| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (13)

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 12:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Shoddy performance on the enforcement side by the Lab, as always, will offer encouragement to theoretically proscribed behavior.

Going after Lucky Chairs seems very cheesy.

Disregarding its purpose for a moment, that bot program seems a nicely tailored bit of work.

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 1:49PM MewmewGrrl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've never cheated on an online game ever, or abused bugs, but I must admit, pulling anywhere from 400 to 1200 a month real money out of the game almost tempts me a little too. It would feel too much like I was stealing money from someone somehow, so it's not something I want to really do, but I admit, it is a tiny bit tempting...

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 2:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Generally, in my experience, more than half the time you ask someone what they're earning, they'll round the numbers up a little. Still and all, by all accounts some of these folks make more than I do.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 2:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Anyone that thinks Lucky Chairs and their derivatives are camping devices clearly has not spent any significant time in Second LifeĀ® shopping or talking to retailers. As a resident involved in shopping groups for nearly three years, a merchant, and a blogger for two Lucky Chair-related groups (including on owned by the inventor of the Lucky Chair, Shep Korvin), I invite any Linden to contact me for a discussion.

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 2:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In the weeks that LL announced it was going to do something about this, i have seen no reduction in bots or camping whatsoever. What's worse is the common resident has no means to combat this issue since Governance has declared that abuse reports and support tickets are not necessary.

this is exactly why arbitrary and 'we will deal with it on a case by case basis' governance will not work. Resource intensive traffic increasing measures are the product of a skewed metric that will continue to be gamed as long as it exists in its current form.

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 4:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you want a list of the top traffic places in SL, you can look here:

http://world.secondlife.com/start/traffic.100.html

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One of the top clubs in Second Life, Blackhearts Cafe, which offers no camping didn't make it. It generally has 30-40 unique human-backed avatars 24/7. That kinda tells you what many of the others are doing to get those numbers up.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree -- one or two lucky chairs should not be AR-able. Those aren't even close to gaming traffic. Incredible arrogance by the bot-runners and the usually shoddy follow-up but LL.

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 6:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not trying to save anyones behind here, because all people involved in botfarms are assholes regardless, but shoulnd the blamefinger be squarely aimed at campspot owners? Campspots have only one purpose thats really obvious aswell. Runners are just exploiting the easy money? Imagine walking down town and as you walk by, an icecream man says "here, stand infront of my cart and eat some free icecream for a while to entice others", woulnd you grab it with both hands too? ;-) Just sayin.

But unfortunately the blade cuts both ways in this case. What happens when campspots get banned? People will just run their own bots instead. Its not like it takes thatmuch resources Ive played with avapet before (as the name suggests, its meant to make avatar pets, like dogs), and If youd want, you could easily run a good 50 of em on a decent desktop.

I wonder how lindenlabs plans to fight bots anyway. Bot software can identify themselves as a normal client, and the smart people run a proxy, just rehashing when one gets banned. Rince and repeat. :')

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 11:47PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
they aren't trying to get rid of bots. they don't care about bots. they've publicly praised the software virtually all bot writers use. i've never heard of ONE instance of a bot being banned for doing ANYthing.

what they are trying to get rid of is a bunch of traffic ratings cheating zombies. that includes manually controlled real people who only use one avatar. and the people they are coming down on (eventually) are NOT the campers.

they are coming down on the people who are cheating the traffic system which is the landowners that create the camping sites.

this has NOTHING to do with bots. LL loves bots.

Posted: Jun 4th 2009 12:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LOL, thanks for the article Tateru, I've always wondered how much people were making from camping in SL...

Posted: Jun 4th 2009 4:15PM Cyron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't play second life, so could someone please fill me in on how having avatars sit around for days on end doing nothing brings in in game cash? I'm obviously missing something...

Posted: Jun 12th 2009 10:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Quite annoying. Yet, still, i preach it's such an easy fix.

Why do the bot owners do it? to collect money from chairs. If the camping money is being offered, I do not fault bot owners.
Why do the camping area owners pay camping bots? to create the illusion of traffic.

Take away the need to game traffic and the camping would disappear. plain and simple.

Featured Stories

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW