Clientless Discussion

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by Belth

It's too late now as TQ is already on everyone's ***. Whoever first decided to allow more than 5 clientless (in addition to 2 clients) was not thinking.

I believe I saw somewhere that mods remove any information regarding cracking of the new aspects of encryption. If true, isn't the reason for that to avoid making TQ add more security from bots? How is having 50-*******-plus clientless accounts any different?

I believe it was Cogenius who first decided to distribute clientless in any quantity, clientless accounts are designed to be identical to the client from the servers point of view, so how is 50+ clientless any different from 50 normal clients? Theres no difference except that you run them all from one machine.

Releasing the latest encryption and allowing anyone to make a proxy without any real amount of effort can be extremely dangerous for users of those bots, and for everyone else as it can greatly increase the likelyhood of TQ finding a method to find bots being used, or fixing exploits which are being used irresponsibly by those bots, or forcing TQ to change the encryption again.

[Belth]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

I believe it was Cogenius who first decided to distribute clientless in any quantity, clientless accounts are designed to be identical to the client from the servers point of view, so how is 50+ clientless any different from 50 normal clients? Theres no difference except that you run them all from one machine.

Releasing the latest encryption and allowing anyone to make a proxy without any real amount of effort can be extremely dangerous for users of those bots, and for everyone else as it can greatly increase the likelyhood of TQ finding a method to find bots being used, or fixing exploits which are being used irresponsibly by those bots, or forcing TQ to change the encryption again.

My point was that clientless increases the number of bots to ridiculous proportions which makes TQ take notice. Not every jack can run 50 clients.

Your second paragraph just smells like politics to me since all the public proxies now basically encourage the same thing through massive clientless accounts. But I am biased so I can't argue convincingly.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway these are just my thoughts on the subject.

[Fragaria]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway these are just my thoughts on the subject.

Gets me to the point where a question from CoGen's side to AI to lower amount of clientless was simply ignored a long time ago already. Sorry for coming to AI's thread. Just had to say it.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by DragonHeart~V4

Gets me to the point where a question from CoGen's side to AI to lower amount of clientless was simply ignored a long time ago already. Sorry for coming to AI's thread. Just had to say it.

Neither of us are actually in a position where we can say what was actually involved or if that question was even asked, so theres no point us discussing it lol. Personally i dont believe this ever took place as ive spoken with John about the same subject in the past and he said he would do it. But like i say were not in any position to discuss a private conversation between 2 other people.

[Fragaria]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Neither of us are actually in a position where we can say what was actually involved or if that question was even asked, so theres no point us discussing it lol. Personally i dont believe this ever took place as ive spoken with John about the same subject in the past and he said he would do it. But like i say were not in any position to discuss a private conversation between 2 other people.

You could hardly call it a convo. And the question in general wasn't asked to John directly. But alright, if you say we shouldn't talk about, I won't talk about it.

Edit;

Clearly the whole subject about lowering clientless amount isn't even worth discussing, if 1 party isn't fully willing to co-op **** won't ever happen and discussing about it is just a huge waste of time as it won't ever have any effect. Done now for real.

[Coatl 2.0]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

I believe it was Cogenius who first decided to distribute clientless in any quantity, clientless accounts are designed to be identical to the client from the servers point of view, so how is 50+ clientless any different from 50 normal clients? Theres no difference except that you run them all from one machine.

Releasing the latest encryption and allowing anyone to make a proxy without any real amount of effort can be extremely dangerous for users of those bots, and for everyone else as it can greatly increase the likelyhood of TQ finding a method to find bots being used, or fixing exploits which are being used irresponsibly by those bots, or forcing TQ to change the encryption again.

technically speaking clientless and/or standalone has been around since 1.0 before botjail even existed. you can not say COG was the first.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by Coatl 2.0

technically speaking clientless and/or standalone has been around since 1.0 before botjail even existed. you can not say COG was the first.

Re-read what i said and what i said in my next post, COG was the first to make it publicly available, thats what i said.

[Coatl 2.0]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Re-read what i said and what i said in my next post, COG was the first to make it publicly available, thats what i said.

wrong again bro, like i said, cog was not the first. the first was bjx, you could run as many as your computer could handle. did not require a client, nor did it take up much memory, and was free and did not have a limit of how many you could run. nor did you even have to register on a site to get it. also was the first to feature a full automated mining/hunting bot. complete with auto repair, revive, auto buy pots/arrows..w/e, auto sell ores/junk, also had a sweet feature.. talking to people on co through it.

and was single handily the reason TQ created botjail.

[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.

[Coatl 2.0]

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.

you are welcome but i do agree..imo max clientless should be 15-20

[Nitroxide]

Wow Korvacs you surprised me, I guess you didn't read it but quite awhile back in an earlier post you will find I was the first person to point out that this should be changed for our own sakes as it was already ridiculously over the top and COMPLETELY not in our favour, and i also warned that the next bot released WAS going to offer more or even unlimited if it wasn't sorted, this was before we released our bot (possibly posted as Nitrogenx) The point i was making is that TQ really don't give a h00t if clientless bots offer 66 or unlimited it's already an outrageous problem they need an answer to.

AND SO WE NEED TO START SPAMMING SOOTHE!



The first person that made clientless botting publicly available to this extent in my opinion is an idiot and clearly doesn't understand business, this very idiot needs to be permanently sapped.

*SAPS* (Never mind most CO players are probably CC breakers)


AGAIN we will absolutely drop our clientless down to a safe amount that other bot owners agree on, a figure that will lower TQ's haste in releasing new encryptions/big patches, this will barely scratch subscriptions and anybody that has experience in this area will understand the simple logic behind it.

PS: Our bot may advertise the possibility to bot with unlimited clientless accounts but it's deliberately left in a state where this just isn't possible using your average home computer, I didn't want to share this pretty obvious info but meh, don't really like being called irresponsible either :/

[Korvacs]

Split!

No, i did absolutely read your post, but the fact of the matter is you are still allowing the possibility of unlimited clientless to take place, for starters your leading people to believe that this is possible therefore lying to your consumers as proven by your post, and further alot of people both with servers now far beyond your average home computer.

At the very least you need to place a limit at around 60 immediately, or be the first to take a stand and drop it to 20/30, and i do understand that you dont like being called irresponsible, but what else is there to say when someone for one thing releases a bot that contains clientless, but secondly makes it available in such a ridiculously large quantity. I also consider CoGenius and CoAI to be irresponsible, but even they have limits in place, and CoAI at least has the business reason to back up their quantity.

[Nitroxide]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

No, i did absolutely read your post, "but the fact of the matter is you are still allowing the possibility of unlimited clientless to take place", "for starters your leading people to believe that this is possible therefore lying to your consumers as proven by your post"

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 garten.

[Coatl 2.0]

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.

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