Bots in Blockchain Games : The sooner it is addressed the better for the Game Ecosystem

avatar

Botting is likely The single most controversial topic when it comes to blockchain games. And mostly in favor of botting are, well...the Botters. Don't take my word for it...go the most successful blockchain game on HIVE so far Splinterlands and ask their thousands of players. The very recent ugliness with a major bot owner is not unknown to anyone who keeps up to date with what's happening around.

But....it's allowed. Speaking strictly by the rules, it is completely legal...but that is not enough to stop either me or thousands of other players on Splinterlands from disliking bots. Same applies to Rabona, except we don't have thousands of players, yet. Soon though! ;)

I don't think I need to go on and address why botting is controversial, but when someone regards botting as the same thing as manual intellect...I think I should address that, especially when it's directed directly at me.

Full Disclosure : I was the one who initiated it :)

But as dada says, if you leave the stage empty, the stage won't stay empty. Someone will take the stage. Rabona is still in the early days and there is already some major dissent regarding bots. But because we are in the early days, there can still be a fix and it was pleasant to see that this one thing we all agreed on.

So when I publicly decided to speak about my dissent towards bots created by Emre (very good bots by the way...quite strong so no doubt about the good work there), he gave the following explanation :

here is a good summary:

- simplifylife exploits the formation mechanic and wins championships. (checks opponents' formation from blockchain then sets a counter-formation just before the game)

- emrebeyler codes a bot doing the same thing.

- emrebeyler wins championships

- simplifylife is mad at the game and quits 

So basically he just falsely accused me of exploiting, without doing his proper research or without even understanding what he was saying because only a little bit of common sense into thinking would be enough as to why his logic is wrong. But it was pretty, pretty late last nigh so I'll give him a pass on that for now, I guess. But I will address the issues and clarify my stand here.

1

emrebeyler codes a bot doing the same thing.

Yes, I change formation in the last minute in "certain specific" (coming back to this in point number 2) matches and even in doing so, I HAVE NO IDEA what my opponent is doing at the same time. In changing formations what I am doing is simply speculating on what my opponent MIGHT be doing. The fact is I HAVE NO IDEA what they are doing and there is no way in hell to find out exactly what they did until AFTER THE MATCH IS ALREADY DONE because the explorer shows transactions 1 minute after the transaction has been completed.

Now ask yourself, does this apply to your bot?
a. Your bot know EXACTLY what the opponent is doing
b. Your bot knows IMMEDIATELY what the opponent is doing

So to conclude to your point quoted above, Not the same thing!

2

simplifylife exploits the formation mechanic and wins championships.

checks opponents' formation from blockchain then sets a counter-formation just before the game

I change formation last minute in "some" games against "specific" players. Why? Because I know for a fact these specific teams have done it to me in the past and continue to do so. There are 3 players specifically (besides the bot) who I need to watch my back against...the fact that at some point these 3 players owned 8 out of the 16 LoC teams is none of my business. One of the 3 is actually a very good friend of mine and we enjoy our little tussles before the games...and after the game we will go and congratulate the one who came out on top.

Knowing someone is poisoning my water and not drinking the anti-venom is stupid, no? You have not been in the LoC for as long as I have been. So before you go on and accuse me of EXPLOITING something, I'd say go do your research...read up on ALL my matches since season 4 (That's when I have started playing the LoC) and then tell me if I am EXPLOITING or simply staying cautious and RESPONDING to having my ass handed to me by these last minute changes by certain teams in the first place.

Again, not saying the teams that have changed formations in the last minute has done anything out of the rules, just saying I will keep watching my back in those certain games. If ALL teams comes to a general consensus that we will not do these last minute changes anymore, I will stop along with them...EVEN IF IT STAYS ALLOWED. I don't need rules to tell me what is right.

The rules are not always right :))

I have enough experience in my small medical career when rules have often gone against my ethics regarding what is best for my patients. So pardon me for not being a Rule book Fanboy :))

3

Similar to how you don't see yourself posting your scoreline as bragging, I also didn't see me as attacking you. Now that I have slept over it and think of it now, I was rude in my approach. I apologize for the way I said stuff last night. I'll never stop admitting my mistakes when it's pointed out correctly. So attacking you...? Yes, my mistake. Exploiting the game...? Never in hell!


As things calmed down a bit later on, Emre made some really good points. I'm quoting them here :

If I won't bot it, somebody else will bot it.
maybe there are already more people

we're in early stages
if bots are a problem, let's solve it
it's better to solve it early then 1 year later

We understand the game DEVs are a bit overworked at the moment and are focused more on getting the tournaments out at the moment. But as Emre said, this is an issue that needs to fixed sooner than later. We all enjoy the game and I'm sure none of us wants to be in the middle of a Splinterlands-like showdown on Rabona. We have clear examples of what can happen if not addressed soon, we need to all agree on learning from the mistakes and try to find a solution if there is one...or to at least limit Bot advantage to a fair extent to the point that it is not a cause of dissent among the users.

The major issue this season

So one thing that needs fixing straightaway is the formation submission time discrepancy. There have been multiple occasions where the bot's team submission at a given time was accepted but players who submitted manually....their submissions didn't count. This is the major beginning point of discontentment among the players. Emre's teams has botted for a few seasons now...but the issue has become a big problem this season only because of this discrepancy in formation submitting time.

Exploring further options

Once the time issue gets fixed, that will give the game devs a breathing space to think about further options for a linger term solution. Else the complains regarding this will keep flooding in. we understand Tim is a bit busy with his life right now, but we hope once he gets the time to, this will be the first thing on his to-do list.

Further options that has been suggested

  • Not Revealing formations before match
  • Removing/decreasing Formation advantage
  • Different formation submitting times for home and away teams

There are certain Pros and Cons of all which continues to be discussed in excruciating details over at the Rabona Discord. One this I was thinking was whether adding a Captcha for submitting teams could be a solution. I have no idea really if that is feasible.

But while we explore further solutions, the issue at hand needs to be addressed ASAP.


P.S. : A lot of these have been discussed on discord..but I think these are important discussions that should stay on chain rather than on discord.

End of Post Signature.png

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta



0
0
0.000
36 comments
avatar

a. Your bot know EXACTLY what the opponent is doing
b. Your bot knows IMMEDIATELY what the opponent is doing

If a bot could know this then a human relying on a better tool than the explorer could know the same thing, right?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Right, only there is no better tool than explorer.

Secondly, transactions on the hive blockchain takes 6 seconds to broadcast, the bots responds within 3 seconds. So no matter what better tool is created the bot keeps getting the 3 second advantage.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

there is no better tool than explorer.

But there is. A bot.

To be fair, I don't have anything vested in this controversy — but from a distance it seems like this is inherent in the structure of the game, and I think that's the point @emrebeyler was getting at in your summary. Even if there were some off-point nuances I think the gist of his argument holds.

Except where a game is specifically designed to exclude it (e.g. Captcha), automated play will just make sense.

In the long run I predict we're going to have plenty of both types of games (or leagues within games), based on humans with different definitions of fun.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

No, his argument doesn't hold.

Yes, what he is doing is legal. No, what he is doing is not the same as doing it manually. You'd have to play the game yourself to understand. If not, you're just making a statement based on assumption without testing the actual fact. That is a dangerous thing to do and ignites further controversy.

But there is. A bot.

As I've stated clearly, bots being allowed doesn't stop me hating it...that's my moral stand. So this logic will not move me from my moral stand. But I see your point.

I think that's the point @emrebeyler was getting at in your summary.

He was just angry (rightfully so) for me attacking him personally and just wanted to accuse me of something, which is false. Again,, not something you can fairly judge from a distance :)

EDIT:

Except where a game is specifically designed to exclude it (e.g. Captcha), automated play will just make sense.

Automated play was not the problem. As stated clearly in the post, the problem began this season only where the bot was being able to submit teams after the match has begun but humans were not. That is UNFAIR.

For example a match starts at 8:16:03. If the bot submits a team at 8:16:06 or even upto 09 seconds, it gets accepted. For humans it didn't count. We have tons of evidence on the blockchain itself. I'd give you a few screenshots, but I'm busy at the moment.

0
0
0.000
avatar

if a bot can submit after a game has started, so can a human. it is a blockchain game. maybe cutoff times need to be adjusted a bit, but that doesn't seem to be a botting problem.

0
0
0.000
avatar

if a bot can submit after a game has started, so can a human

That should have been the ideal case, but because that didn't happen, it was annoying to most users. I can personally confirm you it happened to me twice. One time my team was not accepted at 09 seconds but the bot's was in the right next or a few games later.

Just a day before the final day of the season the bot submitted at 06 seconds which counted and it didn't count for me at 06 seconds which in the end turned out to be the title decider. So that is UNFAIR. All the evidence is on the chain.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

So basically he just falsely accused me of exploiting, without doing his proper research

This is not a false accusation. The initial version of the bot was not reactive, and I saw you beat me by changing your formation in the last minutes before the cutoff time. So you were the inspiration for my bot's latest version.

I really don't want to get into this bots vs humans drama. So, I'd be happy if you don't mention my name in future posts.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

This is not a false accusation.

On second thought, let's keep things civil. if you say that you didn't exploit the game like this, I would like to believe in you. Sorry about the misinterpretation on my side, maybe I don't remember it well.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Cheers.

I really don't want to get into this bots vs humans drama. So, I'd be happy if you don't mention my name in future posts.

Fair enough.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Just curious because I have started Rabona recently and do see alot of bots there. They are ok to do because you can do them?
And secondly when we all watch football in real life, changing formations to counter an opponents one is not exploiting. It's strategy.
I don't like bots being in the game because its not a human being pitting themselves with me. I actually don't like the immersion factor of it.
I like the game mind you. It slow but in depth enough for me to bounce in and out of.

0
0
0.000
avatar

They are ok to do because you can do them?

Right, botting is allowed not only in Rabona...but essentially in every blockchain game. Bots can not essentially be banned because then that goes against consensus of the chain.

I don't like bots being in the game because its not a human being pitting themselves with me.

Well there are a lot of reasons a lot of us do not like bots, but it is allowed and can not be banned. So they will stay which is fine and we all accept it. The only thing the game needs to ensure is that the bot is not getting unfair advantages like being able to submit teams after the allocated time.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is a thought provoking post, doc. I think it reaches out beyond Rabona to most blockchain games. I think we both agree that blockchain games WILL have bots. This is simply because, there is not enough human players. This is a fact.

That being said, we saw what mis used of bots can do to Splinterlands, and how it was handled, I would argue quite effectively. Any game runs of balance of rules, and proper distribution of in-game wealth.

I think our cumulative suggestions will address this problem in a effective way. From my point of view, I see a lot of blockchain players/developers do not have a long term vision. This is an endemic problem. It should be our constant effort to think about the greater good of the blockchain. We need to make any/all games more appealing to the masses, so that people play more. People use more, enjoy more and use this blockchain as much as possible.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Absolutely dada. There will be bots and that's fine. Even splinterlands still has bots but see how the complains about bots has gone down to zero. That should be the ideal balance....bots can and will exist, without any "unfair" advantage. Bots will have certain advantages, that's a given, but as long as it's not unfair we don't really have any problem.

Even regarding the issue at hand, rabona, there has been botting for a while now and it's an issue only now because of the unfarness in the timing. Once that gets fixed, I'm sure we'll move forward.

Splinterlands is indeed set the standard and showed a resilient way to handle bots, there's lessons to be taken from there.

From my point of view, I see a lot of blockchain players/developers do not have a long term vision

This needs fixing and the way is to stop looking at blockchain games as "money making games." I know it's hard to ignore that when there's an opportunity to make money, but playing for the fun of playing is healthier for any ecosystem.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well, playing Rock-Paper-Scissors via posting moves in plain text on blockchain is a bad idea.
Having a RPS element in the blockchain game is fine, but you should implement it carefully.
Devs underestimated it and learnt the hard way. There will be a fix. Sounds standard to me.

Drama is not created by bots. Drama is created when people that have a personal sets of rules/guidelines are sour about other people not following them.

Fortunately, the game is not centered around drama and the discord is cool 29 days a month.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Drama is not created by bots. Drama is created when people that have a personal sets of rules/guidelines are sour about other people not following them.

If you bothered to read the post you would know that "existence" of bots is not the issue, neither is my standard of what is right or wrong. Quoting myself :

There have been multiple occasions where the bot's team submission at a given time was accepted but players who submitted manually....their submissions didn't count.

This is from a comment I wrote earlier.

For example a match starts at 8:16:03. If the bot submits a team at 8:16:06 or even upto 09 seconds, it gets accepted. For humans it didn't count.

If the same times were accepted for both the bots and manual submission, it's all fine. I'm not stupid. Bots will exist.

And the remaining of the issues is between Emre and I on a personal level, nothing to do anything else.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I do not think you need to insult people that bother to comment on your posts.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not insulting...but the "personal standard and getting sour" seemed like a clear jab at me. If not, apologies.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I might be guilty of the same approach, thinking the consensus among Rabona veterans would be I read too much, so that is why it felt like a cheap shot.

As for my post, I was bashing the practice of turning Open Beta gameplay into personal issues. Your reply insisted on doing it with Emre, which is fine, I am not involved. I cannot tell if my stance bothers you or not, I am not involved either.

Jab at you? I do not know. It is a comment on something you do, but others do it too. I do it by definition because I cannot prevent anyone from being offended by my post. You draw the line.

The reason I was bashing it under this post is basically lack of other opportunities as I have been in the spotlight on previous RBN-related occasions. No intention to pick on you.

Honestly, I adressed people standing outside. I left feedback for the devs at the appropriate place and any direct feedback for the protagonists felt unsolicited. Hope this clears it up.

0
0
0.000
avatar

See Jelly, I had this discussion with you previously and I remember this very, very vividly that I cleared up that my personal moral standards does not have to "make" you do anything as long as the thing is allowed. Multi accounting is allowed, botting is allowed. Period.

I have not for one single time asked you "Hey jelly, stop multi accounting." Yes, I don't like it...but I don't understand why that would concern you. Similarly botting is allowed and I have not for once to emre "Hey emre, stop botting." Yes, I don't like it too.

But guess what! Last time I checked, having moral standards is also allowed. You may not like it, but it's allowed. So similar to how you may not like something that is allowed, I and everyone else too is allowed to not like something that is allowed.

We are all adults and we can all have our personal POVs, no need to go calling people sour and stuff unless I'm specifically telling you stop doing something that is allowed but doesn't match my moral standards.

So this is why it felt like a jab.

But if you say this is not something personal and just a misunderstanding, I am going to take your word for it. You are a valuable member of the community and despite having our differences (which is 100% fine, no one is same), we should establish mutual respect and the end goal is the same for everyone....advancement of the game and the blockchain in general.

Cheers.

0
0
0.000
avatar

We discussed stuff in a quiet corner of Discord. I am glad you made Rabona appear on the Hive trending page again. When you take your play to the big stage you cannot ask the rest of the cast to stay home.

But guess what! Last time I checked, having moral standards is also allowed. You may not like it, but it's allowed. So similar to how you may not like something that is allowed, I and everyone else too is allowed to not like something that is allowed.

This is not the way to estabilish mutual respect, so I am fine with my current strategy of keeping distance.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Fine by me if you wanna keep distance, I can respect your choice but this was not how you keep distance :

Drama is not created by bots. Drama is created when people that have a personal sets of rules/guidelines are sour about other people not following them.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I see some good discussion here and I talked to @simplifylife about this and also to @emrebeyler about his great bot work - a role model, if i would have the skills I probably would do the same.

Here only comes my soccer heart in place and that i am not a a guy that wants to lose, especially not in soccer :-).

I totally appreciate we have an open discussion on that one as it shows we are more than just the folks in LoC that are interested to make this game successful - I will comment with a bit more thinking tomorrow.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I agree, and I also like to have an open discussion about this. I feel this is good both for the publicity and the balance of mechanics of the game. Blockchain games will have bots, that's a fact. There is not enough players otherwise. It is important to have control over them and make sure, that they do not have any special advantage. I am not personally as invested in the game as many of you. But I had situations were the bot did something that was not in the rulebook. We discussed it, and hopefully solved it. That is the way it should happen.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes absolutely, open discussions are essential. The game is still new and no one has a clear idea yet as to what direction we are headed. The DEVs sure have a road map planned...but there will be hiccups and it is essential that the players are incorporated in the decision making. This is what I really like about Tim and Oli that they have always been open to suggestions from the players.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Elindos here, I wanted to contribute a bit.

I think @jelly13 is getting everything right in his comment.
I try to cover that point in my last section.

Also, I think there is a bit of namecalling in this post, which I believe is not contributing to the global argument. You can name Emre once, it's ok! but no need to insist on that part.

(very good bots by the way...quite strong so no doubt about the good work there)

I have to tell you that making a formations bot - auto-checking the accounts in your league, opening their blockchain profile, checking their submission - is a few hours work.

Not a minor issue as it can scale

The problem is scalable and there is no presence of "absolute hacker skills" involved here, as I think Emre would also completely agree by the way. As a developer, he knows what he was doing and that it will take a few hours time and be done and was better and less stressful than doing that as a human.

I refuse to do it as I believe it would hurt the game more but it's not being any better, as I also think doing it as a human is all wrong.

If Rabona had more players there would be more of that. Because it makes sense that it's a chore as a human to check blockchain profiles.

In truth, posting a page and script to allow any player to do that for his account is also possible. Just that with current active players, it would be one bot vs one bot very quickly, defeating the advantage, so it has no purpose either.

You do not have much to put against Emre - although it's not fairplay, doing that as a human is also not good. A bot scales the 'not good' effect. But having to do that was the wrong thing in the first place.

He reacted to that accordingly. So instead of moving the point against that aspect, the argument should rather focus, in my opinion, to the global issue involved.

The problem is not with anyone; no player is to blame here

The real problem is not in someone.
It's not in "persons" doing anything wrong.

  • Checking the blockchain profile of someone should not even be a requirement. We can understand that doing that is a chore.

  • This is not a soccer manager gameplay, or activity. It should not be part of the game vision. Yet, the game almost puts it as a requirement to win.

  • This is a huge game design problem: the RPS system (rock paper scissors) should never, ever, even be involved in a PVP game where information is also put public on the blockchain.

Now that it is mentioned, let's consider this to zoom at the issue:

This turned the game into a real time strategy game of rock paper scissors, which is played on hiveblocks by checking the blockchain profile, and pushing the counter, and hoping the other does not do the same as you do.

Yes, we are a bit forced to do it: because this is exactly where victory or defeat is played at the moment (especially once in league 1). So this is where "the game was decided to be".

Emre reacted to this alarm by making a bot. Others reacted to this alarm by protesting, or no longer playing, or both. Others continue to do it, but because they have to I think. I opted yesterday to stop playing my test account and deliver some feedback that I hope will be constructive.

I could imagine a world where I put devs skills to help the rabona team set up the encrypted version of this, were I not involved in a game myself.

However the second issue is that I don't even believe a rock paper scissor system should exist here.

Formations should be chosen according to your players, their positions, their talents, and there should be no hardcoded formation advantage... at all!

The point I want to put forward is that simulation should do that naturally.

When you say that in real life, soccer managers choose a formation to defeat another, well that's because in real life the players and the team and the ball itself is played by the 'real life simulation' and do that. You pick a formation which allows your players to be at a position and coverage that acts well. And acts well versus the other player individual talents and coverage, and the collective team.

Rabona can behave the same way, there is no reason for hardcoded formation advantage; only players playing at their position should do that, versus the other players. Simulation should do that naturally.

Also, as a game developer myself, I respect other Hive developers for their hard work. If they have a vision, and they believe it fits, then why not. My disagreement is of no importance.

If I find something is wrong, I thought I should stick to my game. Any mention I would have, would not be of help. If there are other visions to have, they could exist in other games.

But here, I step up only to voice something aiming for a betterment of it. The betterment of any hive game is doing good to hive games.

I join up @jelly13 on this.
I think this can end up constructively with some support.

My EXODE players are needing me so I won't speak often :) sorry for the long message here. I hope it does help in moving in the right direction.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I agree with almost everything you said and that wasn't even the problem in the first place.

Emre reacted to this alarm by making a bot. Others reacted to this alarm by protesting

No one reacted to existence of bot. This was quite clearly mentioned in the post which you are entirely choosing to ignore...and so did jelly. So I also don't agree with

I think jelly13 is getting everything right in his comment.

AGAIN FOR ONE FINAL TIME, this is where the main problem is

Emre's teams has botted for a few seasons now...but the issue has become a big problem this season only because of this discrepancy in formation submitting time.

No one has a problem with bots, no one has a problem with multi accounts. Both you and jelly ignored this crucial detail....which is why we will keep going in circles. Which is why I think jelly was slightly out of line to pin this on "people having moral standard and getting sour."

Whether we like them or not that is entirely our choice. I am not going to let either you or jelly tell me what I can and can not like. As long as I'm not telling you to stop, I am well within my bounds. I am not telling anyone to stop botting, I am not telling anyone to stop multi account.

So where are we disagreeing...? Because everything else you said in your comment, I agree with completely. For example

I have to tell you that making a formations bot - auto-checking the accounts in your league, opening their blockchain profile, checking their submission - is a few hours work.

No doubt in my mind.

The problem is not with anyone; no player is to blame here

Again, I agree...it was an issue with the game's time acceptance and we took it up with the game devs already.

Basically except the couple of points I addressed to, I agree with everything else you said.

You can name Emre once, it's ok!

That's exactly what I did. And the "namecalling" isn't even to say his botting is wrong, it's just to address the false accusations made against me in response to me attacking him first. Both of us decided to move on from that and consider it as a misunderstanding between us. And he does not want to get involved in this anymore, so I am going to respect that and not bring him into further arguments.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hello @simplylife , I did not want to imply that there were things against you in my post.

It's true that by implying that I agreed with jelly13 's opinion, that could refer to several specific comments, so I can help now to sort out. I had this part in mind:

Well, playing Rock-Paper-Scissors via posting moves in plain text on blockchain is a bad idea.
Having a RPS element in the blockchain game is fine, but you should implement it carefully.
Devs underestimated it and learnt the hard way. There will be a fix. Sounds standard to me.

... as I totally agree with this section.

From the post you wrote, there were the (1) (2) (3) sections that I specifically felt were reporting something less global (and more a reply to emre discussion on Rabona's discord) than the issue at hand (the RPS system and what it caused as a consequence).

I really wanted to take the issue to the source (the RPS posted publicly on blockchain in my opinion) to address the situation properly, so that's the reason I may have ignored some sections from your original post (including the 123 but maybe some other things too), to focus on what I wanted to put in focus (the RPS).

I would believe it's a normal conversation attitude (I could not address "everything" so I picked a topic... and still ended up with a long comment :D ) but hey, take strength knowing it's because I felt there was only one enemy: the RPS system!

(ok, I believe it's clear now to know what I don't like :D )

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ah, you were referring to the rps part of jelly's comment. Yes I agree with that part too. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

Regarding the sections, yes it was less global. It could have been just written in one humongous paragraph, but for the sake of clarity in addressing two different issues raised, dividing sections seemed the better option. This was just a simple writer's choice of style, no intention to repeatedly insist on something.

Back to the RPS, yes. I have been among the very first few to raise questions regarding this but right it just seems a bit difficult to implement with the game devs being a bit overworked. But we still think fixing this might be the eventual solution.

In the meantime, there was a temporary fix implemented to remove "unfair" bot advantage...meaning the submission time is the same for everyone now. So on my part, it's all cool with bots for now :))

Again, appreciate you dropping by and loved your inputs!

Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Just a little more to add....having already said I agree with almost everything you said, I was re-reading and I really, really liked this :

Rabona can behave the same way, there is no reason for hardcoded formation advantage; only players playing at their position should do that, versus the other players. Simulation should do that naturally.

This would give this a more realistic feel. Although I have no dev knowledge...but i am assuming for this solution, instead of taking the average team formation stat into consideration, this will take individual formation stat values, yes? That is something pretty exciting and will add a whole new dynamic to the game.

But then, I have no idea how complicated implementing this would be.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Real life managers are assisted by both computers and full-time employees collecting and processing all the info.

RPS formation advantage might be an arcade way but in my opinion it is what makes the game playable and enjoyable as a game (as opposed to a gaming industry job). I did not win my two titles with Archon S.C. by following stats of 250 players taking part in LoC games. I won them as a result of a decision I had made a few seasons earlier when everyone went full 4231 to max-exploit npc-teams. Some people realised they need to go full 442 to exploit this and I happened to be step ahead going half-442-half-451 early enough to exploit everyone. It was fun, it allowed PoB and it was unrealistic when viewed as a real world simulation attempt.

BTW, the difference in stats of LoC defenders and LoC forwards is much smaller than people expect (whether the experience is based on RL or other games). This could be an unexpected challenge for designing a no formation-exp advantage system.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think Splinterland's favoured bot (not like that they ignored it and it become a problem.) They are happy that human player always have someone to play. They are becoming number of dapp also as it do not measure the bot transaction versus human transaction.

But Rabona do not need bots like SL team needed ( as rabona is not real time game) but can we avoid them?

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

but can we avoid them?

No we can't avoid them. Bots will always be there. But we can surely try to make sure that it's a fair playing ground for everyone, bots, humans. As long as that is ensured, bots can exist just like human players.

The devs are trying to find solutions, so let's hope they can come up with something that will only take the game forward.

0
0
0.000
avatar

First of all, thank you to everybody for the controversial yet insightful discussion.
My view on bots is relatively simple: I think they are not good for a game in the long run, but I would not want to use technics such as captcha etc which would require users to use the official UI. This would be against the spirit of a blockchain game.
At the moment, there is a problem in the sense that a bot has an unfair advantage as it can react in the last second - which is difficult to achieve manually - and also very inconvenient, especially during night time.
When I designed Rabona I thought about bots quite a bit - and I actually did think about this here as well. My initial idea was that it can be changed when it becomes an issue - and this is clearly what has happened now.
I think the solution going forward will go in the following direction:
The formation is no longer sent in an unencrypted way but instead will be sent encrypted with a nonce. This nonce will be added to the transaction son - encrypted with the public key of the game.
The backend will then decrypt the formation and save it.
When the game is played, the game details will include the nonce so that everybody can check that the formation was valid.
I think this should work well, even though it involves some other problems such as the API, which needs to output the formation also in an encrypted way.
Overall, this might take a little while, but I am sure that we will get this problem sorted.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes, completely understand your stand on why you don't want to take a hard anti-bot route. Bots will continue to exist in blockchain games....so as long as it's a fair playing ground for everyone, I think it's all cool!

We gotta come together from time to time to talk about controversial topics ;) It's an essential step in moving forward.

0
0
0.000
avatar

shoot!!!, i didn't know we can use bots in Splinterlands game man. Thanks for the post. I learned a lot dud

0
0
0.000