Petition To Demand A Response From Anet On RMT Botters and Exploiters

as far as banning more ppl, heaven forbid they do it quickly, they must be screwing ppl if they do that, heaven forbid if they take time to do the best they can on getting it right, they are only encouraging more bots and must be screwing ppl.

Anet is in a no win situation, ppl have been crying for months about the bots, when they start trying to take care of it ppl start crying about that.

How dare anet hold ppl responsible for illegal actions, I mean come on, if their parents haven't been able to instill that in them, who do they think they are.

on topic, I hope no one ever finds out anets methods of detection.

I wonder how many new registered account guru has got in the last week. I find it very funny to see how some think to make another name and start posting to make it look like other ppl are agreeing with them. Its freakin hilarious.

PvP interrupt bots were not "minor offenders". They were more important to take care of than PvE bots, really. Farm bots have been in the game since, literally, the beginning; fighting them is more a matter of keeping the problem under something resembling control than outright removing them from the game permanently. How the heck are you supposed to tell if someone is running a pixel-checker bot, without using a client-side check or something? The only way is to individually monitor their behavior, and even still you can mistake someone who's just playing mechanically for a bot.

i was thinking more along the lines of not how they will deal with rmt bots, but rather will they deal with rmt bots. i'm not sure if they will be able to. i believe they got the 3700 because it was relatively easy/quick, but other botting issues will likely to provide a challenge and take longer, so i'm not sure if they'll be able to do it.

also....
bot = cheat = ban
exploit = cheat = no ban?

you can argue that things are black and white all you want, but it just doesn't work that way.

I never cheated, ESPECIALLY not farming. I've played pretty much every day after school for a few hours and have very little to show for it, so yes, I wouldn't mind paying $6.75 for my 3 ectos and probably less than 50k on two accounts. Don't always assume things.

EDIT: Btw, my most valuable item was probably my torment shield which I spent about a month doing DoA to get.. Also, I couldn't care less about the botters and by all means they can spend hundreds of dollars to get permabanned a few days later.

This topic is not about me. This topic is not about whether or not I deserved to get banned. This topic is not about what I lose or what banned botters lost. If you are confused about the intention of this thread then reread my original post.

Your personal attackers do nothing to advance this thread so please keep them to yourself.

There are honestly so many more immature people QQing at botters than immature botters QQing about their ban. Laughing at botters and saying they deserved their ban does not make you a good person.

May I ask, what is your continued interest in what happens to this game, after being banned six ways to sunday? Why would ANet publicly answer the questions of someone with whom they decided to break their relationship?

Altruism? Undefeatable moral rectitude?

Assuming you were banned is correct. Assuming you still want to pay for items from a banned account is correct. Not seeing what assumption is incorrect here.
So again, is that much better then allowing RMT? So according to the premise of this thread, you agree, that those should be banned, so what? Get the account back, get banned for RMT from the company you are saying should remove those things? Great more cash for GW2!

Fact is, you can't demand anything from A-Net at all.

When installing the game, you agreed on this:

"YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT NC INTERACTIVE HAS THE RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION, TO REMOVE ANY CONTENT (INCLUDING YOURS) IN WHOLE OR IN PART AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITH NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND."

(source: Guild Wars official website)

Basically, A-Net can do whatever they want, since it's their game. They don't need to explain anything they do, since the players are 'using' their content. You don't pay for the game, you pay to be allowed to play their game. You're on A-Net's field. It's their rules.

Who said I wanted the items back and you assumed I cheated, which I didn't. I'm saying I want the game I paid over $200 total for back or the items I spent a hell of a lot of time to try and get. Also, to chat with people I don't have on FB, MSN or whatever. If someone wants to sell fake money for real money, I honestly don't care. All that means is someone is making a living and someone else wants the fake money more than real money.

Nice of you to chew around everything I said that was on topic.

Quit being so narcissistic. Why don't you try and comment on the type of bot that got you banned vs the type of bot that is harder for Anet to detect? That is the real reason "RMT botters and exploiters" are still around and you are not.

Anet has no paid GMs roaming the gamescape looking for macro/passive memory reading/GUID bots. When players modify packets and inject .dll files, it leaves a huge footprint. That signature is what it made it easy to ban with relative accuracy on a large scale. This is not the case with the other class of bots.

p.s.

Whoever said I wanted to be a good person?

Your OP was a hell of a lot of waffle about various degrees of wrong, with a simple question tagged onto the end, namely...
It would be idiotic for anet to give this information out on a public forum and even worse folly to explain the methods they plan to use to known cheaters.

What you are basically asking for is information on how to hide from any further methods anet plan to use to find and punish people who have seriously violated the User agreement.

Black and white huh? The botter made a clear and obvious choice to cheat, there can be me no mistake made about their intentions , they installed a bot and used... if caught they get banned.

Exploiting isn't so simple, especially when you consider what some people are labeling as an exploit... sure, abusing a game bug is an exploit but what about exploits based not on a bug in the game but instead on people finding quicker ways to to do something where there is no bug in the code, and indeed the mechanic that they are 'exploiting' was an intentional design feature by Anet... is that still an exploit?

Not so clear cut, not so black and white... and the only people seeming to be suggesting it is are those who have been QQ'ing about getting banned, this seems to be very disingenuous on their part.

Whats worse is many of the so called exploits that don't utilize bugs in the game could simply and easily be fixed by ArenaNet if they thought it represented a problem to the game... Dunes of Despair (necrotic traversal), Curse of the Nornbear (bypassing spawns) and their like could be fixed if Anet considers them to be problematic.

You say this, but in your opening post, you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinkies I don't expect any of you to feel bad for those who got banned, but I hope you will all recognize that the people who were banned were not Chinese gold farmers, they were not hackers who stole other's account.. but they were real players who I'm sure many of you knew. They were real player's who until maybe 5 months ago didn't even know how to set up a bot, and they were real players who had something to lose.

They were indeed real players, and they figured out how to set up a bot, because they saw a way to cheat. They lost everything because they chose to take the risk of cheating. In the short term, the cheating paid off, but in the end, it didn't. They got banned, and now they are mad at ANET for banning them retroactively, after they have caused massive economic inflation on the PvE side and terrible damage to the already chaotic PvP meta scene?!? Oh ok, I'll make sure to yell at the cops the next time they send me a ticket for running a red light caught by a camera 3 weeks prior. They clearly are the bad guys for not telling me there was a camera at that intersection, and that running the red light there would eventually result in a ticket...

This is exactly correct. ANET don't have to reply to this petition or any other on this matter. They can secretly work on further methods for banning bots, RMT farmers and real players alike, and deploy that solution in a similar manner to which this one was applied, so long as the methods used are accurate the vast majority (99% or better) of times. Play the game like a good little boy/girl, and you won't need to worry about Dhuum coming to harvest your account in retribution for your crimes.

HFFF used heroes to bypass both normal and quest related mob spawning to quickly farm faction. This was deemed unacceptable by ArenaNet, and a fix was eventually put in place to prevent it. Speedbooking uses heroes to bypass both normal and quest related mob spawning to quickly farm faction. Why would it be any less of an exploit than HFFF was?

It has always been ArenaNet's stance that abusing the way the game works (be it bugs in the code or simple mechanics) is an unacceptable way to play, and is exploiting. So, I don't think it's a question of "if" something will be done about Speedbooking, but rather "when".

Not quite so clear cut, If I recall correctly the major HFFF abuse, and indeed the reason that bans were issued over it, was that players were BOTTING HFFF, but I agree with Anet's response to alter HFFF so it couldn't be hero-ran... not that the heroes were actually bypassing mobs (in the sense on not getting them to spawn), shadow form got them past the initial mobs, and by the time they hit the quest target area (and the mobs there DID spawn) the quest was complete.

Of course, before HFFF players were doing exactly the same things with teams of players (and shadow form / running builds), just as fast, just as easy and no sign of an exploit in sight.

By definition, anytime a hero (or heroes) is flagged so far away from the party that it enters an area where a mob should spawn (but doesn't due to there only being heroes present) the game has been 'exploited'... and quite frankly that is just silly.

I really don't think players should be banned for "Flagging heroes too far from the party", it's just an absurd notion, but if this is a black and white issue, that IS what would happen.

I agree that Anet should shut down speedbooking if they consider it a problem, but it would make more sense to fix the hero not spawning mobs issue than to just ban people... so many missions/explorable areas can be "exploited" by hero flagging, PvX has a Norn rep. farm that utilizes this method...

Edit, for Martin's post below: Yes, I'm mostly in agreeance with your post (though I'm actually unaware of the Urgoz exploit you referenced), my point is that it's a much grayer area than botting, and not something suitable for blanket bans... for example, entering an explorable area with the right quests active will reduce the number of foes you need to defeat... vanquishing an area with only 1 kill required seems like an exploit. Ergo, any quest that reduces the number of foes in a vanquish MUST be an exploit? I think not.
Of course it's Anet's prerogative to ban when and where they see fit, I just think common sense should prevail, and where the issue isn't so clear cut the more appropriate response would be to fix the problem (heroes not spawning mobs, quests reducing vanquishable foes etc)... players won't, and indeed can't always be aware that they are doing wrong, and in some cases that would strictly be ArenaNet's fault.

TL; DR Don't ban for features! Fix them if they're a problem.

'Exploit' has always been defined broadly by ANet. With that said, two actions have always been defined as lines in the sand that one cannot cross. One is automation. The other is looser; for lack of a better definition I'll label it, "attaining results that were obviously a bug."

Your beef is with the latter category. At the end of the day, you're complaining that, say, HM Urgoz farming didn't yield up bans, but the DoA exploit and duping did. The simple fact of the matter is that the line is where ANet says it is, and all we can do is infer the location of the line from ANet's past actions.

When you push the envelope, you're gambling with your account. That's what Jinkies did. It's incredibly ironic that a power trader can't recognize that he took a risk and lost. Every power trader in GW has shared this experience: you buy an item thinking that the market price is higher than it is, discover that you were wrong, and have to take your medicine.

That's risk. You accept it every time you buy an item to resell. If you're chasing the biggest and baddest items in a game, you have to accept some risk to get them. It's the same way in business. Conservative companies last, but they rarely climb to the top of the heap, and they never stay there. There's always a lot of money to be made at the fringes of legality.

Some risks are bigger than others. Botting was a big risk. If you were that attached to your account, had that much to lose, and placed the bet anyway, then I lack sympathy. You made a stupid decision. Learn from it. Don't cry about it. Don't blame others.

It's your responsibility to judge risks. No matter how clear ANet's policy becomes, there will be gray areas. I agree that the policy has always been deplorably murky. But perfect transparency is not an attainable condition. As a result, money-motivated players are always going to have to walk the line.

As for the OP, I'll quote you directly twice:

Then from this post: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...8&postcount=11

Numbers in the second post would only be sustainable if you were exploiting Duncan. You are evil. QED.

That post was written pre SF nerf. At the time it was common for runners to stand in Doomlore, and Duncan runs for 20-25k were also common. Since the first part of my quote makes reference to running others, it was clearly implied that the latter was not in reference to the Duncan exploit.

While I'm sure Martin was aware of this, I'd like to help anyone else out who lacks the background knowledge to assume the same.

While it's true Duncan runs are not sustainable due to the req of beating all other mini-dungeons before hand, the coincidence is merely that, and I had no foreknowledge of the Duncan exploit pre public release.

what justifies a permaban? simply loading up a bot? thats not cheating, thats having a cheat. thats what it feels like a some of the 3700 were banned for--simply the presence of a cheat, not actually cheating.

and what justifies a permaban over a temporary ban? if he used a farming bot to farm 100g, why does that deserve a permaban and not just a temporary one? surely thats not as harmful as some of the exploits people do everyday to make themselves 100k.

People will be less likely to bot if even the slightest smell of bot'ery detected results in a permaban.

And even if all the "I'm not a bad guy, honest" people are to be believed, it's unlikely they would just stick to small change when they see how easy it is...

When are you people going to get this through your obviously stupid heads?

The very presence of a bot is a clear violation of the EULA, you have forfeited any right to play the game, you lose, time to move on and stop QQing.

All people should be treated equally. If you downloaded and installed a tool to cheat, that shows intent to cheat, or attempt to cheat. If you booted that tool up and introduced it into the game, that is cheating. Either way, it's a direct violation of the ToS/EULA, and subject to the punishment laid out within it, aka account termination.

You can't ban one person for 72 hours because they used a bot for 10 minutes and got 100g, and then another because they used a bot for 24 hours and got 4k gold. Where do you draw the line? It wouldn't be fair any other way than the way it was done. Cheating is cheating, no matter how you try to twist it.

Who decides the imaginary line in the sand, so to speak? Does Izzy decide? Gaile? Regina? NCSoft? Us? The people that were banned? Who decides what was a minor offense, what was a medium offense, what was a major offense, and what was an especially heinous offense? Using the bot for 5 minutes? 10? An hour? A day? A week? A month? A year? 3 years? Do you see the dilemma? You cannot hope to make that a fair call, so you simple ban everyone to maintain fairness. Those who didn't cheat don't get banned, and those who even attempted to cheat, get perma banned, without appeal. Fair is fair.

Gosh, way to go off topic, apparently this isn't meant to be a "QQ I got banned" thread about botting...

The rules make it clear what Anet's stance is on botting, use a bot get banned... the use of a bot is pretty binary, either you did or didn't have a bot.

That's quite different to exploits, and it's very subjective about what even constitutes an exploit... is entering an explorable area in HM with active quests an exploit? Is getting a 1 kill vanquish an exploit? Too many gray areas that haven't been clearly spelled out to the community... unlike bot use.

In short, it's a whole different kettle of fish. But thanks for your attempted thread hijacking.

It's a common mistake to assume that treating people equittably is treating them fairly. Every question of justice is made up of many small details that all have an ethical weight that has to be balanced, which is to say that they are not black and white, but many shades of grey.

Furthermore, "equittable" treatment completely ignores structured discrimination. For example, old police standards use to specify that officers had to be 6' plus and a certain body weight. Sure this looks like it treats each applicant equally. But this equal treatment has the effect of excluding the majority of women who don't meet those physical requirements. This is not being fair.

What's fair, is telling people for years that botting/cheating = ban.
And then dishing out bans to people who cheated/botted.

Please don't twist my comment into a defense of botters, because it neither supported nor discouraged them. I just mean that in general, equittable treatment does not mean the same thing is fair treatment.

Petition to demand that all demands be demanded anyone?

You seem to know enough about the tech side of it to have a reasonable discussion but you did use the word assume and if quite a lot.

I would like to know how a-net is treating Rmt farmers/botters as opposed to people who cheat and keep their spoils but demanding a response about the finer points of policy enforcement may be unreasonable.

In other words it's interesting but it's their business.

Who the hell cares?
Is it fair to let people who willingly broke the RoC continue regardless?
Oh, people cheated and got bloody caught doing so. My heart bleeds.

Defense of botters? Whut?
What I said does not defend botters.
I said they got what they deserved, exactly as advertised.

I understand your point... but ultimately A-Net decides the rules, and the penalties for breaking those rules. Those rules and penalties are not secret, they've been known for years. Bot = Ban, no wriggle-room.

We can have all the academic/intellectual discussions we like about what counts as "fair"... but ultimately it's irrelevant what any of us think. The rules are set, we know what they are, we either choose to abide by them, or risk being banned. Personally, I say that's fair.

I think it is a duty to actively discourage them.

/signed to OP

If you have a bot you should be banned. It doesn't matter if you're going to use it or not, just get rid of it if you're not going to use it. Done. And the permaban serves as a reminder to not bot.

Another blame ANET for someones personal decision to cheat. Those who cheat have only themselves to blame and no one else; if you believe otherwise you are being foolish.

if i can make an analogy: guns are a tool for killing. if a person gets busted for illegally possessing such a tool, he gets arested for illegal possession not for killing.

this is bs and you know it. it is foolish to think anets actions were based on that of fairness, rather than that of limitations.

anet decides. i don't know what's so hard to see about that. other offenses get different ban lengths, theres very little reason that bots cant also get different ban lengths. your very post goes against anet's own words that "they individually review each case". if they're not going to have any kind of judicial system in place, than they can go on and fully automate the whole process; but they didn't (by their words anyways), and they won't.

Bad choice.

A closer analogy would be if that person took that tool to a school and started shooting. The reason those people got caught, was because they loaded up the software and fired it into the game.

Connect the dots.

If you wanna go down the zero tollerance road:

What about Texmod users? Despite Regina/Anet claiming it's OK, their rules still state all third party programs are bannable. Not only is it a third party program, but it also injects. Your theory states all Texmod users should be banned.

What about people using portal glitches, AI glitches, exploits (such as the recent dual modding) and others. All those people deserve to be banned in your eyes?

Whilst I agree that the exploiters who recently made money of the dual modding exploit should be banned (for both scamming as exploiting), but most of those others are so harmless.

Somebody trying the interrupt bot only once didnt deserve a perm, in my eyes.

Wrong analogy: you don't get banned for simply checking bot sites or downloading them. You get banned for USING.

So, to fix your analogy... As soon as you load the gun and shoot, killing one person, it doesn't matter wether it was one kill or ten: you're arrested for killing.

You're usually jailed for killing: Jail -> Permaban

You're basically asking to punish one time killers with a parking ticket.

- Texmod doesn't inject.
- All 3rd Party Programs bannable? Read the EULA again:

Come back when TexMod plays the game automatically.

1) It does, it just doesnt touch the client-server connection.
2) So the opposing party window hack is allowed to? Cool, didn't know that!

First. It realy does inject to the game. And the opposing party window hack which exposes the target of an enemy is allowed in your theory.

Second. Some of the banned botters well let's say it in ur words: they had a gun and used it but didn't kill anyone simply "practiced" and tried it out. So this is what I'm QQing about in this thread, they didn't rly judge who to ban simply if an injection has been detected = BAN. Didn't matter if the guy they banned used bot for 10 mins, 2 hours or 2000 hours nor where they used it.

opposing party window hack could be construed as interacting with other people with the use of a third party program

That's enough not to be malicious injection, that's enough not to make TexMod detectable.

Obviously not:

The hack you mentioned manipulates data streams.