While you are entitled to your opinion, I think it's grossly misinformed. You're drawing conclusions about a subset of the EQ community that the average EQ player NOT part of that community knows very little about. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you have zero data to back up your claim, and therefore its a moot point.
I admit it's an opinion. And you can consider the slower grind rates an experiment in progress. Devs (and perhaps GMs) will have access to data (lower/higher reports, more/less bans, more/less anomalies) to see if this new design is efficacious or not.
But you assume the new design was intended to have an impact on bot groups. You can't really justify that position, either.
My opinion stems from logical deduction (i.e. increase playtime leading to increase observation and lower productivity) and not from quantitative analysis. In terms of my opinion measured against quantitative analysis, I agree that the devs may perceive this as an experiment in progress and will have the internal data to make their conclusions (effective deterrence against botters or not).
What is the deterrence mechanism? For deterrence, a few very specific things are required. One of those things is there has to be a credible risk of consequences. How should a bot group know or pretend to know that their grinding of exp is somehow being analyzed to establish heuristics consistent with bot group play and THEN that the identification of their bot group play would result in action taken by DBG?
The parameters are already set. Deterrence is set by the threat of GM action (ban). The slower experience rates enhances deterrence by increasing the risk of exposure namely. And, with lower or slower production for the end goal of max level avatars, the meta risk of exposure is increased. The fear of exposure would be an internalized deterrence. Furthermore, the increased time and effort against the risk of work loss would be calculated by the botters.
You assume the goal of boxers is to reach lvl 115 and max AA. You haven't justified that assumption, nor have you articulated other potential end states. You also assume the threat of GM action (ban) is a deterrence, but don't provide an explanation for why, given that banning has always been a possible outcome, botting still continues. Botting doesn't end when toons reach lvl 115 and max AA. I've seen plenty of max lvl groups set up in out of the way areas botting 24/7. The exp per kill (to bring the conversation back to reality) is in no way, shape, or form related to or impacting botting.
Botting continues because they are (1) not caught (or there's not enough evidence) or (2) they are willing to throw away accounts. Slower experience rates increases exposure for the first problem and decreases turnaround for the last problem. I am not sure if you are in touch with the realities of the game. Botters do not kill South Karana for coin or hover at Level 40 in Dreadlands for fun. Botters (or RMTers) have two main goals: (1) gain max level and/or top geared characters or (2) accumulate currency (through plat farming, TS item sales, normal item sales, or chase loot items) which are exchanged for real-life currency. Some of the most effective routes of accumulating currency are through maximum level characters (ToV named for spell runes or powering through mobs for Ice Encrusted chase).
I kinda wanted to share my problem with where exp was last expansion, maybe there's more of a middle ground. EXP was so easy to get that several times I let my corpse rot without a rez because it was not a big deal, it was more work to go rez my body after what I had done then to just continue doing stuff.
Articulate (precisely) how slower exp rates somehow illuminate boxers or create additional exposure. Just because they spend more time in a zone killing stuff? Which lots of people do right now, too? Or because they don't do the missions? Which some people choose to ignore right now, too? Tell us why you think exp rate somehow represents a vulnerability for a boxer. Being max level or nearly max level matters absolutely zero in this expansion. I killed a dozen named mobs in T1 and T2 at lvl 111.
We've come full circle. Refer to the posts above. Let me posit an obvious assumption: botters require a script that forces grind. Max level increases the speed of kills which therefore increases the odds of a chase loot or the ability to cover multiple PHs before respawn.
So now you're suggesting lvl 115 groups in exp zones not doing missions for experience are botting. Sorry, your opinion has zero logic behind it. If it was so easy to identify bot groups DBG wouldn't be so bad at it. And the suggestion that they're going to allocate resources to conduct some kind of data-driven research project to use machine learning or whatever to identify those groups based on heuristics (behavior) is out of touch with the reality that those groups probably provide income to DBG, too.
Way to put words in my mouth. There's an obvious distinction: botters behave differently than legitimate groups. And grats for that last Strawman argument. You don't need machine learning to look at a spreadsheet. And "out of touch with the reality that those groups probably provide income to DBG"? Are you seriously justifying botting for their revenue? Wow. Exposed!
You said: Please let me know how I should interpret that differently. You suggest max level (lvl 115). I added the part about not doing missions because that would be the only even remotely reasonably way to discriminate between a bot group that got to 115 by afk or semi-afk play and one that was actively played (and therefore allowed). And as for the data "in a spreadsheet," I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of information DBG probably has access to in their logs. You actually think someone is going to hide a few columns, sort by "botter" and instantly be able to see who is bad and who is good? I mean.... you must realize how ridiculous that is, right? It took DBG YEARS to come up with a solution for flagging toons for warping from one location to another location instantly, and they even messed THAT up by forgetting to account for coth. You really think it would be so simple to pick a needle like a single botting group out of the stack of needles of other groups playing the game?
Stylistically, your thought process seems to have a tendency to want to categorize and miss implied premises. Perhaps that explains why you asked me to re-articulate my argument. Yes, max level increases the speed of kills and that is an advantage (tool) to the botter. (Note: I was responding to your argument that Level 111 is sufficient). Yes, max level also benefits legitimate players. However, the implied premise is that we can make that distinction. I think most people will agree with me that your bright-line categorization that "not doing missions...would be the only even remotely reasonable to way to discriminate between a bot group that got to 115 by afk or semi-afk play and one that was actively played" is and would not be the only method to distinguish botters from legitimate players. (Even when using "missions" as a benchmark, will one receive false positives and false negatives). Automation has its limitations and quirks or idiosyncrasies due to the script (e.g. supposed Brother Island, FM, OT, GMM, and now Margidor scripts) which can be targeted (in addition to increase exposure time due to slow grind). My reference to a spreadsheet is the data collected from the GMs.
I know it won't happen but it would be nice to hear how design decisions are made by the devs. We are doing this this and this for this reason. Sure they would get endless complaints but is that really so different then things are now? Even if there is no up side for them would be very interesting to hear in a dev blog forum or something of the like.
Honestly I don't see the AFK botter problem as being to do with detection, subjective I know, the real issue from player perspective is I think enforcement. When reported botters are going unchecked for months & months it's pretty clear that their actions are not being dealt with in spite of detection. Changing xp to discourage botters is just like a doctor trying to treat the symptoms & not dealing with the cause, and in this case the infection adapts really well so it causes them next to no increase in hardship.
Your logic is flawed. A botted group will play 24 hours a day and consequently will level quickly anyway. A few days at most. They don't bot to level, they bot for the drops. Which they will get through play irrespective if they are max level or not. The time it takes to kill is not going to be all that different between 110 and 115, especially when you take into account that they are killing everything in their immediate vicinity. Max level just increases the amount of dead time, not the number of mobs killed (that is the same for both levels). Basically botters don't give a rats *ss about max level or how long it takes to get there from 110, lol. So IMO you are flat out wrong!
The max is 5 AA per kill. But typically a kill in group as things stand generates just under 1 AA (you only hit the max with nameds). Doubling the xp gained would translate that into 2 AA, so while increasing the xp per kill might get the normal xp relative gain rate to something similar to pre-110 levels, it would supercharge the AA xp gain rate. The only way to resolve the issue is to reduce the amount of xp required for a regular level while keeping xp generated per kill the same (this would keep AA gain rates the same as they are now). Then, to compensate for the reduction, reduce the amount of xp gained for the achievements by a corresponding amount, so that the % amount of level the ach does remains the same.
