Bot Check Beef (in General)

I'd like to ask a simple question, and then offer an alternative. Why do the bot checks need to be so random as to sometimes occur in rapid succession, one after another? Couldn't they be spaced out in such a way that an every 5 click bot check could be avoided? I know that bot checks are absolutely necessary, and need to be random. But perhaps they don't need to come up so frequently. I am writing this following a rapid sequence of bot checks that came up so often, it was really annoying. I'm not angry, but I do think overall enjoyment of the game for the vast majority of us would improve if the frequency of bot checks was such that they wouldn't occur after a few clicks sometimes.

At first I thought this thread was going to be about you selling a botcheck with the word beef in it.

Simple answer: botchecks that are evenly spaced out would not be random.

Complicated answer: statistically, the botchecks are evenly distributed. If they were made to be more so, such that the "randomness" is still preserved, then it would be possible to find a function that approximates the random generator, meaning that someone could write a bot that would know when the botchecks were coming.

LOL Brandon.

Let me reiterate that I understand the importance of botchecks and why they do need to be random. I just wonder if the ones that come every five clicks sometimes 3 or 4 times in a row could be avoided. I don't think it would degrade the effectiveness of the bot check, but I'm not certain of that.

/me remembers getting botcheck followed by botcheck, without a fight in between, as do many other old timers, I'm sure.

Wasn't the record four botchecks in a row before Jon fixed it?

Interesting Caedman. Well, if he could fix that, then he should be able to keep a bot check from popping up again 3 or 4 clicks after a bot check. I mean if it wasn't a bot 5 seconds ago, it's probably not a bot 5 seconds from now. Just a benign suggestion :)

He could always put an expiration on the cookie that is dropped when you log in and have a bot check on the login page, that way any bots would not be allowed access.

^^

People would just log in then turn on their bots.

Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people overlook that fact that the fine for failing a "fight" botcheck has to outweigh any potential gain from using a bot, so fewer botchecks = greater fines /longer bans for failing them.

This is annoying and unfair to both (poor) new players who haven't gotten used to them and to people who are bad at them. Sure botchecks are annoying when you're trying to burn up a bunch of BA but I'd rather have the lower fines for those times when I fail two in a row or am distracted for two minutes.

Every player has a "CB Age". Maybe the longer you've been on CB2 the higher the penalty for failing a bot check, but have fewer of them or they don't have to pop as often between clicks. I don't know how difficult that would be to do. I just don't see the point of doing a bot check and then 3 clicks later doing it again. It just proves that I haven't turned into a bot in 3 seconds time. :)

I think CB2BANK should pay all the fines for failing a bot check.


Agreed?


Thought so, motion passes.

I love democracy.

If I had to guess, I would say that botchecks are tied to BA-depleting actions rather than time, so every time you use a BA, some function decides if you should be botchecked. Linking botchecks to time would open up the potential for abuse (aka my bot submits 300 challanges in 10 seconds) whereas linking it to BA is pretty abuse-proof unless you write a bot that can pass the checks.

Not to mention that it's probaby a nasty project to redo the bot checks

It's interesting to me that every time I've read a bot check discussion in a forum, how aggressively folks defend the bot checks. Is it like an affirmation of ones dedication and loyalty to CB? I really do know that bot checks are necessary and must be random. But, I don't enjoy them to the extent that I'm looking forward to one every 5 seconds or so while I'm using up BA. My point is that I don't 'think' it needs to be as often as that to serve the purpose that it does. One or 2 bot checks during a 160 ba run is probably adequate.

agreed Barron. Good thing I've never defended bot checks. I just got suspended for 60 minutes. :P

I was pointing out that botchecks need to be random, and not evenly spaced out... but now I see that you're talking about the frequency of the botchecks. And yes, the frequency could definitely be reduced.

Botcheck are probably (or at least should be) linked to both to both time and BA use. Two botchecks in 160 BA would be fine if you use them all in 10 or 20 minutes, but if it takes more than that, more botchecks should occur.