How to address the bot issue.... effectively

[Jackbear1]

This is an issue WG has struggled with since I started playing this game in Beta.  Their approach has not been effective.  Here is a simple solution:

 

When an account has received enough in game "Bot" reports or suspect replays submitted via support tickets, the account is placed on a watch list for the game managers.  When the account is logged on and in battle (so you know the "player" should be on) a game manager starts a conversation with the "player."  When the "player" returns to port the screen is locked on the conversation so the "player can't start another battle until the conversation is cleared by the game manager.  If the game manager does not receive "proof of life" like a several line conversation about favorite ship or something other than "hello" or "hi" within a reasonable amount of time the account is banned until the owner explains to War Gaming why they are using a bot program.    

[The_GoDDfather]

I get the feeling than some non-bots would be banned by this....

[Part_Time_Wolf]

Too much room for error with this method.

[Jackbear1]

I get the feeling than some non-bots would be banned by this....

 

How so?  

[Lert]

I was never a fan of intrusive anti-anything measures.

[KyourakuShunsui]

I get the feeling than some non-bots would be banned by this....

 

That would probably be ok. If the person doesn't know enough to respond to an in-game chat then they probably shouldn't be playing anyway.

[The_GoDDfather]

 

How so?  

 

PEBKAC (the non-bot, not you)

[Jackbear1]

Too much room for error with this method.

 

How is there room for error?  A human being would be making a decision to place a ban on an account.  It would only be automated up to the watchlist.  An active player with poor stats who was reported would be able to just respond to the convo and the GM would clear the account.  

[Jackbear1]

I was never a fan of intrusive anti-anything measures.

 

Well the bot issue is an issue that is unfair to the majority of players in the game.  Looking at it from a stats stand point is reasonable to me but I understand most would argue that is not fair and there are some extremely terrible live players so fair enough.  The only reason I coud see anybody disliking a reasonable anti bot suggestion is fear they would be caught botting...

[Lert]

Well the bot issue is an issue that is unfair to the majority of players in the game.

 

Not denying. Just saying I don't like intrusive counter-anything measures. It's the intrusive part I don't like. Re: all those harsh copy-protections that only hurt and annoy the honest owners of a software rather than the pirates they're trying to prevent.

 

I would much rather have anti-bot measures that don't intrude on a player's experience than one that does. I mean, what's to stop people from spamming 'bot' accusations at an honest player just to have him placed on a watch list and have a dev effectively lock his account until he's sufficiently defended himself? What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Yes, it's just a small thing and typing a few sentences to a dev isn't that big a deal, but I still don't like the principle of it.

[bewbs_]

Are they really an issue? I haven't seen any for a long time.

 

It seems they corrected that rush of CV bots we had awhile ago...

[StingRayOne]

I suggest starting with 1's and 0's if you want to address the bots directly

[Raven114]

At any given moment each server has around 3000 or more, games going on you think they sit and watch these games?

 

[Skpstr]

I get the feeling than some non-bots would be banned by this....

 

My choice would be to either get banned, or run into an island while I look at the keyboard and peck out a reply....

[Jackbear1]

 

Not denying. Just saying I don't like intrusive counter-anything measures. It's the intrusive part I don't like. Re: all those harsh copy-protections that only hurt and annoy the honest owners of a software rather than the pirates they're trying to prevent.

 

I would much rather have anti-bot measures that don't intrude on a player's experience than one that does. I mean, what's to stop people from spamming 'bot' accusations at an honest player just to have him placed on a watch list and have a dev effectively lock his account until he's sufficiently defended himself? What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Yes, it's just a small thing and typing a few sentences to a dev isn't that big a deal, but I still don't like the principle of it.

The account would not be banned when the honest player responds to the convo.  The account would never be banned prior to the GM making a decision based on the convo stage.  Literally worst case scenario a GM lock convos a player, a player says hi, yes i love playing the iowa, may last match was fun, convo ended, watchlist cleared.

[Jackbear1]

 

My choice would be to either get banned, or run into an island while I look at the keyboard and peck out a reply....

 

If you tried reading the OP you'd see the convo takes place after the current battle is over and the "player" has returned to port....

[Jackbear1]

At any given moment each server has around 3000 or more, games going on you think they sit and watch these games?

 

they arent monitoring any battles... I really wish people would read an OP before replying.  An automated system is monitoring players who hit a defined number of reports and then a human Game manager is stepping in to validate the player is human or bot.  It's far better than the current system WG is using.  

[HMCS_Devilfish]

After 2600 games not sure I've ever seen a bot other than in Co-op ... How does one tell in Random ?

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

Better fix, require a captcha to enter queue every so many games. 

 

Its all automatic and not very intrusive so nobody is required to monitor anything and bots can only play a couple games before getting caught

[Patriot_games_1]

I have only seen one, maybe I'm lucky?

[_Jayzilla]

Adding the human element, though it can be effective, may cause too many man hours hours of work to manage and maintain. The next patch has some good starting measures for those who remain away from their keyboard, but I understand it is not enough. Right now the automated reporting system for calling out bot programs is the only way and players are directly reporting against them. Just keep reporting these bots and eventually they will receive a ban.

[Royeaux]

Just last night I had a player telling everyone to report an afk Kutuzov for botting.  I don't trust the playerbase to spot bots.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

Just last night I had a player telling everyone to report an afk Kutuzov for botting.  I don't trust the playerbase to spot bots.

 

WG needs to add more report and compliment options, there are a lot of ones simply not covered by the three available currently. 

[56Bravo]

I'd have to say no.  

 

As it is, I've very rarely seen anything that might possibly be a bot in a match.  The vast majority of the time it's a player who is new, got unlucky, doesn't like to chat, got attacked by their cat while playing, whatever.  

 

But that doesn't stop other players from trying to get everyone on both teams to report that player for being a "bot".  It is a system already being heavily abused and would only serve to encourage players with poor attitudes, as in blaming everyone else for their own failures.  In the end, people play this game, if you loose a match because of a possible "bot" on your team, you, and no one else, didn't carry your weight and that's where you need to focus your attention.   

[Morpheous]

Just don't see that many bots... have 3000+ games, so yeah I think I know what I am talking about.  AFKs, well that happens too, but there are real life reasons people go AFK or seem to be a bot but are not.  Its really not that big of a problem, and if you get a real bot on your team, then be assured the other team will have one some day...it evens out.