Curse

Saint Zeth · Mar 19, 2008, 12:49 AM // 00:49

The update is a step in the right direction, but its not enough to stop bots completely.

Ctb · Mar 19, 2008, 12:50 AM // 00:50

Quote:

Aren't IP bans ineffective to a degree because of dynamic IPs?

Generally speaking the types of people being banned here aren't going to be using a typical residential internet connection. If a single netblock becomes significantly problematic, the pattern of abuse is easily recognized and the entire netblock can quickly be excised.

Quote:

Anyone using a router can change their ip in a few seconds, just by changing the MAC address for the router.

No. Well... sort of.

You can change it by changing your modem's MAC (which it may or may not have picked up from the connected router) and sending a new DHCP request, but most ISPs keep a record of MAC addresses on their network and won't let you on if they don't recognize you.

Quote:

I wonder if I will get banned, my computer is protected by the firewall of my university... Don't know what kind of security they have built in, but for example, I cant Change Wikipedia articles because they cant "see" my IP-adress...

It's impossible to hide the communicating machine's IP address. If nothing else, they can still see your gateway or proxy address and, provided OTHER people behind the gateway aren't causing problems, you won't be in trouble.

I forget the exact mechanism, but HTTP headers provide a way for a proxy to indicate it's forwarding someone else's requests, if the proxy's administrator decides to do so. That's probably what wikipedia is griping about.

shoyon456 · Mar 19, 2008, 12:54 AM // 00:54

Ok, so this was and may still be a large problem, but we are FINALLY once again seeing what anet does best: cater to the community at large

Do more of this instead of pleasing individual groups please anet I beg. Keep doing stuff like this that ALL can be thankful for, instead of continually buffing one class, nerfing another, and making sure signs can be clicked on (and no one even uses them, quest arrows HELLO?!)

So yeah good update, I wish this much effort was put into skill balancing and potential new skills (i can dream)

draxynnic · Mar 19, 2008, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai_razorwind

Wow...way to go Arenanet! The game is *JUST* out for 3 years, and you're already taking measures against something that has been happening since june 2005! Hats off to ya! And maybe while you're at it, why not try to address the real problem, which is that your friggin drop rates suck? Why the heck do you think that people buy ingame gold? *HINT* you've got a "casual" game that rewards heavy farmers.
Thank god you're game developers and not running a country.

Ten plat or so plus the cost of a vigor rune is all you need to outfit a character that can mechanically be the match of any character out there before titles. And starting in Nightfall gives you a minor vigor for free...

Beyond that, it's all vanity items that don't mechanically improve your character. If you're going to point at something that ruins things for the casual gamer, look at title grind, not the economy.

Regarding gold sellers: While they have been around since release, they do seem to have become more obnoxious in their in-game advertising lately.

Lest121 · Mar 19, 2008, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai_razorwind

Wow...way to go Arenanet! The game is *JUST* out for 3 years, and you're already taking measures against something that has been happening since june 2005! Hats off to ya! And maybe while you're at it, why not try to address the real problem, which is that your friggin drop rates suck? Why the heck do you think that people buy ingame gold? *HINT* you've got a "casual" game that rewards heavy farmers.
Thank god you're game developers and not running a country.

That's because ANET is Slow.

Shayne Hawke · Mar 19, 2008, 01:04 AM // 01:04

I'm not really feeling how effective this will be. I'm glad that they at least show some sign of realizing that this is getting way out of hand, but just slapping a sticker on it and saying "we don't like this" doesn't really seem like it's doing much.

samcobra · Mar 19, 2008, 01:08 AM // 01:08

Bots make money for ANET. Just keep banning them and forcing them to buy new accounts.

VanDamselx · Mar 19, 2008, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Remove Lewt Skaling!

Stockholm · Mar 19, 2008, 01:15 AM // 01:15

The Bot's finaly made the BIG MISTAKE

Quote:

Bots farming RA for Zaishen Keys

They stepped in to the the Dev's "favorit child" territory and they decided to act.
Don't mess with the PvP area or you get the nerfbat around your ears.

VitisVinifera · Mar 19, 2008, 01:17 AM // 01:17

yeah day late a dollar short, I'm chalking this up to being a test run for GW 2. These sorts of things should be easily adaptable to bigger and better things in the future.

fusa · Mar 19, 2008, 01:20 AM // 01:20

Quote:

No. Well... sort of.

You can change it by changing your modem's MAC (which it may or may not have picked up from the connected router) and sending a new DHCP request, but most ISPs keep a record of MAC addresses on their network and won't let you on if they don't recognize you.

Changing the mac address in your router's MAC Address Clone configuration page will change your ip adress. You would need to reboot the modem and router for this change to occur. At least this works with Road Runner, Comcast, and a couple of other smaller isp's. If you change the mac address of the modem, most likely the isp will not recongnize you and refuse connection.

Tom Swift · Mar 19, 2008, 01:23 AM // 01:23

24 hours before new account can trade?

The first few hours for a new user determines whether they will continue or not - I don't see that blocking trade is going to do anything other than convince new users this game is not for them.

As to bots - they will simply begin creating accounts and then waiting 24 hours to use that specific account - it won't slow them down as they will use a day old account while the 24 hours runs on the newly created ones. It's not like they only use one account at a time.

totally useless.

fusa · Mar 19, 2008, 01:33 AM // 01:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Swift

24 hours before new account can trade?

The first few hours for a new user determines whether they will continue or not - I don't see that blocking trade is going to do anything other than convince new users this game is not for them.

As to bots - they will simply begin creating accounts and then waiting 24 hours to use that specific account - it won't slow them down as they will use a day old account while the 24 hours runs on the newly created ones. It's not like they only use one account at a time.

totally useless.

...and while they wait the 24 hours A-net has detected the fraudulent credit card information used to buy the account and banned it.

Esan · Mar 19, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockholm

They stepped in to the the Dev's "favorit child" territory and they decided to act.
Don't mess with the PvP area or you get the nerfbat around your ears.

Take your Anet-can-do-no-right blinders off and appreciate a good change for what it is. Hardly the time for paranoid rambling on the importance of Pv{P,E} over the other.

Unreal Havoc · Mar 19, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Swift

24 hours before new account can trade?

The first few hours for a new user determines whether they will continue or not - I don't see that blocking trade is going to do anything other than convince new users this game is not for them.

At least it gets rid of players begging for 50g to open storage in Shing Jea when they can literally spend not even a minute doing the henchman quest and get it themselves by selling the XP scroll obtained from the quartermaster as a reward for the Monastery Credit given.

24 hours isn't really a big deal. If you can't wait 24 hours to trade an item in a videogame you just started (when you probably know little about trading anyway and will more than likely be concentrating on levelling up) then you are seriously impatient.

MarlinBackna · Mar 19, 2008, 02:17 AM // 02:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai_razorwind

Wow...way to go Arenanet! The game is *JUST* out for 3 years, and you're already taking measures against something that has been happening since june 2005! Hats off to ya! And maybe while you're at it, why not try to address the real problem, which is that your friggin drop rates suck? Why the heck do you think that people buy ingame gold? *HINT* you've got a "casual" game that rewards heavy farmers.

In comparison to WoW which has been out for longer and just last month came out with their "RMT is bad, mkay?" press. Did Blizzard actually do anthing? Not to my knowledge....and they freakin' pay for their game monthly.
I don't think drop rates suck. In fact, I think the main reason why GW's economy is so bad off is that too many weapons drop period (from whites to golds). Money isn't that hard to come by in GW (this coming from a currently poor person).

Quote:

Bots make money for ANET. Just keep banning them and forcing them to buy new accounts.

You obviously don't know how bots work. They almost never pay for accounts, whether it be through fraudulent credit cards or account stealing through keyloggers, botters get accounts for free. Otherwise, banning 1000 a week would be a death blow to them.

The Meth · Mar 19, 2008, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

* We are adding the ability to block certain IP addresses from the game. In the coming days and weeks, we will be using this capability to block addresses of RMT companies that heavily abuse the game.

* We are also adding code to detect and block IP addresses that are running an open proxy, so that players cannot mask their real IP address by connecting to the game through an open proxy.

Good job. Anyone who is actually trying to sell gold will obviously know how easy it is to get a new IP (remember, these are people who make a living doing this, they aren't retarded). And if you aren't very careful you will end up banning dynamic ip's which can cause problems for paying customers.

Quote:

* To combat a growing problem with account fraud, newly created accounts are now restricted from trading with other players within the first 24 hours after account creation. Please see today’s Dev Update for more information on this change.

Could prove useful in the cases in which false credit card information is used.

Why is anet wasting their manpower on futilely trying to stop gold sellers, who only hurt the uber rich people who need to have stacks of armbraces to feel happy? Honestly, even the "were working on GW2" excuse pleases me more then this. At best nothing will change, at worst you may hurt your own players.

Esan · Mar 19, 2008, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Meth

Why is anet wasting their manpower on futilely trying to stop gold sellers [...]?

Why have clauses in the EULA if they shall never be enforced?

Aera Lure · Mar 19, 2008, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Its a little curious to try and combat this now after not having done it for so long. The only thing I can think of is its a test for GW2.

I'm not sure its enough, but it is a step in the right direction, so it is commendable.

The Meth · Mar 19, 2008, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

Why have clauses in the EULA if they shall never be enforced?

All EULA's are basically a collection of things that need not be enforced, but are put in just in case the company has a problem and needs an excuse to terminate your account.

Have you ever heard of anet banning people for any of these reasons:

An account owner being under the age of 18? (I started my account when I was 16, guess I should be banned)
Having character name resembling the real name of any person, company or trademark? (also applies to guild names)
Not keeping updated account information? (I've changed my email multiple times, ban me again!)
Banning people who bought a new account after already being banned on their first? (Anet actually encourages this, lol)

As stated in the EULA:

NC Interactive reserves the right to enforce any or all of these rules at its sole discretion.

I'm saying that the method they are using to enforce these rules shows a lack of good discretion.