A Solution for the Bot-Check issue (in General)


Nehemiah December 29 2008 7:49 PM EST

Allow everyone that passes a bot check to be awarded exp/cash as if they would have won a battle, also dont take away any BA for the bot-check like now.

I believe everyone would welcome the checks if this was done.

God Bless you!

Jesus Loves you!

nemods December 29 2008 7:50 PM EST

Sounds great to me

BadFish December 29 2008 7:52 PM EST

bot checks don't take away BA. They're a pre-battle check, once it's completed you fight the battle as normal.

Lord Bob December 29 2008 7:53 PM EST

Failing a bot check means you don't get the BA normally regenerated in the hour you are penalized.

My solution is to remove this "no BA regen" period and limit the penalty to 10 minutes.

Daz December 29 2008 7:56 PM EST

Why?

The problem I saw in the other thread wasn't the punishment being too harsh, but the frequency at which the checks occur.

"I wasn't a bot three fights ago. That hasn't changed. Leave me alone"

Hakai [Aye Phelta Thi] December 29 2008 7:56 PM EST

This suggestion was brought up in chat today. And I'll repeat what I said there.

The reward for passing a bot check is not being banned from CB.
And if that weren't enough, you also aren't penalized by being forced to decide between an hour without BA regeneration or paying for that not to happen.

And not taking away the BA would render the bot check pointless. That penalty is there to make you actually attempt to do it right.


It could be worse you know. We could all have to fill out CAPTCHA every time we wanted to post a response in forums or make a train or whatever, like some other sites. And I don't think the bot checks are as hard to read as some of the CAPTCHAs out there.

There really isn't a problem with the bot check system itself. It's the frequency that I can see most people being upset over, and even that doesn't bother me.

Yukk December 29 2008 8:04 PM EST

While they are annoying (and I totally agree) the problem with the "I wasn't a bot 3 BA ago, so gimme a break" is that if you know you won't get a bot check for, say 50 BA after you pass one then it's pretty much a given that some players will play until they get a bot check and then have a bot play 49 and then come back.
"Oh come on, I wasn't a bot 1 1/2 seconds ago !" is exactly what I think when I get a check, hit enter a couple of times in lag and then get another one, but there's really no way around it.

Soul Eater December 29 2008 8:09 PM EST

So lame! I just got 2 botchecks in a row!

Lord Bob December 29 2008 9:03 PM EST

"The problem I saw in the other thread wasn't the punishment being too harsh, but the frequency at which the checks occur."

And MY problem is with the timeout, and the severity of the punishment.

On to the original issue of frequent botchecks...

"the problem with the "I wasn't a bot 3 BA ago, so gimme a break" is that if you know you won't get a bot check for, say 50 BA after you pass one then it's pretty much a given that some players will play until they get a bot check and then have a bot play 49 and then come back."

The botcheck will still be randomized. The probability of getting one would just be slightly lowered. So you could still get a second check after, say, 2 BA, but the odds of actually getting that would be much lower. Nobody is proposing a fixed "grace period" here, at least not that I saw.

QBRanger December 29 2008 9:51 PM EST

How about this:

Let's say for the sake of my explanation you get a botcheck 5% of the time.

For each day you do not miss a botcheck the chance lowers by .1% to a minimum of 1%.

If you miss just one, your chance goes back to the normal less of 5% and things start over.

In my example, it would take 40 days of not missing 1 to get 1% level. And then missing one you go back to the normal rate.

Hakai [Aye Phelta Thi] December 29 2008 9:55 PM EST

What about someone like me, Ranger? That misses like one in 3 years? I'd just never see a botcheck again? What if I started botting (lol, yeah right. As if I knew how xD) because my bot checks were gone and the temptation arose?

Also, couldn't someone make a bot based on those percentages or something? Someone that was supersmart at math or whatever? As it stands now, the bot checks are random. Which is kind of the point, I thought....?

PearsonTritonRaveshaw December 29 2008 9:59 PM EST

Ranger, how aboot if you miss one it goes up by 1-2% or so, and if you fail two (if it's two in a row or just two within a set amount of time is entirely up to whoever implements it, if that were to ever happen), it's reset entirely. I sometimes miss one because I just read it too quickly. I don't like the reward for botchecks at all. I agree with hacky pie.

QBRanger December 29 2008 9:59 PM EST

You can make it so the botchecks are not as frequent, but still there.

I never stated or meant to imply they are not needed. I agree they certainly do.

However, for my taste and gameplay experience, they are far too frequent.

Especially compared to all the other games I have played of similar style.

If the gameplay of CB was not so personally addictive, the botchecks would be a very considerable negative in the competition for my playtime.

PearsonTritonRaveshaw December 29 2008 10:02 PM EST

"Also, couldn't someone make a bot based on those percentages or something? Someone that was supersmart at math or whatever?"

If you mean have a macro to click "Fight" and they come back in order to enter in the botchecks, then it would (or at least should) still be a random chance, but at the preset 1% (If you go for however long you don't miss one). There is still a chance that you will get two in a row, but the odds of that happening (at 1% chance of a botcheck per battle) would be one in 10,000

PearsonTritonRaveshaw December 29 2008 10:03 PM EST

"If the gameplay of CB was not so personally addictive, the botchecks would be a very considerable negative in the competition for my playtime."

I agree with you 100%

Hakai [Aye Phelta Thi] December 29 2008 10:05 PM EST

"I sometimes miss one because I just read it too quickly."

That's why you get two. In case the first missed bot was a fluke.


And Ranger, I suppose that makes sense. I can see them being toned down, I suppose, but I don't think there should be a formula. I still think it should be random.

And I still think lots of other games have worse spam/bot-prevention tactics in place. I don't mind CBs system at all, but I can certainly see where someone might.

QBsutekh137 December 29 2008 11:31 PM EST

Still not understanding why this is an issue.

Considering who the current system has caught, I think it is entirely acceptable.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 29 2008 11:36 PM EST

the other side of that though is that if you have ever played a game where they weren't so proactive against cheaters and you couldn't really compete without cheating that is even more discouraging in my opinion.

remember though what the penalty used to be for bot check failures. ; )

Soul Eater December 29 2008 11:40 PM EST

What was the penalty?

Goodfish December 29 2008 11:42 PM EST

Your character was reset.

O.o

alaskanpsyko December 29 2008 11:48 PM EST

why wait for an hour? as a nub i was trying to adjust to it and being stupid(multitasking on PC) and sometimes forgetting about the bot/check, then again i shouldn't have been doing in first place, but still having to wait for 40-50mins to pay the fees to continue did hinder my wallet to save up for Equipment. will post more after this if needed mods correct me if I'm off topic.

alaskanpsyko

QBRanger December 30 2008 12:19 AM EST

Sorry to seem like I am attacking you Dude, but I had to reply to this statement:

"The other side of that though is that if you have ever played a game where they weren't so proactive against cheaters and you couldn't really compete without cheating that is even more discouraging in my opinion."

But how do you stack up a question of bot usage vs all the cheating we have had for years in CB.

All the multis with their supercharged NUB. Duke anyone? at least 5 multis.

I am typing about something that is an issue to me, it may not be for others.

Does anyone really, truly think that bots will become prevalent in CB if the botcheck ratio is toned down by 1/3rd?

But I had a couple friends try CB and their feedback also suggests this is a problem for other people aside from myself.

I am in no way saying do away with the current botcheck system. Keep it random, but lower its intensity. Instead of a 5% (just a guess) chance for a botcheck, please lower it at least 1/2 for ease of gameplay.

At least that is my and only my opinion (in conjunction with those I had try CB). So it is an issue for me and possibly me only.

Is that not what forum posts are for? Intelligent discussions?

I would hope those not with a comment pertinent to this thread refrain from posting.

AdminTitan December 30 2008 12:29 AM EST

NS believed it was around 5% too Ranger, and I agree with you completely, I receive a lot of bot checks, and I have sometimes been suspended because they wouldn't load on my phone. It would be nice to just have them happen a little less often, that's all he's asking for.

Lord Bob December 30 2008 12:44 AM EST

"Does anyone really, truly think that bots will become prevalent in CB if the botcheck ratio is toned down by 1/3rd?"

No.

QBRanger December 30 2008 12:48 AM EST

And one more thing.

With the new BA regeneration rate per 20 min, how many people now, compared to before miss any BA? I mean real players.

The need for botchecks to maximize your BA is far less now.

The main abuse of no botchecks is growing MPR faster then those not using all their BA. But the new regeneration rate all but eliminated the ability to catch another serious player by using more BA. The having to wake up every few hours to get in your BA. Now is it much easier to get in all ones BA during the day.

The money a non-NUB makes by maximizing ones BA is trivial to the other ways one can cheat at CB and have little chance of getting caught. Reference Duke, Kittyou, Mantra etc.

All I am asking for it a less chance per battle of getting a botcheck, not to eliminate them or make it non random.

For me, it is a problem and for at least 2 other people who tried CB.

Sorry to multipost, this will be the last by me on this issue.

Wizard'sFirstRule December 30 2008 1:00 AM EST

I think lowering chance of bot check by completing them is a good idea, make it a curve like the TOE reduction, so you can't be bot-check free ever.

Wizard'sFirstRule December 30 2008 1:01 AM EST

ok, the server like its bot check.

I made the earlier post and click fight. big/cry is my response (bot check).

Soul Eater December 30 2008 1:27 AM EST

I get a bot check nearly every 3 battles. It's really aggravating.

Darkwalker [Jago] December 30 2008 2:41 AM EST

Just failed 2 bot checks due to computer lag within 10minutes! I hate you, BOTCHECKS!!!!

Timberwolf December 30 2008 3:07 AM EST

Just did a (albeit non-scientific) test here and burned the 160BA I had.

Doing that rewarded me with 9 bot checks.

That's one bot check for every ~17.77 BA burned, and is a lot of the reason I don't play nearly as much as I'd like.

Several of us here have very long histories with this game that have never cheated, one would think that would count for something.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] December 30 2008 3:16 AM EST

try getting 3-4 bot checks in 1 20 BA cycle, that's what us forgers have to deal with daily. Chillax fighters... I'd be careful though, all this complaining lately, Jon might just start the game over completely, >.< lol.

But seriously, if anything compared to Ranger's idea gets included into the game, bot checks containing anything with "ff" or "tt" or "ft" or "tf", etc. in them needs to be removed... Way too similar.

Soul Eater December 30 2008 3:28 AM EST

I agree with the double letters there's a bunch of them that confuse me because of my poor cursive comprehension.

AdminTitan December 30 2008 12:51 PM EST

"I suppose, but I don't think there should be a formula. I still think it should be random." You realize where programming something here right hakai, of course it's going to be random, but there will have to be a formula for it too. The *randomness* as he already said wouldn't change, Ranger just wanted the total percent to be lowered a little bit.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002css">A Solution for the Bot-Check issue</a>