Discussion: Botting Risks, Tips and Deletions

[Behemoth]

next asnwer cm's : There are a number of projects we work on with different teams at any time. We also work on the ones you mentioned. The new client is just one example for such a project, another would be the fight against bots or the server merges. The merges will come this year.
loool , they rlly want delete all botters :O

[Sub Zero]

b) Burn your stamina and pray to God also.+

Hah. Yeah, I usually set my script to stop hunting at 34 hours stamina cuz im on a pretty high level, precious char to me. I think if you set yourself to bot NO MORE than 6 hrs/day and bot spawns you know are usually empty (or spwans where newbies can't see you cuz they would get insta killed) you can greatly lower the odds of a ban. but as raphael said, we mostly just guess :P

I think it comes down to common sense. I've got accts i dont give a shit about and bot 24/7. Then i've got accts i care about, so if i do bot them, i try to make it seem much more like natural play. I haven't been banned on a single acct since the beginning of neobot, so idk XD (*knocks on wood!*)

I've long asked how come they've not deleted every botter running scripts by BUgWT or others (meaning, those who are used by many people at the same time).

I don't think it REALLY matters all too much if multiple people are using one script, because there will still be some variation in where the player stands at different times, etc. It is similar path, yes, but this is not enough to ban for. Especially when the scripts have lots of options and probably not everyone chooses to hunt same parts of every spawn. it's an interesting thought though.

[Chiezuz]

Ugh. My only two premium accounts got deleted day after day.

I hunt on non pvp and always hunt in spawns that are out of the way and not many people enter because I thought reporting was the main way of getting deleted. Maybe now it only takes 1-2 reports to get deleted b/c of server merges?

The one account I only did 2 chars too! I'm not an active botter and take many days off.

Was all good with wind mods but this is right after I started using wind addons. Probably not correlated though.

Good game.

Will continue botting free accounts to see if it still happens and stop caring about how many people are in my spawn since I get banned anyways

My main account even has Tibia NG used on it. I've dodged being banned for several years (guess its not entirely true because my main acct did have 3 30 day bans for botting but no strikes on my account at the time of deletion.) Weird that it happens bang bang two accounts in 3 days.

[Chiezuz]

My account created in 2006 just got insta deleted.

[Sub Zero]

Let's say 10,000 people use bots.

Of this 10,000, 1,500 are deleted in a ban wave.

Of this 1,500 deleted, 1400 are NON-premium

Of the 100 remaining that are premium, 50 used things like magebot which inject and actually alter packets

Of this remaining 50 who only used "safer" bots, 30 botted almost 24/7

of the 20 remaining who botted a reasonable number of hours, 10 were in spawns where they were mass reported

That leaves 10 people out of 10,000 people who did almost everything right, but just didn't make it past the ban wave.

I know these numbers are pulled out of my ass, but the point I'm trying to make here is that if you try actively to be safe, your odds of getting banned will go down massively. Think of it logically and not as if Cipsoft is some mysterious, unpredictable beast. They are perfectly predictable, but .1% (10/10000) of the time, you get fucked. It might be a little higher chance or lower, but the same logic applies

Happy botting.

[Raphael]

I call bullshit based on completely made up numbers.

[Sub Zero]

I call bullshit based on completely made up numbers.

I already conceded that my numbers cannot and will not ever be perfect. The explanation is meant to give a general concept of how bans are broken down by likelihood, and I have no reason to agree my thought process is based on nothing, considering most ban waves over years have shown these characteristics. Yes, a lot of evidence is anecdotal, but its consistent enough that I need not reject my hypothesis

[Raphael]

You conceded that your numbers are completely made up but still insisted in taking very strong conclusions based on them.
I don't see any real data presented here to back your ideas.

[Sub Zero]

You conceded that your numbers are completely made up but still insisted in taking very strong conclusions based on them.
I don't see any real data presented here to back your ideas.

It's a model, not some physical, mathematical law. I may not have the exact number, but I believe my MODEL to be VERY strong. If you can find the right numbers to plug into that model, or if perhaps we could clearly define the model by a function (which we can never really do), then you can get the proper percent chance of ban as an output. You are simply criticizing my inputs and overlooking the model, which i would gladly take criticism on.

[Raphael]

It's a model, not some physical, mathematical law. I may not have the exact number, but I believe my MODEL to be VERY strong. If you can find the right numbers to plug into that model, or if perhaps we could clearly define the model by a function (which we can never really do), then you can get the proper percent chance of ban as an output. You are simply criticizing my inputs and overlooking the model, which i would gladly take criticism on.

I simply think the model is based on data we don't have. It's pure speculation. I've never seen any statistics on this.
And to come and claim this is the "RIGHT" way to see things, when all you have is speculation based on randomly made up data, feels like bullshit to me.