Tree of Savior

UPDATED: Tokens can be sold on market for silver, and how they were supposed to (but don't) fight botters

Kenshiki 2016-03-22 15:32:24 UTC #53

yes i know IMC is willing to go hardcore but that way of doing it affects the legit players

im complaining about the restrictions that should have been free by default which is the 1:1 trading.

Daenerys 2016-03-22 15:32:59 UTC #54

An active police force is essential to keeping people safe. Taking away people's rights in the name of keeping them safe, however, will just piss them off.

GMs are essential to keeping bots off the server. Placing restrictions on legitimate players in the name of keeping bots away, will just piss them off.

ridleyco 2016-03-22 15:36:28 UTC #55

I genuinely expect a two cops on the beat for an entire bad neighborhood scenario. I'd be really happy to be wrong.

So, uh, what do you guys think of the license idea I mentioned a few posts ago? It could even feature weekly caps on how much silver an account could "move" (be that through buying or selling) to or from the market based on their story progress.

More examples:

A level 10 character with no story quests done can't use the market.
A level 100 character with 2 story quests done can move 10,000 silver a week and is flagged for bot inspection.
A level 100 character with all story quests possible for a level 100 can move 2,000,000 silver per week.
A level 280 character with half the normal story quests done is flagged for inspection and can trade 4,000,000 silver per week.
A level 280 character with all story quests done can move 10,000,000 silver a week from the market.

Obviously these values are just placeholders. And it's probably safe for token purchases and sales to ignore the weekly cap.

thebloodyaugust 2016-03-22 15:39:40 UTC #56

Its not a bad idea. I could live with that. Also i know you said the values are place holders but yea they would need to be higher IF our economy shapes out like Ktos. I would also like the pricing restrictions on the market removed, the players should decide the value of a item. We shouldn't be told what the value is.

YuriYuri 2016-03-22 15:46:01 UTC #57

One thing to combat this is to educate the playerbase. Make in-game announcements to NOT PURCHASE gold from botters. That's one part of the equation.

If jackasses won't buy gold from botters, then good.

Daenerys 2016-03-22 15:46:23 UTC #58

It is a decent idea, but a high level character could still be used as a bot, so we still need active GMs.

In fact, I would expect most bots to be a relatively high level, because you are not going to be earning much silver farming level ~100 mobs, for example.

thebloodyaugust 2016-03-22 15:49:21 UTC #59

Thats true but in the solution he proposed they would have to work through the story quests. which would require time and effort on their part as the bot couldn't complete and take the quests on its own.

Basically each bot would be a large investment of time and each one lost to bans would hurt more.

ridleyco 2016-03-22 15:54:09 UTC #60

It might be possible to remove the market caps on individual items under such a system. Or at least relax them significantly. We won't lose for not being able to sell dingeles for 100k.

@Daenerys
We're not going off of level, specifically, but a relationship between level and story quests completed. Any bot that wants to be able to move meaningful amounts of silver to a sales account is going to have to go through the same steps a player did.

Do I think this can be automated? Absolutely. Is it a hell of a lot harder to automate? Definitely. Will it take longer to prepare a decent farming bot? Almost certainly - and it will expose the bot to the player base substantially while the bot "prepares" to be viable. Finally, it'll vastly increase the sting when the bot account gets banned.

How many bots in iRO did quests like the entrance to thors dungeon? License increases should be behind stuff that's a pain in the ass, that everybody does normally and bots do never.

Under such a system, I would expect the dominant form of bot to be one that levels to 30 or so and dumps a couple hundred thousand silver into the sales accounts of its owner. This form of transaction is really, really easy to check for and flag automatically, reducing the manpower needed to detect illegitimate business.

Daenerys 2016-03-22 15:56:45 UTC #61

That is true, each ban would have a much bigger impact, but those bans still need to happen. The solution only works if we have active GMs that are willing to ban botters.

It is actually a pretty good system, better than anything that has been suggested so far, and it doesn't require placing permanent restrictions on players (just temporary ones - which is fine).

ridleyco 2016-03-22 16:01:02 UTC #62

I'm going to do a coherent re-write of the idea and pop it in the suggestion forum in a bit.

What of the more annoying restrictions already in place do you guys think it would be safe to remove under such a system?

thebloodyaugust 2016-03-22 16:04:37 UTC #63

Ridleyco, im terrified. Were agreeing on something.

But yea even if base equipment has the cost restriction im fine with that. But once you refine / gem etc. Make it into a "end game" or "Quality item" the market should determine its value.

Daenerys 2016-03-22 16:06:11 UTC #64

Honestly, under that system I think you can remove silver trading, and market restrictions.

You can't remove 1:1 trading restrictions though because botters could still sell items for real $...

ridleyco 2016-03-22 16:08:58 UTC #65

Er, well. You can thank eunsongchoe for that, haha. He's the first one to come out and specifically show me what I was missing with a concrete example.

Sorry for my harsh tone, earlier.

Anteiser 2016-03-22 16:18:43 UTC #66

I have an idea to deal with trash equip trading:
1- give every item a base price
2- you can't sell with price higher than xx% of yesterday average price
3- if no item sold over a period of time, the price back to base price
4- keep track of the item have large price up over a period of time, and suspect which is illegal, this need manpower but not much.
sorry for my english.

Daenerys 2016-03-22 16:27:18 UTC #67

This doesn't work for end-game ehanced items like @thebloodyaugust mentioned. Or even non-endgame items that are simply enhanced. How do you put a price on a +15 Gladius?

If an item hasn't been on the market for quite some time, then that means the item is rare, so resetting it back to a base price wouldn't make sense.

Even if this does stop "gold-sellers" from selling silver the way they currently do, I expect they would adapt. So you are just placing further restrictions on the players for a chance of hurting botters.

Anteiser 2016-03-22 16:46:37 UTC #68

price of gladius + average silver to enhance to +15

you can make some exception base on rarity of item

I expect they do too, human always try to adapt everything. But we can't do nothing and I chose to improve an existing system rather than an unknown-effect system.

thebloodyaugust 2016-03-22 16:52:56 UTC #69

Yea but if thats the case that means there is no profit to be had which means people won't bother making equipment to sell. People have to be able to price a large profit margin especially if they are going to +15 or something, there needs to be a reward for the risk.

Anteiser 2016-03-22 16:57:29 UTC #70

you can take account for the risk to the average silver too, it can be calculated because we know exactly the % of success.

ridleyco 2016-03-22 17:34:36 UTC #71

I have completed my Market License system suggestion! Please give it a good read, and tell me what flaws you guys can spot in it.

DoxyRIP 2016-03-28 00:43:22 UTC #72

For real though. Truest thing I've read in awhile.