Improving BG bots

[s.s.tripwire]

Hello everyone!

I have been using the BG bot lately to level my characters up, and I noticed certain behaviors that make it pretty easy to tell whos botting. I had an idea on how to fix this, and wanted to post this up to see if it is even possible.

Currently it seems that the bot follows predetermined paths, and then moves to the biggest group to help. This can backfire though, and often ends up with a huge group of bots following eachother around.

Is is possible for the bot to detect which bases we currently have in bgs like AB/IoC/AV and the such? If we had something that could do that, and also had a way to detect how many bots were in each match we could find a way to make them split up and defend or attack in groups instead of running around like crazy.

Is this possible? Any one have any thoughts/ideas they would like to add?

Thanks!

 

[Stige]

Yeah I agree there should be some sort of internal communication between other bots to avoid mass stacking of bots all together.

 

[ponzi909]

YES YES i have notice ALOT OF BOTTERS these day i mean bgs are almost a joke no one plays no more lol at least on my teams half of them are bot and of course cuz they all do the exact same thing stand in the exact same place..

I think maynbe it should be as if each race takes a slight different path something like that, But honestly i dont think its gonna get worked on these days were lucky if were able to login..

No complaining just saying

 

[xaq]

just so we're clear - what you're wanting is every other bot to some how talk to eachother when in a BG? - If it could be done securely on a 3rd party server or on HB's server It might be viable - the challenge for me would be what would prevent one of the bots from being a GM or a blizz employee and receiving information of the other bots...

Theoretically you could make it so that bots would download instructions from the server, and not receive any info about others...

I would think a first step would be to have some random pathing installed somehow, You see this problem in the PVE botting as well, I've been botting a hunter from 0-90 with as little interaction as I can and there have been a few times where I've caught it running back and forth in the same geenral area as one or two others, very clear that we were all using the same quest pack - When I see that I go in and modify things like hotspots and or grind spots - even if only by a few decimals it changes it enough that we're not standing on the same spot.

If I had enough time to focus on development I definitely think this woudl be a worthwhile cause...

-X

 

[Caper]

Would be nice with some new features to BGbuddy because i see 3-5 bots in the same path as me , and the bots walks retarded in the BG Isle Of Conquest, and i have alerady checked wow forums about battle grounds and arena, ALOT complains about Bots in battlegrounds, BG Buddy needs some more luv .

 

[xXxExpertxXx]

Would be nice with some new features to BGbuddy because i see 3-5 bots in the same path as me , and the bots walks retarded in the BG Isle Of Conquest, and i have alerady checked wow forums about battle grounds and arena, ALOT complains about Bots in battlegrounds, BG Buddy needs some more luv .

OR! or, or, or OR! dont use auto movement! wait that means dont bot? im a holy pally! never once do i "bg Bot" I use "combat bot" and have the bot heal anything it can while i just sit back relax and move my char to its destination. atleast im not as lazy as some of you people. haha

 

[s.s.tripwire]

Heh ^^ good posts so far everyone, appreciate the comments.

@xaq - I dont believe that communication between bot clients would be an appropriate way to address this issue. I think that the best option available would be to set up new behaviors for each Battleground depending on what the objective was.

For example, the goal of Arathi Basin is to take and hold bases till your team gains the points needed for a win. One way to accomplish this without having the bots move to the biggest friendly mass would be to have them detect which bases are in conflict/controlled, and move there depending on the amount of players in the area.

The program can already detect the biggest group of players and move towards it, that makes me think it can probably detect how many players there are on the team and their exact location. Why not make it so the bots try to even out the bases that are controlled, or are being captured?

We could even take it a step further and have certain classes/specs prioritize things. If the Blacksmith has no healers and GM has one, a healbot could be directed to that area over one that has a healer already.

There are other options as well, im sure. Maybe some way to detect the total amount of bots before a match starts, and then assign exact goals to each bot. After finding a way to detect bots the programs could then use a constant factor, like raid position, to determine which base to continually assault.

What do you guys think? Any Devs out there say that might be possible? Any other ideas on how particular BGs could be improved?

 

[CodenameG]

Yeah I agree there should be some sort of internal communication between other bots to avoid mass stacking of bots all together.

bad, as we we dont want to control your bot from a server, and we dont wanna figure out a way (probably by using player names) to find whos in a battleground. i think for just privacy sake, this is a bad idea.

the BG Logic was written with the assumption that there was human players playing in the battleground, and following them was the best way to randomize. but thats not the case anymore. so we've already undertaken steps to start re-working how bots act in battlegrounds. AB is already done, and TP is being worked on as we speak.
theres no need to keep complaining, we are already "fixing" it.

 

[s.s.tripwire]

bad, as we we dont want to control your bot from a server, and we dont wanna figure out a way (probably by using player names) to find whos in a battleground. i think for just privacy sake, this is a bad idea.

the BG Logic was written with the assumption that there was human players playing in the battleground, and following them was the best way to randomize. but thats not the case anymore. so we've already undertaken steps to start re-working how bots act in battlegrounds. AB is already done, and TP is being worked on as we speak.
theres no need to keep complaining, we are already "fixing" it.

Sorry CodenameG, I hope none of this came off as complaining, and im very glad to hear that things are being worked on!

I have just been thinking a lot on how this portion of the program could be improved, and wanted to post up some ideas. Who knows, maybe some of these posts might make it in to the bot one day!

**edit**

I do agree though, communication between bots is a bad thing. I used to be very intimate with how Blizzards Game Masters and CS department worked, and I know for a fact that one Archaeology bot was detected this way. Any type of communication between bots in-game will eventually be found, but there are other ways to get these changes/improvements put in.

 

[CodenameG]

Sorry CodenameG, I hope none of this came off as complaining, and im very glad to hear that things are being worked on!

I have just been thinking a lot on how this portion of the program could be improved, and wanted to post up some ideas. Who knows, maybe some of these posts might make it in to the bot one day!

i didnt mean that anyone was complaining per say, but theres been a lot of threads about BGBuddy and it being need of improvement over the past 2 weeks or so, and we are already doing it.

 

[s.s.tripwire]

10-4, im sure dealing with all the complaining/trolling/bad posting is a pain. If this post goes down that road and ends up not being constructive, feel free to put a lock on things

 

[s.s.tripwire]

Just out of curiosity CodenameG, when you said that the AB portion of BGbuddy had been improved did you mean that the behavior is already out? Or are yall waiting to release them all at once?

**edit**

Also, can you shed any light on how the new versions will work?

 

[Tony]

already answered

thread closed