90% bots in Temple of Kotmogu - 9 bots and me; Do YOU think blizzard ban bots?

[Kuja]

I'd almost argue that blizzard's bot team sits and waits by having the wow forums on one monitor, the wowbot community forums on a second monitor, and then they monitor wow in real time on the 3rd.

That would explain why all battlegrounds and few instances are full of bots and why some bots have been online continuously for 5 months if I recall correctly. Not.

[EqualWin]

people really think banning bot is easy? XDDDDD

god those people around this forums, stop qqing, and enjoy the game

(if u enjoy the game doing random bgs then lol)

[Lawnmower]

Yes, they do, after a set limit.

If you'd like, you can think of it as an algorithm that takes into account the number of bots reported, how many times each bot was reported, and the remaining time left on their reoccuring sub. They balance the amount of money they gain by keeping them around against the rising anger of players. Once the players voices reach a high enough volume, their value of potential loss will be greater than that of many bots, and so they will mass ban a large number (but not all) of the reported bots (these reported bot, though, need to have been confirmed botting). After that's all done, rinse and repeat.

/tinfoilhat

This. It all makes sense now as to why they ban in "waves".

[Nyaldee]

Why do people make such a big shit about WoW bots?

No clue, seriously. I don't even want to imagine at what prices raw mats would be going if not for dozens of bots collecting them. I've never used a bot for gold making, probably becouse i'm fluctuating around 200Kg for a long time without any efforts (made a fortune on gems/enchants/glyphs). Actually imo Auctioneer and similar addons bring more harm to economy then all dat farming bots simply becouse it's so easy and effortless to control market with them.

I used bot for BGs though with carefully selected profile that actually contributes to the game. Could i contribute more - sure, would i want to go through it for Xs time in my live - no. Item upgrade system drove a final nail in the coffin for me - i googled bot, took my time to research ins and outs about customised profiles and set it on the farm. You can blame me and peoples alike, but take a look on Blizz increasing farm by 15000 honor for no reason, denying ppls a right to have adequate pvp weapon aviable for honor (even ilvl 458 honor weapon would be great to start with becouse of insane amount of PvP Power it gives), decreasing valor points gain again for no reason and forcing everybody and their moms to do stupid dailies to get ready for raids.

What was wrong with runing dungeons for faction rep through tabard system? Nothing. Blizz just wanted ppls to go to open world, but it's time to admit that open world in WoW sucks and can't be remedied. In GW2 world provides insane amount of randomized content, great gfx, events, jumping puzzles, exploration. In WoW it provides you with dailies that no normal human would enjoy after 85-90 pandaria quest grind. It's RBGs, arenas and raids community is after in WoW. And Blizz simply forced a botting issue themself increasing grind twofold in 9 years old game, seriously their developers aren't bright at all...

[Nonslid]

A cool story about BG bots:
Yesterday (Around 00.00), I decided to do some BGs. And as everyone knows - this bracket is FULL of bots from 23.00-06.00 (Europe atleast).
So I got into Battle of Gilneas, and a warlock popped a HS well. Guess what, 7 people moved over to it instantly then back to their spot.
And us other 3 was like - lawl, dem bots u knw!

So we went for WW while the bots went for LH (Ally btw), and then when LH was capped the bots spread out to WW and Mine - capping mine and pwning hordes at WW. We won that battle with 3 nodes, and the horde got a total of 140 points.
And this was with us having 70% bots.

If this was a fight with 100% players - we'd probably would have lost. As alliance scrubs never defend or anything.

So give more balance! 50/50 bots and Players in each BG! (Except Isle of Conquest, the pathing there just dosnt seem to work out for the bots. "OMgz out of gate! NO INSIDE GATE! No out of gate.. Wait wuuut?! INSIDE AGAIN!")

[naturetauren]

people really think banning bot is easy? XDDDDD

god those people around this forums, stop qqing, and enjoy the game

(if u enjoy the game doing random bgs then lol)

Seriously? They banned me for three hours for hacking and sending death treaths after doing so for months and now im still doing it without any action taken.

I dont know how but i agree with you, its very hard to ban people like me from the game.

[Yvaelle]

Just a heads up, a Lot of people keep reporting the OP for 'Naming and Shaming' and/or botting himself. Yes, I see the like 30 reports you guys have put in at this point - here is why I have done nothing.

At no point that I see did the OP suggest they themselves were botting. In the screenshot posted, they had just as much activity as the bots, and clearly spent all game standing around taking pictures of them and DC'ing, which I think is why people are reporting the post.

Naming and Shaming only really applies to other people on this forum, notable / e-famous wow players, or people who are wrongfully accused of something they did not do. Naming by itself is not an offense, Shame is only relevant within a social context. Example: if we have to interact with this person, know of this person beforehand, or know that this person didn't actually do the things of which they stand accused.

If someone makes a post about how Talbadar is a hacker and links his armory - without providing real evidence that he hacks - that's naming and shaming. It also protects you all from armory trolling. If you post in a thread about how much you like bunny rabbits for pet battles, and someone armories you and starts call you bad for only having an 1100 arena rating - that could also be naming and shaming. However, if you tell us your hunter is a multi-gladiator and we should all take your odd/incorrect opinions as the word of law because of your experience, but then someone clicks your armory link in your signature and points out that you actually have zero arena experience of any kind: that's not naming and shaming.

The purpose of the rule in my interpretation is to defend extreme and directed abuse at individuals. I will always rule in favour of true things (even if harsh: calling a noob a noob) over the letter of the law when it is used to obfuscate reality (infracting people for pointing out that a noob is a noob). The rule doesn't exist to protect non-posting, non-famous bots from being called bots. Hope that clears it up for the future.

[Xeraxis]

Just a heads up, a Lot of people keep reporting the OP for 'Naming and Shaming' and/or botting himself. Yes, I see the like 30 reports you guys have put in at this point - here is why I have done nothing.

At no point that I see did the OP suggest they themselves were botting. In the screenshot posted, they had just as much activity as the bots, and clearly spent all game standing around taking pictures of them and DC'ing, which I think is why people are reporting the post.

Naming and Shaming only really applies to other people on this forum, notable / e-famous wow players, or people who are wrongfully accused of something they did not do. Naming by itself is not an offense, Shame is only relevant within a social context. Example: if we have to interact with this person, know of this person beforehand, or know that this person didn't actually do the things of which they stand accused.

If someone makes a post about how Talbadar is a hacker and links his armory - without providing real evidence that he hacks - that's naming and shaming. It also protects you all from armory trolling. If you post in a thread about how much you like bunny rabbits for pet battles, and someone armories you and starts call you bad for only having an 1100 arena rating - that could also be naming and shaming. However, if you tell us your hunter is a multi-gladiator and we should all take your odd/incorrect opinions as the word of law because of your experience, but then someone clicks your armory link in your signature and points out that you actually have zero arena experience of any kind: that's not naming and shaming.

The purpose of the rule in my interpretation is to defend extreme and directed abuse at individuals. I will always rule in favour of true things (even if harsh: calling a noob a noob) over the letter of the law when it is used to obfuscate reality (infracting people for pointing out that a noob is a noob). The rule doesn't exist to protect non-posting, non-famous bots from being called bots. Hope that clears it up for the future.

So you can prove the people in the screenshots are bots? Also why even have rules if all it takes to overturn the rule is stating you interpret it differently?

[Yvaelle]

So you can prove the people in the screenshots are bots?

This isn't a court of law, moderators cannot be expected to provide evidence proving or disproving all statements everyone makes on this forum. Since shame will never reach the people in that screenshot (because our discussions here are not internationally broadcast, and because they do not come here to post) shame is rendered inert by lack of social contact.

Note that the OP at no point called out any of the individuals in that screenshot as being bots, he posted a picture that - taken in isolation - does suggest they are bots, but the intent of his post was not to shame the individuals in the picture - but to discuss the severity of botting in battlegrounds. If they are bots, then shame is probably deserved - but because of the social distance - any shame created by this thread never reaches them. If they are not bots, then all 10 of them (OP included) AFK'd through a battleground doing no damage or healing or objectives, some shame may again be warranted - but it is neither the intent of the OP to shame them, nor does any shame generated by this thread reach any of them (except the OP, who consents implicitly by creating the thread).

[Xeraxis]

This isn't a court of law, moderators cannot be expected to provide evidence proving or disproving all statements everyone makes on this forum. Since shame will never reach the people in that screenshot (because our discussions here are not internationally broadcast, and because they do not come here to post) shame is rendered inert by lack of social contact.

Note that the OP at no point called out any of the individuals in that screenshot as being bots, he posted a picture that - taken in isolation - does suggest they are bots, but the intent of his post was not to shame the individuals in the picture - but to discuss the severity of botting in battlegrounds. If they are bots, then shame is probably deserved - but because of the social distance - any shame created by this thread never reaches them. If they are not bots, then all 10 of them (OP included) AFK'd through a battleground doing no damage or healing or objectives, some shame may again be warranted - but it is neither the intent of the OP to shame them, nor does any shame generated by this thread reach any of them (except the OP, who consents implicitly by creating the thread).

In my last battleground I ended up with 9 bots in Temple of Kotmogu. If you wonder how I can know they are bots, they all took 1 min to exit while running up and down the ramp. Finally they all exit, and run back and forth for some seconds until they finally start running their normal path. Thats left to right outside entrance. Running up and down, up and down all battleground the same path. They all moved in the same way, not like a multiboxer, but like bots. This is 100% sure bots if anyone have any doubts, it was bots, it was 9 bots in a 10man battleground.

Here are some screenshots:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s9duvrefg8sjwsi/PQ6vpoMAHV

Seems he did call them all out as being bots. But I suppose as long as someone isn't posting here to defend themselves you can say what you want about them.

[Yvaelle]

Seems he did call them all out as being bots. But I suppose as long as someone isn't posting here to defend themselves you can say what you want about them.

Sigh. Let me clarify, he didn't single out individuals, he didn't post their armories, he did claim he was in a battleground with 9 bots, and then posted a picture in which the raid frames revealed the names of those 9 players. I sincerely doubt it was his intent that people here would read his post, click his picture, look at those names, armory those characters, make toons on their servers and call them names or report them based solely on this word-of-mouth evidence.

I suppose as long as someone isn't posting here to defend themselves you can say what you want about them.

There are a lot of things you can call somebody that are harmful. When untrue, name-calling can be libel - when true, name-calling can be shameful.

li·bel
/ˈlībəl/
Noun
A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Libel only applies when it is damaging to a persons reputation, without social contact we are not damaging their reputation within their social sphere. Libel is also only valid when the statement is false, calling a noob a noob could be shameful - but it's not libel - calling a bot a bot is neither libel or shameful (because bots don't feel shame). If the published statement is true, then libel did not occur - but shame may have. To determine whether shame is occurring, the attack must be directed (the OP's is not), it must have the capacity to inflict shame (the lack of social overlap between the players/bots in question and the forum-posters), and it must be contested. If someone commits libel you have to file a lawsuit, the forums have a rule for shame - but unless someone comes forward and disputes the charge, no appeal is necessary.

[Iso]

The whole profit conspiracy is funny.

Ever thought about this? Ban bot=botting player buys a new game?

If anything, the people who really want to cash in here, are the fucking people who write these bot softwares. I guess there's no real end to this, but it's clear some people here have abit more clue than others in how these things work out. You tackle the problem at it's roots, you don't just pick at it slowly..

[Flaks]

The whole profit conspiracy is funny.

Ever thought about this? Ban bot=botting player buys a new game?

If anything, the people who really want to cash in here, are the fucking people who write these bot softwares. I guess there's no real end to this, but it's clear some people here have abit more clue than others in how these things work out. You tackle the problem at it's roots, you don't just pick at it slowly..

It's damn obvious they've failed to "tackle the problem at its roots". Botting outside of bgs has always existed. Botting in bgs has always existed. THIS MUCH BOTTING has NEVER EVER EVER been the case in this game. And it's pretty damn undeniable that it's happening too. We've also seen plenty of proof that no permanent bans have happened for botters in a while. They might get a 3 day vacation but that's the most of it even among multiple offenses.

I don't believe that conspiracy theory. What I DO believe is that Blizzard is complacent about this problem. And that while they ARE making more money off of these accounts (bg botters are NOT compromised accounts, they're paying customers) I also think that Blizzard realizes that this IS a gain monetarily in the short term.

[blackblade]

It's damn obvious they've failed to "tackle the problem at its roots". Botting outside of bgs has always existed. Botting in bgs has always existed. THIS MUCH BOTTING has NEVER EVER EVER been the case in this game. And it's pretty damn undeniable that it's happening too. We've also seen plenty of proof that no permanent bans have happened for botters in a while. They might get a 3 day vacation but that's the most of it even among multiple offenses.

Blizzard has a very tough time forcing bots off the market. What bots do is not 100% illegal. They can try and argue that it violates IP by manipulating data in RAM to automate tasks in an MMO, but at the end of the day, what goes on in a user's ram is the user's business. It's going to be very difficult to litigate the offending parties who're selling things like honor botting programs.

The next alternative is to adopt a fierce botting = permaban policy. The problem with this is that there are actually people in this day and age who get their accounts compromised, and the intruder will automate the account into a gold farm. You might be right in that someone botting BG's is not likely doing so on a compromised account.

It's not a cut and dry fix. you either do a ban wave, axe a sizable % of your playerbase, or you try and cut off the source.

[Pyre Fierceshot]

If they were all bots how come everyone is 0/0/0 etc. Anyone using a proper bot isn't going to use an AFK bot in a BG.

If they're using Honorbuddy the bot seeks out enemy plays to attack, caps points, defends points etc, uses a set rotation for attacks/heals. If anything the bots actually do more for a battleground than 90% of players.

[steveyboy]

I'm not trying to defend blizzard but this isn't Blizzards fault.

If it gets to a point where there is that many bots its the player bases fault for botting in the first place.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 10:58 PM ----------

Blizzard has a very tough time forcing bots off the market. What bots do is not 100% illegal. They can try and argue that it violates IP by manipulating data in RAM to automate tasks in an MMO, but at the end of the day, what goes on in a user's ram is the user's business. It's going to be very difficult to litigate the offending parties who're selling things like honor botting programs.

The next alternative is to adopt a fierce botting = permaban policy. The problem with this is that there are actually people in this day and age who get their accounts compromised, and the intruder will automate the account into a gold farm. You might be right in that someone botting BG's is not likely doing so on a compromised account.

It's not a cut and dry fix. you either do a ban wave, axe a sizable % of your playerbase, or you try and cut off the source.

The people who get there accounts hacked isn't a problem.

Player calls blizz claiming they are hacked, account is only accessed from 1 IP address. Player is lying and perma ban remains.

If said persons account has a totally different IP to the person playing there account then a temp ban should be made and a authenticator sent to there homes to use.

[Helltrixz]

If they were all bots how come everyone is 0/0/0 etc. Anyone using a proper bot isn't going to use an AFK bot in a BG.

If they're using Honorbuddy the bot seeks out enemy plays to attack, caps points, defends points etc, uses a set rotation for attacks/heals. If anything the bots actually do more for a battleground than 90% of players.

Wrong.

For example in eye of the storms the normal horde bots run in a group between fel reaver and belf, while alliance bots run between mage tower and draenei runs and never going mid for the flag, thus never enganging other players.

Btw Xeraxis, on whose paycheck are you? Or actually, I suppose you're a botter yourself?

[Pyre Fierceshot]

Wrong.

For example in eye of the storms the normal horde bots run in a group between fel reaver and belf, while alliance bots run between mage tower and draenei runs and never going mid for the flag, thus never enganging other players.

Not wrong. There's different profiles available for your Honorbuddy bots. Good profiles will do much of what I said and so does even the basic profile that comes with Honorbuddy.

The basic profile will run between the two bases, yes, when there isn't a large group of allies to run around with since that's what the bot does, searches for the largest group to follow and then proceeds to attack people.

[Helltrixz]

Not wrong. There's different profiles available for your Honorbuddy bots. Good profiles will do much of what I said and so does even the basic profile that comes with Honorbuddy.

The basic profile will run between the two bases, yes, when there isn't a large group of allies to run around with since that's what the bot does, searches for the largest group to follow and then proceeds to attack people.

Aha, so what you're saying is that the group in the screenshot wasn't a bunch of bots with the basic profile that runs between two bases in one big mob ("large group of allies"), but were actually real people that ran between two bases in a supertight line.

I think you could be onto something here!

[Yonasknepper]

Aha, so what you're saying is that the group in the screenshot wasn't a bunch of bots with the basic profile that runs between two bases in one big mob ("large group of allies"), but were actually real people that ran between two bases in a supertight line.

I think you could be onto something here!

No, he said that it was stupid bots, not the good honorbuddy where they attack.