Avoiding botting through code
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    mudlab.org Forum Index -> Design
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KaVir



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 565
Location: Munich

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polatrite wrote:
What are your motivations for going to such lengths to reduce botting?


I already said in the first post - "I don't want to pay additional $$$ each month to support a mud full of dozens of bots."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Polatrite



Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KaVir wrote:
Polatrite wrote:
What are your motivations for going to such lengths to reduce botting?


I already said in the first post - "I don't want to pay additional $$$ each month to support a mud full of dozens of bots."


Is that the only reason? What's your particular reason for not wanting to financially support that behavior, is it for the social environment of the game, for fairness, etc.?

Most ways that you can counteract the effects of botting are negative for the average playing player, therefore I'm just curious why "I don't want to pay [...] to support a mud [...] of bots." would outweigh other reasons not to impose restrictions (even if you perceive them as benefits for the players, bread versus cake) on non-botting populace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
KaVir



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 565
Location: Munich

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't mind paying for players to play the mud, but I don't consider botting "playing" (at least, it's not players who are playing). The fact that it was a viable means of supplementing regular play demonstrated to me that there was a flaw in my game design that needed to be addressed. So I addressed it.

A number of players did remark that botting was "unfair". Only a tiny minority wished to bot, while a slightly larger number were willing to bot in order to remain competitive. The majority of the players complained, and some left because they didn't want to choose between botting and falling behind. I understood that viewpoint, as I considered it a flaw in the game design.

My solution isn't negative for the average player, only for botters and seriously hardcore players. It's a shame that hardcore players have to suffer as well, but I still feel it's a big improvement for the vast majority of players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
gerund



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Going back to the original outlay of "bot quizzes" what came to mind was making it a player driven activity.

For instance, if a MUD was of the type which only allowed consentual PK then a player who wished to engage in non-consentual PK might request the MUD quiz a potential target, and if the target failed the quiz they would become consentual. Of course if this was done badly and failed quiz requests didn't remove a players ability to make more, then it could become a form of harassment.

Perhaps you might be able to offer some similar form of system as an alternative to the boost system. So those who feel constrained by the boost system can choose to opt into an alternative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    mudlab.org Forum Index -> Design All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign