Diamond 10 to Legend Wild is full of bots playing pirate rogue and even shaman?
maybe start banning them and doing your job?
2 Likes
They have been, but they can’t keep up.
They ban something in the range of 100,000-200,000 bots each banning phase. It’s insane. They can’t keep up, they just come right back.
2 Likes
I believe you, but I’d like a source regardless.
3 Likes
They could do something between games that required mild human intervention (like “Clear out you achievement notifications to continue playing to make sure you aren’t a bot”) only if the player played for more hours in a day above the average.
Or if someone clicked “report” on them.
This is a large company, of course they could actually take an effective action if they wanted to.
They might not want to. Higher player numbers and higher games played make the company look good.
Like how a Twitter account being followed by 1 million people (90% of which might be bots) looks good.
1 Like
So…
- about 103,000 in January through July, or about 14,700 per month;
- 66,945 in August and September, 33,472 per month;
- and 114,237 from October to December 20th. Assuming they took the rest of the year off, 28,559 38,079 per month.
There’s no reference in your source to how many “phases” there are between updates. Maybe there are multiple banning phases per update. But I’d say “about 30,000 36,000 bans per month, since August” is a much more accurate description than “100,000 to 200,000 per phase.” It feels to me like you were exaggerating a bit, because it’s hard to guess that a “phase” is half a year 3-5 months.
Also Gnome is half-fibbing when they say banning efforts have been ramping up throughout the year. Bans per month dropped slightly after the August/September high point. But August/September was a sharp escalation from earlier in the year.
Still, that is over a thousand bots per day (since August 1st). One bot banned every 73 seconds, 24/7, on average.
Edit: see fuglarg below
1 Like
that is not my job, wym
i work in a funeral company
This is incorrect.
The post was made 23 October and the following update came approximately 22 December.
Which means it has only been two months, and that is clearly a ramping up of their efforts heading into the next year.
Even if you were to include October, which is not what they indicated, you would still only be dividing 114, 237 by three.
The clearly ramped up detection and action in the final months.
Don’t feed that troll, friend. They have a voracious appetite!
This post gave a number for August and September. It did NOT provide an update for October 1 through October 22.
How do you figure?
October, November, and December, even if I concede your wrong assertion that the first part of October should be included, is a total of THREE months.
114,237/3 = 38k bans per month on average, which is still more than 33,472.
You are wrong to accuse them of fibbing.
But more importantly, the update we were given ignored October entirely because it said:
The only way that can be read is that the numbers only apply to the period between the linked update and the December post, which would mean they significantly ramped their efforts.
I have no idea why it is so difficult for you to admit when you are wrong, but you are clearly wrong.
You are right here, I divided by 4 for some reason which was incorrect. Math error on my part. I’ll edit the post.
I think that’s an overly literal and most likely incorrect way of reading that post. You might be correct, but I’d bet against it. The update in August said
which in the overly literal interpretation means at least 200,000 but given the year-end total of “over 284,000” implies a number between 100,000 and
+284999
- 66945
-114327
=103817
So IF your overly literal interpretation is correct and the year-end update covers late October through late December, then in the first two thirds of October they banned between 0 and 3,817 accounts, inclusive. Slackin’.
But I don’t think Gnome is into the overly literal interpretations like you are, given the “hundreds of thousands” to describe less than 104,000.
You missed the point (probably on purpose.)
I don’t know why you included “wym”, I assume it’s meant to be pejorative so I’m flagging you, & I’m ignoring you.
Calling me a troll is also pejorative.
#flagged
already ignored
wym = what (do) you mean and is a slang way to ask for clarification.
It is not a pejorative or insult.
Hope that helps you going forward.
If they ban bots their complete failure at managing the game, retaining players, and developing will be fully exposed for all to see.
What if I say you’re not having a sense of humor? Would that be pejorative?
1 Like
No, of course not.
Troll is meant to be pejorative.
It is not useful to argue otherwise.
Right. You forgot to add that they ban the non-blizzard bots while leaving their own intact.
Why would I need to specifically say they don’t ban their own purposefully created bots?
Isn’t that implied? You don’t ban something you purposefully create, you would instead remove them IF you didn’t want them.
Blizzard created bots are vastly different from user created ones. Blizzard bots aren’t ranking or seen in higher ranks and are only made for people with extremely low MMR so that they have something to face when someone in their own low MMR aren’t in queue. Player created bots are seen at all ranks, even higher ones and can be seen by any player at any time at all ranks, even at high legend.
1 Like