Clientless Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coatl 2.0 why not do it first without caring what others think? set the example and others will follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitroxide These 2 sentences completely disagree with each other, and right after one another too, lol. I don't want to argue with you dude but don't endlessly rant rubbish, please. Let's pretend you had written this properly, so that it didn't stand out like a soar thumb that you want to make us look bad. My answer would still be that we are not lying as it's absolutely possible to do, it's called business, you're not stupid :/ What is the point in placing a limit at half the OP's current amount? I'm suggesting right now that all 3 bots drastically drop the publicly available limit right down or make way for epic work load pretty soon, and when/if both bot owners agree we will gladly do it first. What is this, kinder garden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs but you yourself have stated that its not possible, and now you have gone back on that and stated that its entirely possible

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitroxide using your average home computer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Also your still classify yourself as one of the big conquer bots of the current time HAD major stability issues

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs I dont see why i should be kind about it given that these are my opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Politics shouldn't be confused with good sense, you might remember banana-split you might not, but here was a bot designed to punish botters, completely irresponsible, it existed because the encryption was publicly available and easy to access, there is every chance that a bot like this could be released tomorrow if the latest encryption was publicly available. The people who designed that bot, weren't the average Joes. They eventually switched to a paid subscription, seeing the vast profits it could make. I believe it was them who started the 'subscriptions.' There is also the standpoint that Elitepvpers takes which is that our bots cant exist without the games, so harmful things like duplication exploits and encryption alterations should not be released to the public, they should be released to a selection of people who understand this principle and will release exploits which will not bring a game to its knees and force drastic changes or even closure of the game. I personally do not like clientless bots being so readily available, i have always argued this point ever since dean decided he would so happily flaunt the fact that clientless was available, he is by no means the first person to make a clientless bot, but he is the first to be dumb enough to believe its an intelligent decision to make it available to the public, therefore effectively bringing the game to its knees and forcing many changes which have harmed both botters and players, and this will continue to happen. Or, this should force TQ to finally make change, hire better programmers. Some will argue that ConquerAI/CoFarmer have made things much worse by also offering clientless botting and by increase the number of clients available, but as CoAI is a business and CoGenius is their main competition its obvious that CoAI was forced to take up clientless botting in order to continue competing - moral high ground doesn't win subscriptions. And now Chrome has concluded that the best course of action for the game is to allow unlimited clientless accounts, clearly an attempt to gain a subscription base, but still even more irresponsible than the other two, this action completely destroys the notion of responsible botting and the owners should be ashamed to be perfectly honest. What's the difference between 65 and unlimited? Most people cannot even go above the 60 threshold because their computer and internet cannot handle it. 99% of retards don't even know how to make millions of accounts, even then they need to search for a decent amount of alive proxies. Chrome owners have stated numerous times, if all bots agree to set a standard limit, they will also. My point about halving the number of clientless bots was that it is far to late to get rid of them entirely, the two big bots use them as a major selling point and the consumers now expect clientless to be included, you cannot undo the mistakes of the past, merely limit the influence they have on the future, hence halving them is a good starting point. Even more so because at this point botting with 60 accounts isnt practical. That's your own point of view. Remember BJX Bot? Hundreds to THOUSANDS could be used. Did it harm CO? It brought the affordability level of items down to a good level. The average player could hunt for a few dbs and buy a decent set of gear. Anyway these are just my thoughts on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfamousNoone While the claim, "If ConquerAI agrees to lower their clientless amounts, COGenius will do the same" seems like a proposal out of best interest for the players, it is nothing but a masqueraded attempt to increase COGenius' user base. I won't go into depth, but if you cannot notice this, you should not be a part of this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Hmm you are indeed correct, i will rephrase: Dean is the first person to be dumb enough to release clientless to the public in the last 5 year, i would assume that is because everyone remembers that as a direct result of the last clientless bot TQ did indeed take drastic action to prevent it, and now the same thing is happening again. Thanks for correcting me on that vital point in my opinion regarding clientless being bad for the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfamousNoone While the claim, "If ConquerAI agrees to lower their clientless amounts, COGenius will do the same" seems like a proposal out of best interest for the players, it is nothing but a masqueraded attempt to increase COGenius' user base. I won't go into depth, but if you cannot notice this, you should not be a part of this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black§un I see things from everyone's Views, Yes Clientless botting should be drastically reduced because in my experience with Cogenius in the past 12 months things have dramatically changed in almost all the servers. My old server priced dropped by about 75% in the past 3 months because people are abusing Bots to all new highs. TQ has been making allot of encryption changes lately and that's all because of people Logging into 66 Clientless With CoAI, 60/120/180/ext+ accounts with Cogenius(able to log into multable accounts with subscription now and bot insanely) and now with Conquer Chrome things are going to get even worse with there Unlimited Clientless which really really needs to be capped at a relevant amount or TQ will start taking drastic Measures such as IP banning and so on... But the other side of this is No. Cog and CoAi and CC if they were each to agree on a amount of Clientless Cap, another bot Program would spring up shortly after these three agreed on an decent amount of Clientless accounts, and things would start spiraling downwards again because this bot would begin possibly as CC begin with unlimited Clientless. I would say more but its very obvious were im going. With all 3 agreed one would pop up and do WTF it wants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitroxide @lostsolder05 Oh, do they? I wasn't aware. Thanks for informing me boss. @Korvacs Our users really don't spam the clientless... I happen to know for a fact that not a single user in/out of beta has logged 66 clientless accounts at once yet, we advise/teach them how to run an AI Mode LevelAndHunt setup with just 4 hunters and 1 Trader or 9 hunters and a 1 Trader, YES WE SUGGEST JUST 10 ACCOUNTS MAX, and it absolutely destroys the profit from 66 miners if setup properly. So please, It's quite clear that offering unlimited clientless doesn't sell the bot any better than 66 clientless. We never wanted our bot to have to rely on cheesy masses of clientless accounts to make money, well written AI/Scripts blow it away and imo that's what should sell a bot, Scripts and AI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs I dont bot on Co or play on Co nowadays, but the way bots are going nowadays will bring about changes that force botters out, i happen to know that tq are looking at systems such as Game Guard for the client and server in order to stop botting. And this is coming about because of the high usage of clientless bots. That's good to hear, but still, game guard is nothing. Didn't they already have a system like that previously? If people were doing like you said issac and only using a handful of clientless bots across all of the bots that offer clientless then they wouldnt be looking at a system like GG, but i happen to know that most people at CoAI if given the opportunity to use 65 miners they will do, my computer for example could run 200 without breaking a sweat im tempted to buy chrome for a day to see how many i can run i suspect its higher than 5, some people have 5/6/7 subscriptions so that they can use ridiculous numbers of clientless accounts, i find it hard to believe that people at crome only use 5 clientless accounts just because you have a sticky somewhere saying that people should be careful given that the bot offers unlimited, or doesnt, or does, i still dont know at this point given the amount of backtracking on the subject. We don't have many subsribers yet, majority of those who I've helped play it smart. They level a few characters, farm MZ, make 2k cps a night. Why risk using multiple accounts, hassle of all those VPS/Socks/VPNs, when you could bank easily. Again, everyone is in this little war, this person lower first blah blah blah. However, I'm sure everyone has already 'agreed' in a way to lower the limit. BJX brought about botjail and an encryption change and brought botting to TQs attention, i would say it did more harm to the game than good to be honest, even if they did lower prices slightly on the handful of servers that TQ had at the time. To be honest it doesnt come down to what developers of bots care about in game, its if they care about being able to make money in the future. That's one valid point. I have to agree with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostsolder05 Using 'unlimited' clientless accounts as a selling point is absurd... You know very well there's no machines out there today that could handle over a couple thousand at best. Oh, and the fact part of your argument against Korvacs is that... "home PCs can't handle many anyways" is just plain ignorant... Most "intelligent" botters do not host off there own PCs they buy separate VPS for such things that can easily handle large amounts.