[swych]

For most sales of private bots it is based on a per user per account basis. This is to say that selling access is generally on the assumption that the user will only run it on the agreed number of sessions. As there is no way to control the number of sessions available (without the use of databases which only very very few are allowed to use) it is hard to accurately limit your private bot sales.

I believe this is an essential feature when selling private bot slots to a lucrative and impactful bot such as pvm bots.

@Arbiter I believe this would be your domain, however @Cloud may have some input too.

 

[arbiter]

There will be no enhancements to private bot support. The only change that will be considered is a full removal. I have yet to hear a legitimate reason to sell a bot as private instead of premium.

 

[wet rag]

There will be no enhancements to private bot support. The only change that will be considered is a full removal. I have yet to hear a legitimate reason to sell a bot as private instead of premium.

Because if i have a telos bot id rather jagex not know that i have a telos bot.... (extremely difficult rs3 boss that gives a lot of money)

 

[arbiter]

Because if i have a telos bot id rather jagex not know that i have a telos bot.... (extremely difficult rs3 boss that gives a lot of money)

If I abstract out the concern from this, it is that a Bot Author is afraid that if Jagex knew a bot existed for a specific task then Jagex would target their bot and try to quash them. To that, I say that that fear is unfounded and that Jagex has always taken a holistic approach to quashing botting by using general purpose methods like heuristic analysis. You are not special enough for them to break that pattern, nor would breaking it make business sense.

 

[swych]

There will be no enhancements to private bot support. The only change that will be considered is a full removal. I have yet to hear a legitimate reason to sell a bot as private instead of premium.

I own a bot that kills a boss in God Wars Dungeon 2. This makes, over a day, an average of 8m per hour. There are multiple reasons as to why I don't want to release this bot as premium, even for 50c/h. It's about protecting the market and restricting the number of people who have access to farming in this market. It's been proven that bots in the past that have been using for farming bosses have been used extensively to a point where there were mass bans.

I understand your viewpoint.

 

[derk]

If I abstract out the concern from this, it is that a Bot Author is afraid that if Jagex knew a bot existed for a specific task then Jagex would target their bot and try to quash them. To that, I say that that fear is unfounded and that Jagex has always taken a holistic approach to quashing botting by using general purpose methods like heuristic analysis. You are not special enough for them to break that pattern, nor would breaking it make business sense.

You forget that there are multiple examples of this happening in the exact way you describe could possibly not happen.

 

[savior]

If you really wanted, you could make a service that keeps track of how many instances someone is running by writing some application that's hosted on a server of yours.

 

[qosmiof2]

i support this.

 

[tyb51]

Support

 

[jhinn]

I fully support this. This would be super beneficial for the reasons you described. I can see myself using this for several bots

 

[auxi]

Considering full removal of the private bot system is a bit silly, that's all I will say on the matter. I do have bots that will never see public light for numerous reasons such as having the capability of bringing in so much gold to the game they could potentially bring down goldprices on their own. And the main reason is honestly just that the bots have such a low banrate I would say it's non-existent. Making them public would ruin it completely and therefore they should be kept private at all costs. Since 30% of all private bot sales is supposed to go to RuneMate, that's a good enough reason to keep the system, imo.

 

[snufalufugus]

The main argument I'm seeing here is that the method is too impactful on the market to release publicly, so selling private access allows you to share it without endangering the game or method. If you're pricing the method for what it is worth, the only people buying private access would be the goldfarmers looking to massively scale up the method. If you're not pricing it like that, you're selling to a friend, and you should trust that person enough to take their word (plus checking usage hours).

Also, you could easily do this already with in-game usernames, and comparing stats between runtimes in managed properties if you REALLY want to prevent abuse.

TL;DR I don't support this

 

[overflow]

If I abstract out the concern from this, it is that a Bot Author is afraid that if Jagex knew a bot existed for a specific task then Jagex would target their bot and try to quash them. To that, I say that that fear is unfounded and that Jagex has always taken a holistic approach to quashing botting by using general purpose methods like heuristic analysis. You are not special enough for them to break that pattern, nor would breaking it make business sense.

Actually they set a precedent with regards to high level PVM a few years ago when they specifically targeted a QBD script.

@OP a simple way of handling this could be to use the java nio api to get a lock on a local file, not sure what Runemate's stance would be on that though

 

[arbiter]

Actually they set a precedent with regards to high level PVM a few years ago when they specifically targeted a QBD script.

@OP a simple way of handling this could be to use the java nio api to get a lock on a local file, not sure what Runemate's stance would be on that though

I wouldn't call that precedent. I would call that an individual breaking rank and going against company policy.

 

[cookie monster]

I know it might be a bit late for another opinion, but if it is to protect the market then I like this. And gives other users to experience using something top notch. Don't put silly kid price tags on it, make it high so only the adults can afford to use it. Also you can always change company policy.

If it is only to make private between some friends then I don't really support this but if your accepting anyone who can afford to buy it then I am all for it.



I hope arbiter atleast considers this.

 

[warren]

Should remain the way it is xd.

 

[cookie monster]

Should remain the way it is xd.

I only realised my opinion might not be on the same track as what OP is asking about. xD

Is that you in your profile? you look very young.

 

[warren]

I only realised my opinion might not be on the same track as what OP is asking about. xD

Is that you in your profile? you look very young.

yeh.

 

[cookie monster]

yeh.

I asked because warren is a boys name.

"Since 1880, a total of 171,783 boys have been given the name Warren while we have no record of any girls being named Warren."

So I assume its your sister or girlfriend or daughter

 

[warren]