further ruining the game for many of the gamers who enjoy playing in the faction game and taking towns by doing it themselves and with their guilds the correct way and getting the faction proper way VIA alliance battles, Hero Faction farming manually and many other ways to attain faction. So far this botting has come to the extent of the biggest Kurzick output, House Zu Heltzer has become over run by a massive Hero Faction Farming Bot German Alliance of the majority of them. They can be seen running bots anywhere in the European Districts that always remain inactive, bots are hidden in the districts that always remain inactive. Lutgardis Conservatory where Hero faction Farming is done. Bots have been and over all on going problems for many months now and I dont see anything being done because they are currently taking control of the Kurzick Map, ruining the game for all the many other players. Something need to be done about this because there has to be some fairness in this game. Its not at all fair when a bot pumps out 300k+ Faction in 24 hours Per bot in a guild. 300k is equivelent to maintaing 3Million Factions on 1 guild and to keep up the daily 10% deduction. The biggest current guild that has been known to be botting is King (Lords of Heltzer) If more information is neeeded on this alliance please feel free to ask and I will provide verything I can on this alliance and this guild. It is completly dishonurable if the competition for control of towns is completly run by bots. Many are against this and those who are for it, and those who are for it are usually with people running the bots or are running it themselves. I'd like to see something done and some drastic changes made. Its as if the feature ANET put in is usless /report because more and more bots come up daily. Thx :) --Darken123 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A.net is doing something about it, they always have. It just seems like they aren't as well theres at least 500 new bots a day. You try keeping up. Its expensive and hard to constantly keep things in order. And I highly dought people with FoW amour and white dye are bots...68.151.27.108 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Clever disguise. ^^ 145.94.74.23 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There to this day is no proof that they are HFFF bottling...but I bet someone, somewhere is. 68.151.27.108 09:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Anet just needs to get rid of the repeatable quests that give faction. This way people would actually have to play PvP missions to aquire cities and not mindless grinding. And for people saying: "But how the hell am i going to get a few million faction by PvP?" Well, everyone would have this problem so it would balance out. SniperFox 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The repeatable faction quests are there, as far as I can recall, to help a player get their 10k to progress through the game. There aren't enough quests to give you 10k straight out (assuming you don't have a second character with access to the later parts that hasn't done any of the later quests) so the repeatable quests are there to help with it. It's not fair on players to remove them as an anti-bot mean and force them into PvP or challenge missions. I like the fact that you can choose your way towards 10k faction- it's a tedious task and the options you have make it doable. I'd hate to be forced into Fort Aspenwood or AB, because personally I can't stand PvP in any form. It's just not my thing, and this same goes for many other players. For me, such a change would mean I wouldn't bother playing (certain parts) of the game anymore, which is certainly not the intended result.

A change like that would severely harm the players working their way legitimately to a pretty hard-to-obtain title. Personally I think it would do more harm than good, and it would probably only result in the bots moving to other places. Think of it as a skill balance- if you can't run one build anymore, you'll just find another one to work with. I don't think honest players should take the beating for it. -- Elv 13:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This game is a PvP centered game, supporting players to not to be scared of variable enemies instead of the same type of creatures all the time is a good start at getting more people to PvP instead of the always the same PvE. Supporting grinding is not really something good to do as a developer, it doesn't have any benefits for the gameplay and only contains a risk for the health of the player. Increasing the quests reward would allow insecure players to get the 10K mark too. This just to benefit the health of the player, remove the bot usage (brainlessness) of the game and actually add some competitive gameplay. Atleast this way the game would need some thought instead of brainless grinding (read: job) to keep players busy. And this way players who don't take a game as their fulltime job would have a chance at achieving something too. I believe repeatable grinding does more harm than good, it only adds more negative difference between players, introduces elitism, and especially new players or casual players would be limited in certain things. SniperFox 14:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was always under the impression that the game was made for PvE and PvP both. Focussing on just one or the other, as a developer, would be stupid because you'd be disregarding a good part of your playerbase. 'Always the same PvE' means the same as 'always the same PvP' to me. Some players prefer one over the other, some players prefer both. It would be ignorant and belittling to talk down on any of those players. Why does it have to be a PvP versus PvE debate? I don't play PvP because I don't like the PvP players I've encountered in the past, not because I don't like facing different kinds of enemies. I find some forms of PvP brainless and reminiscent of a grind. If you look at the meta, there will always be a certain build dominating for a while until it gets nerfed. Repeatedly going IWAY into HA, for instance, is just as brainless and boring as repeatedly running into an explorable area and farming the enemies there.

The game is both PvP and PvE. You might like to focus on PvP, but that doesn't mean that everyone else does. The health of a player has nothing to do with it. As for elitism... just saying that the game is more PvP or PvE is a form of elitism. The game is both, or it wouldn't have supported both. If it really only focussed on PvP, there would never have been a new game after Prophecies, because Prophecies contained the main portion of PvP as we know it (i.e. RA, TA, HA, GvG). This is really not about whether or not people should PvP more- it's about bots, and which methods would or would not work to solve the problem. Forcing people to PvP would not solve the problem. Bots would move elsewhere, and people who dislike PvP would simply stop playing. -- Elv 14:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Twitch* *Twitch* If...I...see...one...more...person...saying..PvP (Sorry I'll stop now) Is more important than PvP is the real focus of this game...ARRRRRGGGGGG!!!1!!!!!11!!!!!! At the same time though, I like the idea of removing repeatable quests and just increasing rewards for one-time quest. So you're off the hook this time sniperfox =P. -Warior kronos 23:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, PvE could be made far more 'variable' (in terms of gameplay with the AI enemies) if ArenaNet got off their butts and made it so, but that would mean that it would be more work. Its far cheaper for Arenanet to leave variability up to the PvPers than trying to make PvE (a far more detailed and complex tapestry) more of a variable environment. But... I continue off topic.... 118.92.12.97 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic though, I've observed quite a few bots in Lutgardis and it seems that some players are getting really sophisticated. For example, bots typically use waypoints in order to navigate, especially since people spawn into a town in a random location, they need to re-orient themselves to get back out into the explorable. Typically, it's easy to spot a bot because they run up to the area name flag outside the door, wait a few seconds, turn slowly to a specific angle, then run out the door. However, I've noticed through general play that there are some players who idle 24/7 right infront of the portal to melandrus hope. Surely people aren't addicted to those stairs so much they want to be with them all day every day, it eventually occurred to me that bots are using these people as waypoints so that they can get into the explorable even quicker. It's also a bit worrying since I do HFFF manually myself for my faction (I'll be damned if I'm playing PVP to get my kurzick title, no matter what any PVP elitists may say on the matter) and i'm concerned that I might be mistaken for a bot even though I move around in a much more natural manner than any computer program. It's quite upsetting that people can hit savior of the kurzicks in a short space of time by botting whereas it's so far taken me several months just to get to r7... Yu Takami 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather lame by anet to make such a title that promotes farming using bots, lutgardis is as if made for using bots. I see no real reason for not using a bot other than the fact that its not legal accordingly to the EULA. I don't like the fact that it goes faster doing HFFF runs than playing AB. Most ppl that use bots are probably causal players that got better things to do than doing a very repetitive thing over and over and over again, banning them for this would from my point of view the wrong thing to do since they are most certainly only interested in gaining the title without having to give up their real life doing so. The right action would be for Anet to fix the quest and then make the alternative ways of gaining factions faster, like VQing one area should give 10k faction if the time it takes to do it is over 30 min wich is the current time it takes to get 10k factions via HFFF.--213.100.146.85 10:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaishen = Bots?

Hey, just curious; I tend to call the Zaishen opponents 'bots' as simulated player-type opponents in first-person shooters are usually called bots, and that's about the role they have. Think it's worth adding this to the usage page? I've seen at least one other note in here somewhere about people having come from FPS's. --Star Weaver 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Zaishen are NPCs. poke | talk 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Which are basically really bad server-side bots. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Interrupt Bot

Im not going to say it was vandalism, but get facts, not opinions( or stuff about chuck norris) and try again. Sonic Sunday 18:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a interrupt bot is to give the user an unfair advantage in GVG or RA. By reading the gw.dat file and registering the usage of skills it is able to keep track on several players and interupting every skill that they use.

Would that be better?--Fire164 11:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Interupt Bots

When is Anet going to do something about these bots?? Really i have been farming champ points with this for over 3 months... when will Anet do something about this problem? Here is a cool link: <link removed> Fire164 18:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is in a new section because..? A F K When Needed 19:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

idk... fix?--Fire164 19:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

First, ANet is not likely to read here. Second, based on the number of times Regina and Gaile's pages have had posts concerning ruptbots, they probably already know. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"When is Anet" not "When are you" - Fire would appear to be asking us for what information we may have on the matter. A F K When Needed 21:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Then unless I'm mistaken, I appear to have fulfilled the request.

And believe it or not, people quite often say "When is ANet going to" in generic complaint hoping that a staff member will come by, notice the single cry-to-be-noticed tucked away in a remote and non-Feedback corner of the wiki, and immediately exercise godly staff powers to fix the problem within the hour. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If Anet knows about these bots, why aren't they doing anything about them? If i wanted Anet to read my complains i would probably just send them an email? I just want to know what you guys think about the problem! Fire164 06:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No visible improvement does not mean an improvement is not being worked on. Contrary to popular belief, ANet can't just snap their fingers and fix things instantly at first alert to a problem. --Kyoshi (Talk) 07:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

People have been using this bot for over a year now, but why hasn't Anet done anything yet? Maybe they should pay some attention to all the people complaining. Maybe it's time to snap those fingers?--Fire164 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Read better. I answered everything you just asked in my previous statement. It's a slightly more difficult and complicated process to fix programming errors than you seem to think. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that one year is enough time to, if not to fix a programming error then atleast be able to ban the people using this bot--Fire164 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you a programmer? No? Then what basis do you have for deciding on this one-year rule? --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that one year is more than enough time to ban the people using this bot? One-year rule?? Hell if you need more than a year to fix your own game... maybe it's time to give up?--Fire164 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, who are you to set the standards? Are you a programmer? Have you made your own games? Have you developed a fool-proof system for detecting bots without needing players to report them? You know, half of the problem is that people don't report the bots they see. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a fool-proof system for ya: Make a GM accauly play their own game, tell em to press "B" start observing games and... what is that? IS THAT MESMER RUNNING AROUND P-BLOCKING EVERY SKILL ON FAST CAST!?!??! BAN. problem solved.--Fire164 11:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ANet's resources are split between GW1 and GW2, and the first has had a lot of issues. Or didn't you notice the uprise of hackings, and the issues people had with remembering character names after security was implemented to stop the hackings, and the bugs with people getting the Christmas headpieces, and the fact that they only just now are retiring the Xunlai Tournament House (meaning they've been working on fixing it until now)? If you care so vehemently about this issue, go on obs yourself and report a few bots. And stop acting as if ANet is some dog that won't do a trick for you. --Kyoshi (Talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that Anet was even trying to fix the XHT. Why do you think i posted here to being with? Ofcourse i have reported several people using this bot, but i have yet to see anyone get banned for using it. I don't think Anet will ever learn a single trick.--Fire164 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If they weren't trying to fix it they would have taken it down long ago instead of wasting all this time. What motivation could they possibly have for giving people false hope and shutting it down randomly now? Even if you're right, that's one less issue on a list of many, and I didn't even mention in that list above the skill balances coming up this Thursday.

Why are you still so convinced that ANet can take care of issues instantly? Even processing player reports takes time, and again, they have a limited group of people working, and plenty of other issues happening in the game to deal with. Give the company a little more faith, will you? Or at the very least, stop whining so much in this obscure corner of the wiki and put it someplace where the ANet staff will actually read it. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

They didn't want to tell us how much of a failure company they are. Skill uppdates? it took them 5 months to make a single uppdate, how long have they been talking about nerfing SF, rofl it's about time. One year is not instantly. Is faith what they need to pruduce more costumes and start selling bots in the online store? Whining? I am simply telling you the truth. --Fire164 10:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"They didn't want to tell us how much of a failure company they are." Good use of the old noggin there. Moar baseless bullshit plox

"One year is not instantly." Yet having more than one issue to take care of makes it more complicated than that.

"Is faith what they need to pruduce more costumes and start selling bots in the online store?" ...What?

"Whining? I am simply telling you the truth." You're either whining or trolling, and either way you're jumping to conclusions prematurely. You haven't the slightest clue about the difficulty involved in programming, yet you continue making demands and deciding what is reasonable. Take a few programming classes and tell me they can "just" fix the problems. It may be too long for you to wait, but it clearly is not enough time for them.

"how long have they been talking about nerfing SF, rofl it's about time." Lots of repercussions to consider. Sbooning skills is just unproductive, and there are a lot of possible changes to consider. I mean, just look at the feedback portal section for Assassin skills. Half the page is Shadow Form suggestions. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sbooning skills is just unproductive, and there are a lot of possible changes to consider." you mean like This?

"You haven't the slightest clue about the difficulty involved in programming" You don't have to be Bill Gates to understand that one year is enough time to ban obvious boters

"Moar baseless bullshit plox" Bullshit?

"Yet having more than one issue to take care of makes it more complicated than that." If they would accualy take some actions against these issues then maybe there wouldn't be so many?

"You're either whining or trolling" Yes becouse everyone that dosn't love anet is clearly trolling.--Fire164 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"you mean like This?" That's what Sbooning refers to, and that's what I said. It's usually not productive, but when a skill gets that overpowered it's often a simple failsafe. In a game where the 1319 total skills are never going to be completely balanced, it's sometimes even be a good thing. Usually, however, it's unproductive.

"You don't have to be Bill Gates to understand that one year is enough time to ban obvious boters" What did I just say about not knowing anything about programming? This issue has only been brought to the attention of the ArenaNet staff recently. The issue has not been "obvious" to them for a year. And after that link you posted above, there will be even more botters in the system. Do you really want to put that many users at risk of being banned, and do you really want to escalate the issue as a method of solving it?

"Bullshit?" What does a single skill have to do with the supposed failure of an entire company? Yet again, good use of the old noggin.

"If they would accualy take some actions against these issues then maybe there wouldn't be so many?" They are. As you have clearly yet to grasp, these things take time.

"Yes becouse everyone that dosn't love anet is clearly trolling." Don't put words in my mouth. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) A more appropriate place for this discussion would be on a fansite, not here. Please stop. - Mini Me talk 22:10, 24 February 2010

Now Anet is trying to cover up the whole thing...--Fire164 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good guess, but no. I was the one that removed your link. I've also sent it to Gaile. I suggest you leave it out of any further posts you make on this wiki, if you really care about this problem. Escalating an issue like this is not the way to go about solving it.

Any further discussion you may want to take up may be started on my talk page, but I've pretty much made all the points I'm going to bother to. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will start a new discussion once i find something interesting to talk about, untill then gg--Fire164 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UT C)

Macros

Are macros from keyboards like G15 and most of the gamers keyboards allowed for example, pressing a combination of skills on your character or your character's hero? I dont want to do anything outside the EULA--Batousai 04:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as PvE is concerned, you can use it as long as the keyboard doesn't play for you... ie. being afk and it's still inputting commands. If I'm paraphrasing Gaile correctly, as long as you have to actively play to control your character then it's okay. In PvP though I think it's considered cheating... but they are unclear what kind of use is cheating so I'd just not use macros at all for PvP. --Lania 05:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Then that is not a problem for me I don't play pvp XD ty for the answer--Batousai 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

what about, say, setting a macro key to press one skill multiple times, such as 'STAND UP!' in Kilroy Stonekin's Punch-Out Extravaganza!, that would give you a benefit, but you aren't away from the computer. like... it would stop you from messing up and losing your survivor, but you still actually had to sit at your computer and run your survivor through the same amount of kilroys the game. ~Gilliam Bluestaff, Legendary Guardian 22:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from Gaile that may help:

• "PvE Gamplay: As long as you are at your computer and are actively playing the game, we’re ok with what you’re doing. As soon as the game plays itself – as soon as you can walk away and the computer continues to play – you’re in breach of the Rules of Conduct and you are subject to account sanctions, which can involve an account suspension or an account termination. " [1]
• "PvP Gameplay: The use of macros that give an advantage in competitive play is strictly prohibited and if it is reported and/or detected, we will research the activity and take the appropriate action on the account, which can affect both tournament eligibility and the account holder’s ability to continue to play Guild Wars, either with a temporary suspension or an account termination." [2]
• "We cannot condone or support the use of macros. For one thing, a lot of macros contain trojans or other malware, ... Now, if the question is about whether we would block an account of someone using one, ...if the use of a macro were of no detriment to the community, we would be less likely to take action than one that clearly had negative consequences. But if this is a request for us to say "That macro is harmless, please feel free to use it," I am afraid that I absolutely cannot say that." [3]

Essentially, flirting with macros needs to be done with care. People use them, but getting caught on the wrong side of the grey area isn't going to be fun. G R E E N E R 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So what i would be doing would be legal because my computer isnt playing itself, or illegal because the greater chance of my getting survivor could be seen as a detriment to those without the same macro... AAAH! its so confusing! ~Gilliam Bluestaff, Legendary Guardian 23:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that if your using it in PvE then it would be legal because your not directly harming or putting other players at a disadvantage--Elemental Phantom 23:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal or illegal has no bearing here. Whether or not you have broken the EULA is at the sole discretion of Anet. If you wish for clarification, send as much information as you can about your idea to Support. The more detailed your request (how it will be implemented, what hardware you will use, etc.), the better chance you will get a response from them. Remember though, they "cannot condone or support the use of macros", so at most you may be told if your plan would break the EULA. G R E E N E R 23:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Known Bots in PVP

← moved to User_talk:Gaile_Gray/Botwatch#Known Bots in PVP