Jump to content
Awolo

Botting in Runescape

Recommended Posts

No bot(ter)s were banned in the bot nuke. The point and focus of the nuke wasn't to ban them, it was to break them. :P.


09144a99bb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No bot(ter)s were banned in the bot nuke. The point and focus of the nuke wasn't to ban them, it was to break them. :P.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a fair number banned(Can't quite remember, but I think MMG named some numbers at Runefest) but it was definitely not a massban as in the sense they were trying to get everyone who was botting. Priority was indeed to make them stop work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the jacmob forums being spammed with "Wow, can't believe I wasn't banned"...threads. I really think Jagex banned only the obvious offenders, if anyone at all.

 

Next, I've never known anyone to fall for a "get rich quick" scheme...Of course, most of my friends are smart enough to obtain a college degree in a lucrative field of study, thus already making more money than they know what to do with...

 

By the way, it's not really a flaw to take the easier path. I'm a kind person who holds the door for strangers, has pleasent conversations with strangers, etc. But if I'm playing a game, I'm going to play it the way I want to play it, and that includes taking the easiest path.


w4M8t.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No bot(ter)s were banned in the bot nuke. The point and focus of the nuke wasn't to ban them, it was to break them. :P.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a fair number banned(Can't quite remember, but I think MMG named some numbers at Runefest) but it was definitely not a massban as in the sense they were trying to get everyone who was botting. Priority was indeed to make them stop work.

 

If there were any bans, then it was the chronic gold farmers and the egregious botting offenders. Jagex offered amnesty to players that they had concrete evidence instead of no mercy.


Linux User/Enthusiast Full-Stack Software Engineer | Stack Overflow Member | GIMP User
s1L0U.jpg
...Alright, the Elf City update lured me back to RS over a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No bot(ter)s were banned in the bot nuke. The point and focus of the nuke wasn't to ban them, it was to break them. :P.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a fair number banned(Can't quite remember, but I think MMG named some numbers at Runefest) but it was definitely not a massban as in the sense they were trying to get everyone who was botting. Priority was indeed to make them stop work.

 

If there were any bans, then it was the chronic gold farmers and the egregious botting offenders. Jagex offered amnesty to players that they had concrete evidence instead of no mercy.

 

Yup pretty much this. I guess they wanted to soften the blow that would come from losing a lot of subscribers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a flaw in basic human nature to want to always want and take the easy path? I am beginning to think so.

Can be a flaw cuz u can be tricked sometimes but if a method really gets you the results easier then of course it makes sense to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the jacmob forums being spammed with "Wow, can't believe I wasn't banned"...threads. I really think Jagex banned only the obvious offenders, if anyone at all.

 

Next, I've never known anyone to fall for a "get rich quick" scheme...Of course, most of my friends are smart enough to obtain a college degree in a lucrative field of study, thus already making more money than they know what to do with...

 

 

Youre young yet. Give it time. I know lots of doctors and lawyers and engineers who have been duped by get rich quick schemes. Heck, take a look at the whole Ponzi scheme run by Bernie Madoff and look at the list of successful and intelligent people he schemed. Its the same thing. Count yourself and your friends lucky for now. Eventually though, hubris has a way of catching up with everyone though. What comes around, goes around.


slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the jacmob forums being spammed with "Wow, can't believe I wasn't banned"...threads. I really think Jagex banned only the obvious offenders, if anyone at all.

 

Next, I've never known anyone to fall for a "get rich quick" scheme...Of course, most of my friends are smart enough to obtain a college degree in a lucrative field of study, thus already making more money than they know what to do with...

 

 

Youre young yet. Give it time. I know lots of doctors and lawyers and engineers who have been duped by get rich quick schemes. Heck, take a look at the whole Ponzi scheme run by Bernie Madoff and look at the list of successful and intelligent people he schemed. Its the same thing. Count yourself and your friends lucky for now. Eventually though, hubris has a way of catching up with everyone though. What comes around, goes around.

 

That's because many doctors and lawyers and engineers became those professions to "get rich"...I became an engineer because I like engineering. I enjoy that I can afford many of my hobbies because of it, but it wasn't the sole purpose I did it.

 

I'm not a venture capitalist, and my investments are only in IRA's, my 401k, and I have a small investment into a CD ladder and mutual funds.

 

I am more likely to lose my ass gambling then through a mutual fund, and that is simply because one of my hobbies is poker...


w4M8t.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off topic, but an interesting commentary from The Economist:

 

IS SIN original? That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science. Dr Shalvi and his colleagues, Ori Eldar and Yoella Bereby-Meyer of Ben-Gurion University in Israel, wanted to know if the impulse to cheat is something that grows or diminishes when the potential cheater has time for reflection on his actions. Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?

 

Appropriately, the researchers apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity, the gambling die. They wanted to find out whether people were more likely to lie about the result of a die roll when asked that result immediately, or when given time to think.

 

To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76 volunteers a six-sided die and a cup. Participants were told that a number of them, chosen at random, would earn ten shekels (about $2.50) for each pip of the numeral they rolled on the die. They were then instructed to shake their cups, check the outcome of the rolled die and remember this roll. Next, they were asked to roll the die two more times, to satisfy themselves that it was not loaded, and, that done, to enter the result of the first roll on a computer terminal. Half of the participants were told to complete this procedure within 20 seconds while the others were given no time limit.

 

The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course. But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been 3.5. This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants honesty. Those forced to enter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a mean roll of 4.6. Those who were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9. Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.

 

A second experiment confirmed this result. A different bunch of volunteers were asked to roll the die just once. Again, half were put under time pressure and, since there were no additional rolls to make, the restriction was changed from 20 seconds to eight. The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.

 

In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4. Those given no time limit reported an average of 3.4. The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.

 

The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeed original. Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat. Given such time, however, they will often do the right thing. If you want someone to be honest, then, do not press him too hard for an immediate decision.


nyuseg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off topic, but an interesting commentary from The Economist:

 

IS SIN original?

 

SNIP

 

The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeed original. Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat. Given such time, however, they will often do the right thing. If you want someone to be honest, then, do not press him too hard for an immediate decision.

That's a hell of a leap for that article to take. It's just as easy to conclude people are not being more honest, they're being more paranoid. In the first example, going off instinct most will enter a more favorable result which in the experiment is labeled cheating. In the second example, giving people more time could just mean they have more time to consider the false case of the results or test are actually being monitored.

 

On top of that, this test looks like it was done in isolation. Being a social animal, men and women will be more likely to cheat if they first see that others are cheating and getting away with it. Then again, they also take offense if they see someone cheating at something they did the hard way first. Turns out it's not a noble feeling of justice, it's more along the lines of sour grapes. People don't like the idea of others having an advantage they did not. Similar to the feeling of unequal justice if a person punished when others were not such as speeding tickets.

 

Anyway, it was a good experiment in the article, but I wouldn't draw too much from it.


nukemarine.png

Learn how to Learn Japanese on your own - Nukemarine's Suggested Guide for Beginners in Japanese
Stop Forgetting Stuff for College and Life - Anki - a program which makes remembering things easy
Reach Elite Fitness - CrossFit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the experiment is quite valid. They showed there is a correlation to how long someone has to think, and how likely they are to cheat. Assuming the sample size was large enough that is. (So that randomness is accounted for.) However, it is correlation only, not strict causation. So the conclusion they drew is not based on enough evidence.


Serena_Sedai.png
Maxed since Sunday, January 9th, 2014
Completionist since Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about this, but I have reason to believe bots can 'talk' now (or atleast make some form of response).

 

I was WCing on world 135 by Rimmington (I'm F2P) and after a while noticed a couple players who looked like obvious bots. All of them were level 4 and had gibberish names (with the exception of 1) and had strange movement patterns. Of course I didn't take much of this, since much of F2P is being botted nowadays, but at one point I noticed one of them started talking. It was in response to a quickchat question asking about WC levels that someone else had said. The level 4 character responded, but multiple times, and then finally with a message that just had a % mark in it. I thought it was kind of strange, so I kept saying basic sentences and seeing if the bots would respond.

 

They did, however their answers were quite strange; posting a random symbol after their last sentence (%, $, etc) or posting 'Hi' (or Hello) in response, and then a sad smiley afterwards. ( :( )

Normally I'd just assume they were bad at English or something, but it was too much of a coincidence for all of them to respond like that. Furthermore, they were all the same level (4) and had unusually high WC levels for a level 4 (one had a WC level of 95, and his name was gibberish - I doubt anyone would spend the time getting 95 WC legitimately on an account that was named like a bot)

 

I got a picture of some of the conversation:

 

6te4pv.png

 

It seems a bit of a strange concept to consider - bots being able to 'talk' but by the way these characters were responding, their names etc made them appear to be definite bots. Not sure what to think, lol. Might try investigating this more.

 

Edit: I'm not sure if this has been around for a while already lol, I personally have just noticed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the post above let's be honest. Bots and their ability to talk in-game was NEVER good because it was too hard to script auto-responses to anything. Now with bots being completely or partly broken, it's even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bots have been able to easily respond to "what is your level in" questions, and usually hi/hello. Beyond that, most stay silent otherwise. I hadn't seen the broken @*% responses though. Real responses are difficult because you can't autorespond to a situation the programmer didn't intend. (Unless you wanna spend tons of $$ on complex systems like the online chat-bots would, but those are dedicated to chatting, whereas these are just trying to appear as legit as possible so that the auto-detect systems can't find them.)


Serena_Sedai.png
Maxed since Sunday, January 9th, 2014
Completionist since Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty strange. I never knew about this until now. Then again I don't exactly go around talking to bots :P

 

It's funny in a way though, as anyone can see that they're bots.. the fact that they can respond to two questions doesn't prove anything lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are currently 76,000 'players' online. Probably less than half human players. Absolutely nothing's changed in jagex's stance toward bots in the entire year I've quit due to my disgust of the bots. So few bots get banned or punished it's actually just sad. Even with all Of f2p gone from hiscores, probably 40-60% of the top ranked skillers are bot names (How do you bot 150m hunter xp and *not* get detected..?) And now, the lauded bot nuke have utterly failed too.

 

Just a random pic from reddit today...

120410202141.png

 

Jagex just simply doesn't want to turn this train wreck around...


I would prefer even to fail with honor than to win by cheating - Sophocles

php1CLVGLAM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagex is looking at the prospect of diminishing amounts of legit players regardless of whehter or not bots are in the picture also with microtransactions the integrity of the game is already going. Why would jagex try and stop bots now? Yes optimus and other bot nukes are still likely but not as hard now for jagex to pump out or bot makers to bypass since they are already in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember just a few days ago looking up some of the random bots I saw and sure enough only ranked in combat (With 150M+ XP in a few of them) and agility. Nothing else. Lol. Can't tell me they were all some sort of screwed up skiller pures. But, I'm sure that's what Jagex would argue.


09144a99bb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember just a few days ago looking up some of the random bots I saw and sure enough only ranked in combat (With 150M+ XP in a few of them) and agility. Nothing else. Lol. Can't tell me they were all some sort of screwed up skiller pures. But, I'm sure that's what Jagex would argue.

 

No jagex would ignore the topic and lock any threads that bring it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently the number of "subscribers" has apparently soared. I think I know why:

vryrro.png


"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently the number of "subscribers" has apparently soared. I think I know why:

vryrro.png

 

That's partly to do with the 14 day trial membership, RWT companies seem to use it to get adbots in p2p worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the number of 14 day trial memberships "dropping off" the list should be equal to the number of new ones, unless they're massively accelerating the number of bots they use.


"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the number of 14 day trial memberships "dropping off" the list should be equal to the number of new ones, unless they're massively accelerating the number of bots they use.

 

It seems they drop off the list on the first day of each month, so by the end of a month it's higher than it should be. That's only part of it though, and prior to the trial the last pages of the hiscores were made up of similar accounts but a few more looters/RAF accs/merching accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, where is Tip.It's graph of the number of current subscribers? I did a search but failed to find it.


"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.