NevermindMe
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 112
Alright, well, let me just open up this topic by saying botting is safe.It seems day after day, people are always either complaining about bots, trying to report bots to get them banned, setting up 'bot traps' and just overall trying to convince people botting is not safe.
Myself, being a botter for around a year, have botted 21 99's between various accounts, and I have never had an account banned.Most of the people who do get banned, are more than likely either -
A) Using Powerbot scripts which do not involve random camera movements, stat checks, multiple walking paths, etc.
B) Get stuck in random events for long periods of time, or have a bot stand still for a long period of time
C) Suicide bot to much and get banned.
I've been using paid scripts ever since I started botting, I've botted over 500Million GP - A maxed zerker with 9 99's, a maxed melee 132 with 9 99's, a maxed melee main with 4 99's, and a level 3 with 99 crafting, so I suppose 23 99's.
The moral of the story is, don't use bad bots, don't suicide bot all of the time, use scripts that include
- Random camera movement
- Stat checks
- Multiple clicking, walking, paths
- Doesn't use straight lines
- Doesn't move super fast.
Also, the good botting technology hardly ever (usually not at all) interracts with the runescape client in terms of coding (or something like that). For more information, look below.
precision. Consider the dartboard as an example:
The goal is to simply "hit it." A human will still aim for the bullseye, to increase the chance of hitting
the dartboard. Thus hits will be concentrated towards the bullseye, but there will still be hits
nowhere close, and some misses too.
A macro does not have human flaws, and can always hit the dartboard. However, if randomized in
the "area of uncertainty" there is no such pattern."
This will also raise the alarm. More advanced yet, some macros will actually form concentric regions
of where the clicks will land. Still, we're always ahead of rulebreakers. Our final line of defense in this
criteria is to analyze the regions most commonly clicked.
A macro tends to click in a perfect square, circle, or sometimes the shape of an interface icon.
Sometimes even the region is randomized. Human behavior is not truly random however. The region
most commonly clicked is related to placement, which is all I know about this.
Highly advanced bots have made an attempt to replicate even this, but we have not seen anything
convincing yet. Admittedly, we're disadvantaged in this aspect, so we cannot fully rely on simple
movement and accuracy to detect a macro program.
The next criteria is the actual sequence of actions. A player that decides to cut some trees for logs,
and sell them for profit actually has a longer list of actions to perform than you'd think. The efficiency
of which this is completed can be analyzed, and much more easily compared to the behavior of a
macro programs' attempt to replicate it.
If each step is merely randomized with the same bounds of uncertainty like virtually all bots seem to
do today, the actual time it takes to execute the actions in all converges to a specific value! It's
similar to flipping a fair coin multiple times, and converging to a frequency of outcomes (namely
50%.) Humans are generally much less consistent, and once the consistency falls within a certain
range, the alarm is raised.
One more of many criteria is the effect of total gameplay time. As expected, exhaustion will set in for
most players and slow down their actions. This is not a completely reliable method, since some
players have been able to keep up their concentration for remarkably long periods of time."
"The last criteria I really know of is probably the most obscure and advanced. Human players tend to
have much better object recognition capabilities than a macro program, and the limitations of the
procedure can be exploited. While a human may be able to recognize a tree at a very unusual and
discrete angle, many macros lack this capability, and thus keep the camera angle within a certain
range. Some fail to change it entirely.
Macros tend to locate objects that are far out of reach by going close to the area in question, and
then finding it. Normal players tend to look ahead first.
There are probably many more techniques employed, and the genius and innovative capability of my
coworkers is simply amazing. I am very confident in their ability to enforce the rules, and keep RS a
fair, and equal environment. The detection system is definitely conducive to such, but that is not our
only method.
The next is abuse reports. There are many new and better bots, just written, that can avoid at a few
of the criteria, and not be flagged. The intuition of a human being can never be surpassed, and abuse
reports give us an all seeing eye that brought many rule breakers to justice. Abuse reports are also
helpful for locating the archives, and comparing the new behavior of the new macro that was
previously able to avoid detection. We can update accordingly.
We highly encourage abuse reporting, and we will not punish players who send in reports with a
reasonable cause to suspect the player in question is using a macro.
Circumstances (such as the usual range of playing time) is taken into account as well.
Myself, being a botter for around a year, have botted 21 99's between various accounts, and I have never had an account banned.Most of the people who do get banned, are more than likely either -
A) Using Powerbot scripts which do not involve random camera movements, stat checks, multiple walking paths, etc.
B) Get stuck in random events for long periods of time, or have a bot stand still for a long period of time
C) Suicide bot to much and get banned.
I've been using paid scripts ever since I started botting, I've botted over 500Million GP - A maxed zerker with 9 99's, a maxed melee 132 with 9 99's, a maxed melee main with 4 99's, and a level 3 with 99 crafting, so I suppose 23 99's.
The moral of the story is, don't use bad bots, don't suicide bot all of the time, use scripts that include
- Random camera movement
- Stat checks
- Multiple clicking, walking, paths
- Doesn't use straight lines
- Doesn't move super fast.
Also, the good botting technology hardly ever (usually not at all) interracts with the runescape client in terms of coding (or something like that). For more information, look below.
precision. Consider the dartboard as an example:
The goal is to simply "hit it." A human will still aim for the bullseye, to increase the chance of hitting
the dartboard. Thus hits will be concentrated towards the bullseye, but there will still be hits
nowhere close, and some misses too.
A macro does not have human flaws, and can always hit the dartboard. However, if randomized in
the "area of uncertainty" there is no such pattern."
This will also raise the alarm. More advanced yet, some macros will actually form concentric regions
of where the clicks will land. Still, we're always ahead of rulebreakers. Our final line of defense in this
criteria is to analyze the regions most commonly clicked.
A macro tends to click in a perfect square, circle, or sometimes the shape of an interface icon.
Sometimes even the region is randomized. Human behavior is not truly random however. The region
most commonly clicked is related to placement, which is all I know about this.
Highly advanced bots have made an attempt to replicate even this, but we have not seen anything
convincing yet. Admittedly, we're disadvantaged in this aspect, so we cannot fully rely on simple
movement and accuracy to detect a macro program.
The next criteria is the actual sequence of actions. A player that decides to cut some trees for logs,
and sell them for profit actually has a longer list of actions to perform than you'd think. The efficiency
of which this is completed can be analyzed, and much more easily compared to the behavior of a
macro programs' attempt to replicate it.
If each step is merely randomized with the same bounds of uncertainty like virtually all bots seem to
do today, the actual time it takes to execute the actions in all converges to a specific value! It's
similar to flipping a fair coin multiple times, and converging to a frequency of outcomes (namely
50%.) Humans are generally much less consistent, and once the consistency falls within a certain
range, the alarm is raised.
One more of many criteria is the effect of total gameplay time. As expected, exhaustion will set in for
most players and slow down their actions. This is not a completely reliable method, since some
players have been able to keep up their concentration for remarkably long periods of time."
"The last criteria I really know of is probably the most obscure and advanced. Human players tend to
have much better object recognition capabilities than a macro program, and the limitations of the
procedure can be exploited. While a human may be able to recognize a tree at a very unusual and
discrete angle, many macros lack this capability, and thus keep the camera angle within a certain
range. Some fail to change it entirely.
Macros tend to locate objects that are far out of reach by going close to the area in question, and
then finding it. Normal players tend to look ahead first.
There are probably many more techniques employed, and the genius and innovative capability of my
coworkers is simply amazing. I am very confident in their ability to enforce the rules, and keep RS a
fair, and equal environment. The detection system is definitely conducive to such, but that is not our
only method.
The next is abuse reports. There are many new and better bots, just written, that can avoid at a few
of the criteria, and not be flagged. The intuition of a human being can never be surpassed, and abuse
reports give us an all seeing eye that brought many rule breakers to justice. Abuse reports are also
helpful for locating the archives, and comparing the new behavior of the new macro that was
previously able to avoid detection. We can update accordingly.
We highly encourage abuse reporting, and we will not punish players who send in reports with a
reasonable cause to suspect the player in question is using a macro.
Circumstances (such as the usual range of playing time) is taken into account as well.
.
