Afk bots

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Momo4, Apr 9, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NameAlreadyInUse #CactusGate

    Rivitt likes this.
  2. NameAlreadyInUse #CactusGate

  3. Aghinem Augur


    Good idea except I have seen the same bot team monopolize multiple /pick instances. Its like a fat@$$ who just keeps hogging the entire buffet leaving tiny morsels for us behind.

    Honestly, I think EQ is really starting to evolve into the wild wild west where it is going to be necessary for players to be vigilant by doing their own policing and enforcement. CSR is pretty much non-existent thanks to changes in management. The play-nice policy is effectively an ancient relic, and the more honorable individuals are getting the shaft because of it.

    Mind you, this is opinion of mine is not suggesting all botters are bad. I know a few of them that are actually really nice and have no problem letting people play through if they are doing progression or quest related kills; then you have others that are outright vicious who have no other motive other than to farm for RMTs.
  4. Agrippa Augur

    /pick being available upon request would have to have a cool down longer than the base repop of most zones. /pick being available upon request would also eliminate the monopolizing of anything. It could still be abused for some really long placeholders, introducing easier epics, perhaps, but I see that as a lesser evil. I'm just unsure if the game could support that many instances, but how often are people really running into contested content outside of hotzones these days.
  5. AlmarsGuides Augur


    You know what I never understood - why are the RMT botters the A-holes? Wouldn't you be nice to draw less attention to yourself so you DON'T get banned? It's like someone growing weed in his house but he keeps listening to his music really loud so the neighbor calls the cops on him constantly.
    Geri_Petrovna and Aghinem like this.
  6. Neodraykl Elder

  7. Wizdons Augur

    would be nice if they could explain this.. i went afk then to bed once with my pet out and merc even set to passive.

    bam suspended for this silly rule. and this was in a old PoP zone..
  8. lancelove Augur

    Yes Wizdons, I've passed out many a night and left my toons wherever they were at the time. I was wondering if what happened to you might start becoming and issue.
  9. Wizdons Augur



    its a little old..
  10. Wizdons Augur

  11. Fellowmasta New Member

    Has anyone been to the grounds on Vox? There are like 5 afk crews throughout the zone, it's quite hilarious at this point.
  12. Ishtass Augur

  13. Geri_Petrovna Augur

    Same guy on BB still there.
  14. Whulfgar Augur

    Everquest is DBG's game, Not yours ..

    If you skirt the rules (vainly attempting to portray youself off as innocent) of DBG ..

    You risk, the chance of getting burnt .. by the rules, of the very company that decides whats good or not in the game you play.

    You can not then therefor, attempt to play off as innocent, via "inset any reason here"

    If you afk an your mercs are killing .. You need get banned period. Its THEIR .. game !
    Corwyhn Lionheart and code-zero like this.
  15. Ghubuk Augur

    Was your pet killing while you were afk?
  16. Faerie Journeyman

    Yep, this was BS then and it's BS now. Ridiculous.
  17. HighVoltage New Member

    They will not actively hunt them, as meanwhile botters are a significant part of the player base. Otherwise DB would already have implemented some simple changes in the game mechanics which would solve most of this. Also, auto-spotting them should not be too hard, they just don't want to.
    However, everytime I see one of those, I take a few minutes to /petition and they are gone after 4 to 12 hours (depends on the time of day the report goes out). Some moved to another place, some I never saw again afterwards. So I suggest you simply report them for unattended gameplay and move on.
    Also it would be of help if players like Almar would not suggest afk botting as "this is how everybody does it nowadays".
  18. NameAlreadyInUse #CactusGate

    I guess if you report somebody for a violating a useless rule, the GMs will still follow their instruction sheet and contact the player you reported, and ban them if they don't like them. They are "just doing their job," after all. Lots of ridiculous, hypocritical and out-of-date rules continue to be followed for the same reason.

    I still haven't heard a good excuse for all the hate towards botters. If they really are AFK then they aren't harassing you, they are part of the scenary. Why wouldn't you just treat them as any other NPC? If I ever came across a box group that was blocking a mob or quest item that I needed (and it has never happened to me), I would send them a tell. If they didn't respond, I would treat them as I would any other NPC (and pull the mob first and do more damage and win). There are no camps in EQ and nobody can claim a mob. And you shouldn't have any trouble finding help in /general. As this thread has highlighted, there is no shortage of people who are itching for a fight and actively seek out botters to harass them.

    I still don't think it's botters you all hate. You just want a villain in your life, so you're looking for anybody breaking any rule. I think if DB removed the rule about botters, nothing would change except you guys would find somebody else to vilify.
  19. code-zero Augur

    You fail to realize that bots can and will completely monopolize areas nearly indefinitely if they were simply allowed to do their thing undisturbed. Sure if they're off in some relatively inaccessible zone constantly pulling low return mobs they could be viewed as not hurting anyone but when you have multiple groups of them nailing down large parts of popular zones like The Grounds that's a very big problem.

    These rules are not in fact outdated, when mercs first showed up there was no rule against having them out all the time and effectively doing all of your fighting for you. The fact of the matter is that /afk began to become a problem especially with the addition of the advanced loot system and it had to be dealt with

    I'd also like to see what it is that you find to be hypocritical about the rule, I'm pretty sure that the definition of hypocritical wouldn't cover anything about those rules.
    Corwyhn Lionheart likes this.
  20. NameAlreadyInUse #CactusGate

    I do not share your fear of a future that includes bots. Like all things, we will adapt. I'm glad that you use Grounds as an example, since that zone is "popular" because it's easy. There are no loots in there worth farming, and the only reason I could see anybody botting there would be to PL somebody else (which would be a very temporary stop in the zone). Think in terms of supply and demand.

    Brother's Island has come up as an example of where bots might farm loot. But in order to get there, each bot account has to have purchased the expansion. Not cost-effective.

    The rules are outdated because botters are not a real problem any more. Most content (and loot) comes in the form of instances.

    The rules are hypocritical because DB continues to create content that encourages botting, and because sentiments similar to this one (from HighVoltage, above):

    There is also hypocrisy inherent in any player who uses the /bazaar or /barter systems, as these also encourage the use of bots to farm those drops. I am so happy that somebody else farms that crap, but holy jesus I hope that there isn't actually some really sad guy running around a zone farming thousands of the same drops all day long. I HOPE it's an intelligent and efficiency-oriented guy who is bringing automation to the farm by programming bots.

    I just wish people would stop calling it a problem just because it exists. Give some real-world examples of how a botter was the specific cause of your bad time in EQ. It seems to me that most all of the people complaining are soloing and bitter because they are doing things the hard way already.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.