[noblefrenzy]

Y'all missing the point that users are using more than 1 premium bot. If a user desires to bot for 3 hours per day, he pays 3*30*~0.08=$7.20. On other platforms, where bots cost a monthly price, he has to buy a month of botting for each bot he wants to use. So even if a bot only costs $5/m which is fairly low, he has to pay $20+ just in order to use like 4 different bots.

now your missing my point that im talking about a single premium bot not mutliple its probably even more if their using another premium bot idk
but i really dont want to do the math to find out how much it will take a player just botting 3 hours a day to get to their 99 skill

 

[patcolez]

It is very clear that people have a problem with the way the payments are being handled at the moment. One glare at the discussion forum will confirm this. People have the feeling they are losing credits at a much faster rate due to this way of handling, and they are right. This payment method of working with sessions AND time is absolute nonsense. Just give people the option to pay for much shorter time intervals.

 

[savior]

Sounds lazy to me, but okay.

Oh boy if you only knew how much time the executives and others spent on enhancing runemate lately.... They are dedicating their time to actual problems and new features instead of fixing a pseudo issue.

Well we're all frustrated that we're paying for bottime we can't use. Hours. Not minutes.

Thats the point, you CAN use he time youre paying for, if you are interrupting the session prematurily thats your problem.
 

now your missing my point that im talking about a single premium bot not mutliple its probably even more if their using another premium bot idk
but i really dont want to do the math to find out how much it will take a player just botting 3 hours a day to get to their 99 skill

Casuals dont just bot to 99, they bot here and there whenever they have stuff to do.
Going for a 99 just with botting is pretty bold.
Also with a monthly payment, users would be constantly stressing themselves not to waste any time of their month they paid for and will bot excessively, leading to a ban, instead of taking their time.

 

[justcurious]

Having such a flowing concept would be ridiculously painful to implement and maintain. If you want a flowing system analog to time passing, dynamically scaling with the amount of sessions you have active, would require the time to be updated every second or so which is going to use a hell of a lot more processing power on the servers.

Bots are all cloud-based, yeah?

Pseudo-code:

<upon bot start reported to server>
//assuming they have time-credit from a previous session, or credit was purchased upon starting the bot
int bottimeremaining = loadbottimeremainingfromdatabase(userID, botID);

int timestamp1 = generatetimestamp();

while (botrunning){
    //only bother checking once a minute. Someone getting away with 59 seconds of botting extra is negligible. 5% of our billing period is 3 minutes anyway, so we could up this more to reduce server load if we're running on a toaster.
    thread.sleep(60000);
 
    int timestamp2 = generatetimestamp();
    int runtime = timestamp2 - timestamp1
 
    //check to see if bot has been running longer than the amount of time they've purchased
    if (runtime >= bottimeremaining){
        //set bottimeremaining to 0 or negative number so we can back-bill for that 59 seconds.
        bottimeremaining = bottimeremaining - runtime;

        //try to purchase more time
        int bottimeremaining = bottimeremaining + billingprocedure();

        //return error code if we're out of funds
        if (bottimeremaining <= 0) {
            <out of funds error handling>
        }
     
        //Reset our timer after purchasing more time
        int timestamp1 = generatetimestamp();
    }
}
//bot has now either stopped or disconnected

//calculate how much time-credit they have remaining at session end
int runtime = timestamp2 - timestamp1
bottimeremaining = bottimeremaining - runtime;

//perform write to disk
writebottimeremainingtodatabase(userID, botID);

I only have a cursory knowledge of java and no java IDE. I wrote this in notepad, so sorry if it's not perfect. My programming background is mainly with with C derivatives and mucking around in ASM. Relatively simple to implement, though, and not load intesive at all. Written to minimize disk writes, although you could certain add more if you're worried about server stability.

Worst case is that someone "gets away with" an extra 59 seconds of botting time when their wallet is empty. They'll be back-billed for it if they add more fund and run the bot again.

 

[savior]

Bots are all cloud-based, yeah?

Pseudo-code:

<upon bot start reported to server>
//assuming they have time-credit from a previous session, or credit was purchased upon starting the bot
int bottimeremaining = loadbottimeremainingfromdatabase(userID, botID);

int timestamp1 = generatetimestamp();

while (botrunning){
    //only bother checking once a minute. Someone getting away with 59 seconds of botting extra is negligible. 5% of our billing period is 3 minutes anyway, so we could up this more to reduce server load if we're running on a toaster.
    thread.sleep(60000);

    int timestamp2 = generatetimestamp();
    int runtime = timestamp2 - timestamp1

    //check to see if bot has been running longer than the amount of time they've purchased
    if (runtime >= bottimeremaining){
        //set bottimeremaining to 0 or negative number so we can back-bill for that 59 seconds.
        bottimeremaining = bottimeremaining - runtime;

        //try to purchase more time
        int bottimeremaining = bottimeremaining + billingprocedure();

        //return error code if we're out of funds
        if (bottimeremaining <= 0) {
            <out of funds error handling>
        }
    
        //Reset our timer after purchasing more time
        int timestamp1 = generatetimestamp();
    }
}
//bot has now either stopped or disconnected

//calculate how much time-credit they have remaining at session end
int runtime = timestamp2 - timestamp1
bottimeremaining = bottimeremaining - runtime;

//perform write to disk
writebottimeremainingtodatabase(userID, botID);

I only have a cursory knowledge of java and no java IDE. I wrote this in notepad, so sorry if it's not perfect. My programming background is mainly with with C derivatives and mucking around in ASM. Relatively simple to implement, though, and not load intesive at all. Written to minimize disk writes, although you could certain add more if you're worried about server stability.

Worst case is that someone "gets away with" an extra 59 seconds of botting time when their wallet is empty. They'll be back-billed for it if they add more fund and run the bot again.

Wont work since you can dynamically stop and run more bot sessions.
As i said, the time you have left would need to be updated constantly, so that every bot session is always up-to-date. Now compared to the current system it would multiply the work load by a lot.

 

[nviii]

They are dedicating their time to actual problems and new features instead of fixing a pseudo issue.

Pseudo issue?
Taking money from someone without a service in return is a pseudo issue?

 

[justcurious]

Wont work since you can dynamically stop and run more bot sessions.
As i said, the time you have left would need to be updated constantly, so that every bot session is always up-to-date. Now compared to the current system it would multiply the work load by a lot.

My code is assuming everything is still being billed in the exact same manner it currently is: per bot per account. "Updated constantly" means checking a timestamp once per minute per bot and comparing. That's pretty much negligible to a server.

This is the entirety of the code that's running "constantly" (once a minute, if you can call that constant). It's basically nothing: Once an hour, the if statement will return true and more code will run.

    int timestamp2 = generatetimestamp();
    int runtime = timestamp2 - timestamp1
    if (runtime >= bottimeremaining)

If the servers couldn't handle that, runemate wouldn't be functional. All those cloud-based features take up FAR more computing power than that snippet.

Your time previously purchased with that bot is simply stored in a SQL database between sessions. Database only needs to be accessed on load and exit, so that's not a huge concern.

You don't need to run continuous checks every second. There's no need for that. Thanks to back-billing overages, worst case scenario is that a user gets away with 59 seconds of botting, per bot, per account, per lifetime. Not per session. Per lifetime. That's assuming they happen to time things absolutely perfectly. For a bot that charges $0.10 per hour, that means they'll get $0.0016 (less than a quarter of one cent) of free botting. For the lifetime of their account.

Assuming they run 10 different bots on 100 accounts (both being HUGE numbers) at $0.10/hour, AND all of those happen to be perfectly timed to give them that maximum of 59 seconds extra after their wallet runs out.They got away with... $1.63 of free bot time. After spending a bare minimum (1 hour each bot on each account) of $100. Or maybe $2,000. Or maybe $40,000. That $1.63? Negligible.

For a more realistic version: 4 bots, used on two accounts. Only updating once a minute means they could potentially "get away with" $0.013. of free service during their lifetime.

Updating every second is not necessary.

 

[tyb51]

I'm pretty sure the executives can implement this system with some effort in a reasonable time. Cloud and the others know their shit.BUT
It's just the way the business model works. You gotta see it like a registration fee. You pay to start and the longer you play it costs you relatively less. (e.g. at .05$/h this means: for 4 sessions of 15min you pay 20c but for 1 session of 1h = 5cent).If this system would change to what all of you are asking, pricing of bots would probably go up because I suspect that a small, but reasonable percentage of users don't use bots for more than 1 hour. (This is theoretically, for I have no numbers on that and most premiumbots are made for activities for long runtimes)
The only thing that is necessary is for the premiumbot to adjust its setting on the go, but those features are also is available in most PRO bots (not sure, I don't use that many actually). I just read a tread by @Savior requesting more rigorous quality standards for premium bots

All in all: you have your pause button for a manual break, settings to be adjusted on the go and cheaper runtimes. Don't change what isn't broken.

The only reason i'd consider the bot to keep track of runtimes is for break handling: But on the other side you could see this as a feature: you pay a small fee every now and then to avoid being banned: that is more than reasonable

 

[savior]

Pseudo issue?
Taking money from someone without a service in return is a pseudo issue?

View attachment 2207

Thats the point, you CAN use he time youre paying for, if you are interrupting the session prematurily thats your problem.

 

[nviii]

Such good customer service, good thing this isn't coming from an executive directly.


This client tries so hard to be user friendly.

Except with our money.

 

[patcolez]

Let's keep this topic constructive, if our goals are the same; making runemate a more user friendly bot, then I am sure we can work something out. Let's wait for an official staff reply, so they can fill us in over the possibilities of implementing such a system.

 

[max4186]

I don't understand why you are defending users losing hours that they are paying for, it's not a good business model, probably because you are up their asses in some way waiting for Staff. If I pay an entry fee to a skatepark and exit the premises for 30 minutes to go to the toilet, should we be expected to pay another $30 to enter the skatepark? NO. You would be allowed back in as you have already paid, which is what RuneMate should be like.

 

[tyb51]

I don't understand why you are defending users losing hours that they are paying for, it's not a good business model, probably because you are up their asses in some way waiting for Staff. If I pay an entry fee to a skatepark and exit the premises for 30 minutes to go to the toilet, should we be expected to pay another $30 to enter the skatepark? NO. You would be allowed back in as you have already paid, which is what RuneMate should be like.

That's one example. But another example, IRL I'm in the process of setting up a businessmodel for payed lockers in a very busy party street. People pay 1€ everytime they want to use the locker. This means: put in your 1€ and when you open it it is gone. Suppose they want to get something from their bag or want to add a friends equipment, they pay again, and again. The rules are clear, it's up the the customer to think before spending

 

[savior]

That's one example. But another example, IRL I'm in the process of setting up a businessmodel for payed lockers in a very busy party street. People pay 1€ everytime they want to use the locker. This means: put in your 1€ and when you open it it is gone. Suppose they want to get something from their bag or want to add a friends equipment, they pay again, and again. The rules are clear, it's up the the customer to think before spending

Thats actually a good example because on a skaterpark you actively do something there. A locker just does stuff for you while you are away doing something else, just like botting.
You dont actively bot something, you dont keep stopping and restarting your bot. You start your bot, go do something for a few hours, come back, and stop the bot when it has been running enough.

 

[max4186]

Thats actually a good example because on a skaterpark you actively do something there. A locker just does stuff for you while you are away doing something else, just like botting.
You dont actively bot something, you dont keep stopping and restarting your bot. You start your bot, go do something for a few hours, come back, and stop the bot when it has been running enough.

I have started and stopped my bot numerous times, especially when I first started. Luckily Party refunded me my money, however, I accidentally started his PC bot over his NMZ bot and I sent him a PM asking about a refund as I never used the hour at all and I haven't received a response. It makes no sense to defend such a model unless you are benefiting from it yourself, why would you want your users to lose more money? All it does for me is make me consider other bots that may be around the same price but have less users.

Also, when you decide to stop botting, unless you stop 5 seconds before the new hour, you are guaranteed to lose a part of your money due to the current system. This is just stupid and whoever thought of the idea, was just thinking about making more money. Sure, it's "up to the customer to think" but I think you will find you will LOSE more customers than you gain using the system.

 

[savior]

I have started and stopped my bot numerous times, especially when I first started. Luckily Party refunded me my money, however, I accidentally started his PC bot over his NMZ bot and I sent him a PM asking about a refund as I never used the hour at all and I haven't received a response. It makes no sense to defend such a model unless you are benefiting from it yourself, why would you want your users to lose more money? All it does for me is make me consider other bots that may be around the same price but have less users.

Also, when you decide to stop botting, unless you stop 5 seconds before the new hour, you are guaranteed to lose a part of your money due to the current system. This is just stupid and whoever thought of the idea, was just thinking about making more money. Sure, it's "up to the customer to think" but I think you will find you will LOSE more customers than you gain using the system.

Well I do profit from it, but I am not defending it. I am defying bad arguments or analogies.
I would warm-heartedly welcome a refined system which would precisely scale with the actual amount the user botted for.
But i don't see a necessity, or rather priority, in implementing one, there are things that are much more urgent to be worked on right now.

 

[max4186]

Well I do profit from it, but I am not defending it. I am defying bad arguments or analogies.
I would warm-heartedly welcome a refined system which would precisely scale with the actual amount the user botted for.
But i don't see a necessity, or rather priority, in implementing one, there are things that are much more urgent to be worked on right now.

I'm not demanding an instant fix, I just want to know that it has been "accepted" and is in the queue to be made. At the moment it's just radio silence, probably hoping we will forget about it.

 

[savior]

I'm not demanding an instant fix, I just want to know that it has been "accepted" and is in the queue to be made. At the moment it's just radio silence, probably hoping we will forget about it.

It's definitely being talked about frequently, Party keeps trying to push Arbiter to change the system but Arbiter is pretty busy with IRL stuff atm.

 

[yuuki asuna]

Maybe we should change the hours system first :thinking:

 

[nviii]

Well I do profit from it, but I am not defending it. I am defying bad arguments or analogies.
I would warm-heartedly welcome a refined system which would precisely scale with the actual amount the user botted for.
But i don't see a necessity, or rather priority, in implementing one, there are things that are much more urgent to be worked on right now.

Of course it's not a priority for you.

You are profiting from it.