Clientless Discussion

[Nitroxide]

Originally Posted by Coatl 2.0

why not do it first without caring what others think? set the example and others will follow.

You're a nice guy so i wont troll, but... lol.

[Cyanogen]

What people have to understand is one simple thing. Everyone here is a thief. Botters and private servers and the lot are stealing and using someone else's property. Now I'm not trying to villainize anyone here, after all, I am as guilty as the rest of you, but there is one axoim I firmly believe.

"There is no honour amongst thieves!".

Expecting so is just folly. Personally I would be the first to jump with joy and sing when TQ finally fixes the clientless problem. And perhaps, just perhaps we may bring that change about.

[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.

[Korvacs]

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.

Your correct the 2 sentences disagree with each other and they are both based around what you have said, the bot offers unlimited clientless, but you yourself have stated that its not possible, and now you have gone back on that and stated that its entirely possible, whats going on lol. And no im not stupid hence me stating that its absolutely a strategy to build a consumer base, that doesnt make it less irresponsible though, unlimited clientless if possible should never under any circumstances be allowed to be public.

And there is no point unless you wish to take the moral high ground, but as i also explained in my post that doesnt get you subscriptions, was merely a suggestion as you yourself have stated that something needs to be done, so if your up for reducing the cap to a lower amount then you might aswell be the first to do it, someone has to be the first after all.

Also your still classify yourself as one of the big conquer bots of the current time, if your forum (specifically the subscriber group having 54 members) is anything to go by your definitely no way near becoming one of the big conquer bots of this time, so really you should move away from trying to get the other 2 to do anything untill the time comes when your in direct competition with them, which might well be a while.

Im not trying to make Chrome look bad btw, i dont really have any interest in which bots do the best nowadays, but Chrome is brand new, believes its the best, believes that because it charges money its automatically a major conquer bot, has major stability issues, and is irresponsible amount its clientless accounts. I dont see why i should be kind about it given that these are my opinions.

[Nitroxide]

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

Originally Posted by Nitroxide

using your average home computer

Hmm, Pardon? for a moment then i thought you were claiming i had explicitly stated it wasn't possible to do, and since i clearly didn't i couldn't have gone back on it, could i? You just can't stop talking rubbish can you? God damn.

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Also your still classify yourself as one of the big conquer bots of the current time

HAD major stability issues

Yes, that's right, we offer the same functionality as the other 2 bots and have just about ironed out the stability problems left over from beta, just as the other 2 "big" bots did, problem officer? And sub count is clearly based on paying botters having already paid their monthly sub for one of the other 2 bots. You can't just take custom overnight in this business by offering the same thing slightly cheaper. Let's see after the first half of December shall we

Originally Posted by Korvacs

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

Looking back at your track record you're well known for your uncalled for negativity and ignorance. One doesn't have to be "kind" but one also doesn't have to be a complete jackass about things either.

I'm socially attuned enough to know that regardless of how many times i make you look stupid, you will continue feeding me dumb posts, and so this will probably go on and on, so fire away.

[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.

[-Isaac-]

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.

Unlimited clientless is fine. Average users don't even use as much as you think. Plus, stupid botters would get banned. It's always those mass botters that get raped. Teaches them a lesson, hehe.

The amount of people who mass bot with 60+ clients is pretty low, at least in Chrome. I've only heard one guy talk about running 30 accounts. Most players run 1-5 accounts on Chrome, that I spoke to. Most listen to our advice, about not running more than 15 accounts. Chrome's 'unlimited' hasn't hit anything hard.

Out of curiosity, Korvacs, you still play CO? Why is clientless botting important to you? You said the public shouldn't have access. Is it because you wanna rape up CO yourself with 60 clientless accounts? Don't throw 'morality' into a pixelated game. "Don't ruin games for others. It throws economy off. etc etc" Most of these bot developers could probably give a rats @ss about the game. They are in it for the $$$, not cps.

Have a nice day. I rarely check these forums, flame away~

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Korvacs]

So why not put a cap on the clientless if you know no one uses it, and openly suggest to use 10 at most, whats with the constant contradiction?

[Fragaria]

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.

You made me giggle. If you believe so, be my guest.

[TheBoyWhoLost]

BEFORE YOU EVEN READ MY REPLIES i am not here to argue or fight. I like to give my opinion and have a nice discussion about subjects like these.

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.

This was done a long time ago. It wasn't Dean who brought it to the public. The first bot which i had with clientless was SirHooks/SirMediator made by Warlax and Clinton or something.

I can't agree on the fact that clientless is bad for the game. What i think is bad is The amount of chars being albe to log in trough clientless, and then using ninjafarm options on this huge amount of chars, that make TC (and all the hunt spots the noobs automatically lvl in) look like a gigantic botfest. I'm using the same 15 noobs for over 3 months. No Ban nothing! And my profits are really great. There is no need for a lot of accounts. Just know your server and know howto market.

Let's try and say it in nice words. 90% of the botters are not using their brains when they bot, and another 5% doesn't care so they just go with it and log in 200/300 noobs cause they can. While their profits are still remaining lower then mine.

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.

How is this a attempt to increase the user base of CoGenius? Please bring in the details. Your post really makes me think that you would never make an agreement with the creator of CoGenius cause you are scared to lose members to them. Thats how i read this post atm.
I don't see how an agreement on dropping the clientless rate would be an attempt to promote your own bot. The major goal of it is to stop the ridiculous amount of characters being logged in to bot with.

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.

Server prices dropping have nothing to do with the amount of botters on the server. It's selfishness coming around the corner. Or as i like to call them morons who bot. These people are impatient with selling items so they lower their prices cause others sell it also (they make/gain them easy anyway). While if you bot smart and know your servers market well enough, you will be able to easily control it.
They also keep on looting/mining for these items that do drop in prices (again cause they gain them so easily) while if they do not go for these items the amount of the items on the market will drop sooner or later. People just need to know how to market has nothing to do with bots. Being impatient and selfish make the prices drop.

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.

Finally someone i can agree on. You do not need the massive amount of character s to make good profits. It's all about how you bot and how good you know your servers market and it's community so you know where and how to make your money.

About unlimited clientless, it can't be literally unlimited right? I mean, at your end it might be... but how abut the amount of character the co servers allow/can handle to be online at ones? There is a cap right. Not that i would ever see anyone having so many chars that he could fill up every server to it's cap anyway

[-Isaac-]

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.

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.

Absurd, but again, 60+ vs unlimited, I could give a sh!t. If people are that crazy about CO, use different VPS, trade in a way they don't get routed to and banned, they deserve the glory.
A couple thousand, but can your internet handle the thousands of packets being transmitted with 'ninja' farming? Think before you speak. Have you, yourself ran a thousand clients?
First the trash about Chrome not being able to handle more than a few clients, now that its' stable, we get the 'no unlimited clients plx.'
People who put the effort, with brains, to buy multiple VPSes with different IPs in a various range, not similar ones are smart. Again, transferring items to the account is a whole new task. For all that effort, I mind as well bulk a couple times.

@Your Picture, cool story bro. Guess what? I don't play CO or get paid. Go cry some more. You wish you could bot thousands of accounts, instead you whine.

Ninja farming = million packets
bjx = simple attking/mining.

[shitboi]

I do not think consumer class VPS can handle that hundreds of connections steadily, since they mostly use resource pooling, connections might break on data peaks.

Anyways, from what i can see, 3 bots are really awesome ( I have used cofarmer I before, and my friends are currently subscribed to cofarmerII), and i do not see how this clientless botting problem will come to a stop.

Since encryptions are kept in private now. lesser developers out there can get their version of proxy running; The situation as is has already driven out quite a proportion of bot developers. Even if they lower clientless number, those who doesn't know the encryption continues to be ignorant.

On the other hand, if TQ do something about it, which it should have done a long time ago, then it simply means that the current in-the-game bot makers just have to work harder to get over the hurdles.

What ever is the case, i wish they'd share some of their knowledge -.-