OFFICIAL FEEDBACK THREAD: Changes to Random Queues

trinity706

RQ's are a mess and a favorable means to generate RAD has been essentially expunged twice over with the 100k refining cap and the speed of generating RAD being made slower than a crawl.

The markets on console are not like the market on PC. Each version of the game (PC, Xbox, PS4) should be treated separately in regard to market/economy changes, as previously mentioned in another thread there are differences between the versions anyway. If the market is "rough" on a particular version, try and remedy it for that version. Applying those changes to un-afflicted versions is overbearing and goes to show negative intentions.

Also as previously mentioned essentially negative PC players mess things up for the positive players on PC and console.

Gateway Closing Down

StrumSlinger) Thu 15 Sep 2016 said:

Greetings adventurers,

It is with some regret that we are announcing the closing of Gateway for Neverwinter. This was not an easy call.

The reason is that the current Gateway website has been shown to be susceptible to several aggressive botting activities. We’ve tried multiple times to stop the botting. Each time, it’s worked for a while, but then the botters have found new ways to break Gateway. Such incidents not only affect Gateway but greatly live game performance in Neverwinter, affecting players on the live shard.

Instead of simply restricting access to or suspending/banning the accounts that botted the Neverwinter Gateway Cryptic closed the Gateway down, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water...

Console players didn't even get the chance to try out the Gateway. On top of that for 1.6 years after the gateway was closed down PC players STILL had access to Arc quests that granted free Zen from simple tasks which required little to no effort...

Console players having access to the Gateway would have been a GREAT utility, it would have given them the ability to be away from their console yet still be able to make progress.

With various changes to the game and what they entail a number of them can reasonably be credited to the publisher trying to squeeze the players in one way or another. Instead of the publisher/developers taking on the responsibility to weed out the negative players they push the positive ones over and leave them to deal with the overbearing changes.

Which makes more sense, getting staff to go through and take action against negative accounts or developing a system that will essentially be circumvented and harms the player base? Prevention essentially costs less than cure, bite the bullet, do a proper cleansing and then implement means to keep those type of accounts from rising again instead of punishing positive players while the negative ones still run rampant.

greywynd

There was also the factor of cost and manpower to maintain the gateway and the link to the game.

trinity706

greywynd said:

There was also the factor of cost and manpower to maintain the gateway and the link to the game.

Fair enough though reducing the available features on the gateway would have essentially reduced the maintenance requirements, for example reducing the gateway features simply to professions and if possible things like AH, Guild and mail simply being read only/having limited server requests within a given amount of time. Arguably the various features have their usefulness though if faced with a choice to have no features or only professions and possibly read only access players would more than likely choose the latter.

After the Gateway was shutdown players were then faced with spending additional time managing professions (and other things) in-game which took/takes away from being able to do other things, less time playing equals less progress and the more shiny buying Zen becomes...If feasible in-game functions were provided then it wouldn't really matter though no such feature has been introduced:

panderus said:

Improving professions is something near and dear to a few of us. I would like to have an update on it within the next few modules. There is nothing planned yet but there is a lot of missed potential with how it currently is in a number of ways.

September 2016, almost 2 years and nothing...

Apparently resources were repeatedly wasted trying to combat bots instead of simply suspending/banning the offending accounts after proper investigation which is the thing. Haven't they implemented ban waves in the past, why not with the Gateway botting as well? Why repeatedly spend resources trying to make better bludgeons to beat around the bush hoping the undesirables will scurry out so you can catch them only to later on uproot the entire bush when you could use a portion of those resources to dig around in there, expose/remove any undesirables that may be concealed and leave the bush?...

Leadership takes a while to get going even with epic assets and diligently resetting tasks when they are done. Level 17 is no cake walk and 21+ takes time too therefore appropriately suspending/banning a botting account is a setback.

Though if you look at past changes they apparently seem to directing things in the same direction which is inclining Zen purchases since for the most part players lose something with each change,...

greywynd

Botting of professions: removal of profession access through the gateway.
Botting of the AH: removal of access through the gateway.

Keep in mind, STO also had their gateway shut down.

trinity706

greywynd said:

Botting of professions: removal of profession access through the gateway.
Botting of the AH: removal of access through the gateway.

Ban/suspend the botting accounts...

Wouldn't that have been the least resource/time intensive and direct course of action? Players are essentially a free, currently untapped resource in regard to helping police the game from within the game. Hell players that put in the efforts to help maintain a positive environment for the player base could be compensated in various ways:

Periodically Award Bonus:
- RP (from XP rewards, dungeon chests, enchantment procs/increased RP crit results
- XP from professions, etc.
- seal rewards
- RAD
- campaign currency
- etc.

Arguably most players wouldn't notice the above things proccing for them for helping maintain a positive in-game environment. In-game rewards essentially don't cost money, paying staff does therefore utilizing players to help police the environment is a win-win.

--+-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+--

A number of players don't like RQ's period though a number of them don't like RQ's because of how easy it is to abuse yet still be rewarded. Lowering the return on RQ's (once per account daily bonuses) as well as the 100k cap harms the non-botting players while the bots simply overcompensate being that they are not human and don't have to eventually stop/take breaks. Once per account daily bonuses have essentially pulled the plug on RQ's.

Suggestion: Option to Convert Additional Character Slots to Zen (or something reasonable)

Lostmauth Set Exchange
When the functionality of the set was fixed (no longer generating more damage than intended) players were given the option to exchange it for another. As some others have previously argued, the functionality of +character slots has significantly changed with Mod 14 due to the once per account daily bonuses.

Similar to the LMS exchange, how about players that were in various ways encouraged to (80% off character slots, etc.) or simply utilized +character slots be given the option to remove character slots from their account in exchange for an amount of Zen each? The amount depending on factors such as campaign progress which before campaign tokens/signets of patronage, took the FULL number of days to complete each (around 30 days/campaign for multiple characters is a considerable time investment), that way players can be compensated for the recent change in functionality of +character slots that they invested into prior to Mod 14 which may not offer the same incentive(s) as before.

trinity706#8838 said:

MMO's have toiled with bots for decades and you would think that by now publishers/developers would at least try and utilize some manpower/resources to suspend/ban offending accounts and keep them suppressed though seemingly some would rather use those resources to compose drag nets that catch innocent accounts, simply change portions of the game which harms innocent players overall and or conceal apparent ulterior motives inside things that clearly could have been implemented differently.

trinity706#8838 said:

With the RQ (Mod 14)/AD changes, instead of taking down the bots/negative players, etc. to preserve those systems/reduce the amount of AD generated by those means and or making those changes on PC since that market is essentially "warped", those systems were changed on ALL versions to the point where the positive players suffer and buying Zen is essentially the only way to get Zen market items (VIP, etc.) being that cheaper Zen will mean less quantities of it being available at any given time (especially during events) which is quite different from Zen being readily available on the console markets. In other words cheaper Zen will essentially introduce ADX queues on the console markets...

Situation where account suspensions/bans would pretty much have been sufficient (at the bold point):
- Players running specific content for RAD > slow queue times > RQ system > faster queue times, variety of content, RAD > abuse of RQ's > nerf to RQ RAD generation/RAD refining cap.

athena

if botting players is so big a deal then put in code to find and punish them. for example, if a bot doesn't move from the start point it won't do damage, then you can code to look out for imobile no damage players and put out an auto kick vote. If a player goes DC after arriving in zone, put out an auto kick vote after a reasonable time. If you get bots that move around in circles (i seen this, thought it was crazy) then code for that. A quote "if you don't work, you don't eat" so make it so that if the player (under 70 exceptioned) doesn't follow with the group, doesn't attack or work in any manner, then they don't get rewards, or much reduced rewards. The idea is that if you choose to bot your toon, you won't get anything out of it.

chidion

I'm not sure that every possible expectancy for botting can be coded and even then, aren't there also actual players who don't move from the start point until most of the mobs have been dealt with or the content has been completed, go AFK for whatever reason or are disconnected - but they aren't trying to scam the game or the other members of their party?

I personally don't believe botting is as big an issue as some people think, or claim it is... but that's just a guess.

Just because a person appears to be AFK, disconnected, running around in circles of has a low or zero kill score, that doesn't make them a "bot"...

I've been in other parties with speed runners who slaughter everything in sight before slower, less powerful players even get to the area, which has a tendency to give the slower players a low or even zero kill score, even a zero kill score does not make a character a bot.

There was a time recently where our three person party was in the Cloak Tower and one player was a "new player". One player ran ahead (even though my character level and item level was higher), often leaving mobs behind while I stuck with the new player and allowed them to battle most of the mobs, followed them around if they went off track to explore, etc...

In that particular instance I (or the newbie?) was accused of being a bot because we weren't playing like the speed running player thought I should be playing.

I personally know a player who sometimes sits in the same room with me who jumps around and runs in circles while playing, (usually not during or to avoid mob battles), just because a player's character isn't acting like someone else would expect them to, or want them to, that doesn't make the character a bot either.


My point is as far as I know, it is probably difficult (if not impossible) for most of us players to tell for certain whether a character is an actual automaton instead of a real player...

And I'm guessing even people who monitor game content don't have any way of being 100% sure that a character is a bot construct, instead of just a player, so attempting to err on the side of caution they are reluctant to kick anyone out of the game.

I would love to find there was a fool-proof, 100% certainty way of being able to remove bots (and regularly abusive players), but I don't think it's possible, so maybe, currently, what we have is as good as it gets...

For the time being at least.

My 2¢

greywynd

chidion said:

I would love to find there was a fool-proof, 100% certainty way of being able to remove bots (and regularly abusive players), but I don't think it's possible, so maybe, currently, what we have is as good as it gets...

There isn't. The only thing they might possibly do is put a counter of some type on the kick votes against a character/account and then when a threshold is reached lock that character/account out of the queue system completely.

trinity706

athena#9205 said:

so make it so that if the player (under 70 exceptioned) doesn't follow with the group, doesn't attack or work in any manner, then they don't get rewards, or much reduced rewards.

There are bots that are below lvl 70.


There are all kinds of things that can be done to combat bots, simple ones that won't require many resources for the most part.

For instance if CS feels an account is botting RQ's they can send them an in-game mail requesting them to do various things:
"Hello, due to particular activity monitored on your account you are being requested to (CS will choose one or more of the following)
- jump up and down a few times at the start and end of the run for the next "x" queues.
- unequip/equip particular piece(s) of equipment " " ".
- type a particular phrase in chat " " ".
- go to Protector's Enclave and speak with "Insert NPC(s)" "x" times in a row.
- go to a particular zone/area and jump up and down a few times.
- open and close "x" campaign "x" times in a row upon logging into the game for the next "x" days.
- etc.

(the mail could be persistent and automatically show upon logging in and require the player to type "accept" or something before it goes away)

Those type of requests would fail to be completed by a number of bots since those type of things more than likely won't be programmed into the bot. The persistent mail requiring something to be typed in before it goes away will plug a number of bots at least for some time. CS could then review the account and if whatever request(s) are not performed, deem the account is botting and take the appropriate action against the account. If particular requests are performed even if they were not requested (such as after a period of time when bot programmers catch wind of the system) the account could also be considered to be botting as seemingly the requests were programmed in to try and seem legit.

The suggested system may seem trivial though it would require very few resources and performing random acts can stump bots.

chidion

greywynd said:

chidion said:

I would love to find there was a fool-proof, 100% certainty way of being able to remove bots (and regularly abusive players), but I don't think it's possible, so maybe, currently, what we have is as good as it gets...

There isn't. The only thing they might possibly do is put a counter of some type on the kick votes against a character/account and then when a threshold is reached lock that character/account out of the queue system completely.

And if someone disses or attempts to cheat a guild and the guild pushes for their (dozens or hundreds) of guild/alliance members, or a bunch of "friends" to get a player booted from the game by clicking on "kick" every chance they get?

Your suggestion is applicable in theory, but unfortunately too much of an opportunity for abuse as far as I'm concerned.

Again, just my 2¢

greywynd

chidion said:

And if someone disses or attempts to cheat a guild and the guild pushes for their (dozens or hundreds) of guild/alliance members, or a bunch of "friends" to get a player booted from the game by clicking on "kick" every chance they get?

Your suggestion is applicable in theory, but unfortunately too much of an opportunity for abuse as far as I'm concerned.

Again, just my 2¢

Absolutely. It wasn't a suggestion as such, but more of an explanation. People want the game to be programmed to pick out odd input (bots), and yet anything like that being done requires close monitoring, meaning manpower that may not be available for such duty.

athena

just an interesting thought. In the portabello campaign, you often have to have a dialog with some npc to progress to the next stage of the quest. Is that something that can be added to RQs to combat botting ?

trinity706

athena#9205 said:

just an interesting thought. In the portabello campaign, you often have to have a dialog with some npc to progress to the next stage of the quest. Is that something that can be added to RQs to combat botting ?

It most certainly could though "static" functions tend to be easier to program than dynamic ones.

An in-game mail message with instructions essentially "doesn't" directly provide the client/app with information that could be retrieved/read by a bot and then used to return a particular action in-game by the bot but rather would require the bot be able to read the on screen message/syntax and return the appropriate action(s). Yes some could possibly be programmed to read the message/syntax if not already/look for keywords though the arrangement of the instructions can make it that much harder to effectively be programmed.

A portion from a suggestion currently being structured:

"Players who consistently have vote kicks initiated against them/are successfully vote kicked or go AFK/are "disconnected" for "long" periods of time can be flagged internally as a negative player (similar to Xbox live reputation (Xbox Live Reputation). After investigation to determine whether vote kicks/initiations are for legitimate reasons rather than trolling, etc. and if multiple counts are confirmed those accounts then being "more likely" to be placed in a RQ w/other flagged and confirmed negative accounts during the RQ matching process.

- Normal standing
- Needs Improvement
- Problematic
- Negative Player

Flagged accounts can "improve" their standing and regain tiers by consistently and positively participating in RQ's or a considerable amount of time has passed. The system could also effect what instance players pops into when they enter a zone. Players with lower reputation could be corralled into a particular instance(s) to help keep them away from players with normal reputation.

Also if a player with less than normal rep brings up the switch instance menu the list of available instances could be limited to their corresponding rep level:

- Normal standing > any instance with space/full (as currently shown)
- Needs Improvement > 15 or less players
- Problematic > 10 or less
- Negative Player > 5 or less"

With a system like that players can actively participate in promoting a positive environment for others as well as themselves and could reduce the amount of "seeking" staff is inclined to do and or develop systems to try and combat bots/negative players. Bots/negative players will essentially start getting grouped/placed with each other and less likely with positive players. If those accounts don't improve their status in a considerable amount of RQ's/time a suspension/ban can be applied. Players encountering fewer negative players and then those negative players being removed helps twice over.