Friendly bots and alternate clients

[AnonDuck]

(Ignoring the personal attacks - go start a thread about how much you hate me instead of disrupting an actual discussion)

Wow, what a can of worms. It seems everyone has a differing viewpoint on what clients should be allowed to connect and what they should be allowed to do. Sounds about right for TMW

It's important to figure this out and come to some kind of agreement on a proposal that can be submitted to TMWc for official approval. This has been a grey area for far too long.. can we at least all agree to that?

Nard is right - client features can affect the gameplay balance a lot. I'd like a few more content developers to chip in their thoughts here. They are the ones charged with keeping the game in balance. GMs too as they are involved in making and enforcing the rules of fair play.

o11c you were pretty short with your post.. Can you elaborate on the reasoning for your view?

I'm still in favor of an open-access model. I know of at least 4 third-party client libraries for this game and I think that's awesome and will continue to bring good things to the game. Things like Tree, ManaMarket, Quizzy, etc add some utility and entertainment value for everyone. Frankly, this is an open-source game.. There's no way to prevent alternative clients from connecting without constantly modifying the server code or moving to a closed signed-binary model. Sometimes you just have to take the hand you're dealt and work with it as best you can. I really like Led's idea of disallowed functions.

[o11c]

o11c you were pretty short with your post.. Can you elaborate on the reasoning for your view?

• I don't see how any more friendly bots are likely to be helpful to the community.
• I don't see how any more friendly bots are likely to be helpful to the TMWC.
• I don't really think the existing bot-writing community necessarily has our best interests at heart.
• I think having a policy of "accept unless it's harmful" will do more harm than good. It could very well encourage people to write bots that toe the line, and then other people take that and cross it.
• I don't think a bot that is not hosted on the main server should satisfy our stability and trust requirements.

I'm still in favor of an open-access model. I know of at least 4 third-party client libraries for this game and I think that's awesome and will continue to bring good things to the game. Things like Tree, ManaMarket, Quizzy, etc add some utility and entertainment value for everyone. Frankly, this is an open-source game.. There's no way to prevent alternative clients from connecting without constantly modifying the server code or moving to a closed signed-binary model. Sometimes you just have to take the hand you're dealt and work with it as best you can. I really like Led's idea of disallowed functions.

... but it seems you have knowledge that makes you believe differently.

[Big Crunch]

really just because you see no glaring deficiency, doesn't mean someone else won't.

the purpose of this thread is to figure out a set of guidelines regarding the making of friendly bots to be adhered to prior to review for acceptance. acceptance is to be discussed in committee where things like balance and potential for malice will be considered.

BC

[Nard]

: I really hope that other clients do not become 'illegal', if you will. That is because I too believe in true open source.

I do believe in opensource. But open source has nothing to do with the rules of any game. Anyone can be allowed to develop it's own client while being forbidden to use it in game because it breaks the game balance or for any other reason: It is not because the recipe to craft iron wheigths is an open one that you are allowed to put some in your boxing gloves. And open source is not a warranty of accessibility: some players don't even know how to compile.
Bots can be useful and bring many things to the game though... on testing server: grinding time estimates, feasability of some quests... maybe some developers used them because they had more fun to develop than to play too. If they only played warriors, I can understand them quite easily
On another side, publishing a tool that can make players loose control, makes the developers and those who incite to use the software morally responsible of the consequences, in our case: bans.

The problem is not a simple one, enough to give nightmares to TMWC.

Happy fools day to all of you

[Big Crunch]

also, as a reminder, a heal bot would get no character exp unless the person they heal kills something on the same map prior to healing.

[Nard]

• I don't see how any more friendly bots are likely to be helpful to the community.
• I don't see how any more friendly bots are likely to be helpful to the TMWC.
• I don't really think the existing bot-writing community necessarily has our best interests at heart.
• I think having a policy of "accept unless it's harmful" will do more harm than good. It could very well encourage people to write bots that toe the line, and then other people take that and cross it.
• I don't think a bot that is not hosted on the main server should satisfy our stability and trust requirements.

This is not because you cannot see that it cannot happen:

• a bot that would make an interface with an IRC channel
• a serie of temporary bots that would help a player group to hold an event
• imagine a bot whose sight range would be a "webcam", the screen of which would be displayed on a web page, allowing to page watchers to see what happens, and registered ones to chat with players
• a @hidden bot that would choose a random mob and follow it as long as it is insight or dead and records it's position and actions and ping to char server against server time, this could be useful to record lags as they are seen by players and perhaps help to solve the problem (should be given to several players all around the worldd, thus not on the server)

I don't really think the existing bot-writing community necessarily has our best interests at heart.

I don't think this is very fair. Tradebot, Auctionbot, guildbot, Manamarket were made for players. Don't you include players in "our"? Do you prefer that they harass you until their features are included in server as I do with guilds?

[Big Crunch]

I don't think this is very fair. Tradebot, Auctionbot, guildbot, Manamarket were made for players. Don't you include players in "our"? Do you prefer that they harass you until their features are included in server as I do with guilds?

I support all harassment of o11c.

[Ledmitz]

I really hope that other clients do not become 'illegal', if you will. That is because I too believe in true open source.

I do believe in opensource. But open source has nothing to do with the rules of any game.

I feel slightly misquoted. The rest of my post explains exactly what I meant and that banning actions rather than clients would be more desirable. I do not stand for clients that do 'illegal' actions, but we do all prefer certain automated tasks and what we prefer seems to differ. How can one make a client to test if it is not permissable to do so? I do not think you should have to run a server in order to test a client... And I said "true open source" meaning total freedom... not partial.

[o11c]

How can one make a client to test if it is not permissable to do so? I do not think you should have to run a server in order to test a client... And I said "true open source" meaning total freedom... not partial.

We have a test server that doesn't have all the rules - because there, we don't have to worry about balance. And .

It's a mistake to think that Open Source applies to anything beyond software, content, and the development processes thereof. We are an open-source project, but we are also in charge of a game instance. We do try to maintain an open environment, but that's unrelated to the fact that we're open source.

[tux9th]

I do not think it is a good thing to distribute MM because of the possible security issues.
I think bots shouldn't be allowed because they are harmless but useful.

M+ trade is not AFK-Activity as you have to acceppt twice with mouseclicks. I don't think it should be any other, this then would be AFK activity and then MM would become mute. It is a market after all and in RL you sell your stuff on the market as well

Even though it is a game I like to think of stuff in a real way. So I think it is plausible to focus specific monsters. In RL you do not open the fridge and then pick up every item in order of alphabet until you have the one you want in your hands.

greets

[Nard]

I feel slightly misquoted. The rest of my post explains exactly what I meant and that banning actions rather than clients would be more desirable. I do not stand for clients that do 'illegal' actions, but we do all prefer certain automated tasks and what we prefer seems to differ. How can one make a client to test if it is not permissable to do so? I do not think you should have to run a server in order to test a client... And I said "true open source" meaning total freedom... not partial.

At the moment, any automated task is forbidden in the "no bot" rule, whether you are afk or not. I have still a doubt about attack lock as it is (was?) a server feature, so it should be "legal" if you are not afk.
You can test it on the testing server. But most client server applications have to be tested locally before anything else or a bug may flood the production server.
I share with you this conception of open source: open to every one or not. But this may have consequences that cross the strict frame of the application.

[Ledmitz]

At the moment, any automated task is forbidden in the "no bot" rule, whether you are afk or not.

I realize this and obey. My point is that others do not... such as autohealing and autospell, which are tougher to detect AND more harmful to the game than an autoattack feature. I used to use a macro for auto potioning too, but I even stopped that when all automated activity became bannable. Auto response when AFK is in the game. I see no problem with that though as it is not harmful to anyone, which is why functions should be reviewed individually. This is just my opinion. I know that a single client could monopolize and that it is the easiest way to ensure everyone is on the same page, but I personally feel that it takes away from the 'open' nature that I have grown accustomed to. Other automated tasks still exist too, like 'go and attack' or 'go, attack and pickup' or 'move to' or 'attack all except' or 'priority attack'. Again.. these functions seem fine to me, but technically, they are automation. See my point?

[Nard]

I totally agree with you. At the moment the limits between what is considered acceptable automation and what is not are not clearly defined. Is it possible to define them? I am not sure. Thus I prefer to define the limits with a reference to official client, and Manaplus is a good one.

Note: If I remind well a player has been banned for making lifestones AFK.

BTW Ledmitz, you are a nice and friendly player, I newer saw you abuse like a few other did

[Ledmitz]

@Nard ... yes, not all arguements are personal. This one is productive and I cannot debate your character. I am glad that people like you understand and do not take things personally. I also think you are a 'top dog'! AND you're fun to argue with.