Jump to content


Do BOTS Actually Exist?

proof of bots

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

TungstenHitman #1 Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:25 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22089 battles
  • 4,041
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

A question many of us have wondered, just who is that guy that doesn't respond to requests of help, map pinging or completely ignores the minimap, ignores the obvious.. in fact, appears to ignore just about the entire everything? A drunk? An idiot? worse? well.. in some cases for sure and look this isn't a thread about bashing bad players, God knows we have all had shockers over the course of our battle numbers, clocked out early, driven off a cliff, rolled upside down, drowned.. I'm certainly guilty of doing all of those things and more, fine.. and funny too on reflection.

But what about that players that go beyond displaying any form of.. well.. life? teammates that display absolutely vacant levels of anything, a BOT? a computer controlled NPC, Do they exist? well I checked a few players displaying this zombie like aimless and illogical approach to some battles I was in and this is what I found, I'll show one of the worst and most obvious bots that prove they do exist in this game

Spoiler

 

So there is the battle use as an example, now this is a tier10 battle, "the best of the best" at least should show some level of spacial awareness and some sort of improved ability to reflect the 10k+ battles of experience necessary to get those tanks, I mean, you gotta be learning something along the way right?

 

And here is the player in question, what I believe 100% is a real BOT

-Just over 43% win rate

-No High Caliber

-No Top Gun

-Not much anything tbh

-183 average experience, really??

-98 average damage.. are you forking kidding me?? 98!! at tier 10???

-maximum kills.. wait for it... 4, in 10.5k battles, 4 kills?

-25% hit ratio

-Zero Ace tankers

 

This goes beyond a bad player, 100% BOT

Spoiler

 

I went one further with this player, to WOTLabs, to explore a little deeper as to what I believe is proof that BOTs are in this game. Appears as though this BOT is generally included at lower tiers, probably for training battles or noob battles but as you saw, can feature at even tier10, average wn8 is wait for it.. 41!! 

 

Spoiler

So I think this proves there are BOTs included in this game, the real question is why? and why at tier10??


Edited by TungstenHitman, 10 June 2017 - 09:28 AM.


Spurtung #2 Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:36 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 63581 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

Recent WN8 is a whooping 19.5% higher than overall WN8.

 

Bots can learn:medal:



SuperJimbo #3 Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:42 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7849 battles
  • 1,037
  • [HO_PO] HO_PO
  • Member since:
    08-15-2012

That person isn't a bot, they're just horrible:

 

-A bot would have more than 25% accuracy because bots usually use aimbots with a delayed reaction built in (if programmed by the first party)

 

WoT EU also suffers from the cancer that is cultural diversity in games. While most people play on somewhat acceptable computers and understand enough english key words and game specific words to understand a callout in chat, you can bet your arse that there are plenty of people with no understanding of english sitting in front of a surplus office PC running Windows XP using dialup "playing" the world of tanks slideshow because they live in a place where they simply never learned english and can't afford better stuff. These players usually come from eastern europe as the place is simply poorer, not because they're inherently bad at games.

 

This is why you can often flame these people to do something as much as you want but it simply wouldn't register with them as they don't understand. Imagine some guy flaming at you in polish to go make a play...

 

I highly doubt WG uses bots for lower tiers, the active player base is still large enough for the mm and tiers to work without bots.

 

PS: WG created accounts don't have stat pages, further suggesting it's not a bot.


Edited by SuperJimbo, 10 June 2017 - 09:58 AM.


imperiumgraecum #4 Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:43 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 60842 battles
  • 2,846
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    01-03-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 10 June 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

Bots can learn:medal:

 

If that's true, can that mean that, given enough time, bots will become smarter than human wot players? :ohmy:



Wintermute_1 #5 Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:44 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44204 battles
  • 1,558
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

This isnt proof of a bot. Its pretty much impossible to 'prove' a player is a bot as opposed to terrible or perhaps just permanently negligent, which Im sure is the main problem with keeping them out of the game. I'm fairly sure bots do exist, its a realatively basic program to run one, im just not sure what the motivation is to run them, unless you are talking WG themselves running them to boost player numbers.

 

Interestingly id expect bots to have pretty high 'battle brother' ribbons? (The one you get for not shooting team mates) as that just wouldnt be part of the program. 



panter22 #6 Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:51 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15008 battles
  • 385
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
yes 100%

Spurtung #7 Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:59 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 63581 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postimperiumgraecum, on 10 June 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

If that's true, can that mean that, given enough time, bots will become smarter than human wot players? :ohmy:

Some already are. Give it time.



TheJumpMaster #8 Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:23 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 47548 battles
  • 4,549
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 10 June 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

Some already are. Give it time.

 

Are you saying that we will be assimilated!?!?!?!

 

 



Spurtung #9 Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 63581 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostTheJumpMaster, on 10 June 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

Are you saying that we will be assimilated!?!?!?!

 

 

 

Resistance is futile.

All your base are belong to us.



Infine #10 Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18464 battles
  • 576
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

I met a guy in top tier Strv 103-0 on Himmelsdorf once. I checked after battle, and he had 43% winrate. Which is not surprising considering what he was doing. He was not a bot since our team spent a considerable amount of time in a conversation with him questioning his motivation, and he was responding. Since he had nothing better to do. Basically he found the most inaccessible camping spot with the most narrow and irrelevant tunnel in front of him so he could "defend, because that's what TDs do, you guys just don't understand". We lost by cap. He survived. Not once moving from his position. And I don't think he ever made a shot since enemy failed to pass by his camping spot. But he was not a bot. He had his carefully constructed world view where his motivation and actions made perfect sense.

 

To prove an existence of bots you have to

1) Fire up a VM.

2) Route it through a VPN service.

3) Use it to register a WOT account.

4) Find botting software.

5) Use the setup to check if botting software actually works.

6) If it works, bots exist. If it does not, you either done a bad job, or they don't exist. Though I suppose this case falls under the Russel Teapot thingy.

 



Enforcer1975 #11 Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:31 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,857
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Did someone call me?

RamRaid90 #12 Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:32 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21406 battles
  • 6,459
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

More worrying is his 228 battles in 24 hours.

 

How can one have "fun" on a game being so horribly bad at it?...

 

How can one have "fun" on a game playing with 1,000,000 latency?...

 

How can one have "fun" playing a game at 5 fps on the lowest graphics settings, in windowed mode, on 640x480 res?....

 

Does not compute.

 

 



Isharial #13 Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:49 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19682 battles
  • 2,345
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 June 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

More worrying is his 228 battles in 24 hours.

 

How can one have "fun" on a game being so horribly bad at it?...

 

How can one have "fun" on a game playing with 1,000,000 latency?...

 

How can one have "fun" playing a game at 5 fps on the lowest graphics settings, in windowed mode, on 640x480 res?....

 

Does not compute.

 

 

 

 

maybe they like the sweet sweet tears that people spam them with in PM afterwards? :trollface:


 

you'd be surprised, some simply have fun from "im driving a tank!!!!", doesn't matter they drive horribly and have crashed into everything on their path, or haven't realised that tanks have guns yet and should fire it occasionally...



Fighto #14 Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:58 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35139 battles
  • 908
  • [TAC] TAC
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostSuperJimbo, on 10 June 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

 

Neither will you once a forum mod brushes through this thread..

 

Like I care, sick of this shite. How many reports do you think those players have combined , 10K, 500k, 1 million ????

Edited by Fighto, 10 June 2017 - 11:00 AM.


niksa83 #15 Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31148 battles
  • 644
  • [FAUF] FAUF
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013
Autism.......

Jigabachi #16 Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:01 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,006
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Start chats with those people ingame. Some will answer back. Most of the time not in English or with very limited vocabulary, but some will answer. The sad reality is: This playerbase is VERY bad in general. Many many players are so bad that they play WORSE than an afk aimbot bot, which is something that took me very long to understand...

 

Some of them use, like somebody already stated, horribly bad technology to play the game, be it the internet connection or the computer itself. How they endure that performance... no idea.

Some of them are just old and didn't grow up with cem-puh-terrs like we did.

Some of them are kids (with bad parents).

Some of them are disabled, I met a few of those. No idea why they decided to play a game like this as their "life-filler", but... eh.

But many of them are just total morons. I can't put it differently. Asocial behaviour, delusion, lack of understanding, not able to use simple logic. It's really mindblowing and made me lose quite some faith in mankind.

That's the experience I made since I started to spread helpful messages and start chats with those way below average players.

 

And now a hint: If you really want to find out if a player is a bot or if you want to judge a player in general, you really have to learn to read stats. None of what you posted is a bulletproof sign of botting. And if reading stats, you can pretty much ignore every number displayed on the secnd screenshot (the general stats window).

The guy you showed there COULD be a bot, but stating that you are 100% sure shows that you have no idea what you are talking about...

 

 

 



RamRaid90 #17 Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:02 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21406 battles
  • 6,459
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostClarrissa_the_Third, on 10 June 2017 - 09:49 AM, said:

 

 

maybe they like the sweet sweet tears that people spam them with in PM afterwards? :trollface:


 

you'd be surprised, some simply have fun from "im driving a tank!!!!", doesn't matter they drive horribly and have crashed into everything on their path, or haven't realised that tanks have guns yet and should fire it occasionally...

 

I've just always considered which game I wish to play based on the general content and gameplay of said game. I don't particularly like FPS games...i've never really been great at them so I stay away. I picked WoT because I had friends who played, and so I thought i'd give it a try. Sure I was bad for a bit, now i'm farily decent and always improving and learning...

 

It isn't being bad that annoys me, it's the unwillingness to LEARN to play the game they've chosen to play.

 

As Jigabachi mentioned, reading stats is a very important part of understanding a bot.

 

A low hit ratio implies not a bot. Simply a person playing on the first desktop PC ever made, with 56k dial-up. A bot would perform at an average rate, despite what the FPS or latency is, as it is able to use server information as it is recieved and does not require the visual information a person does to make a reactive play. Such as turning the turret and firing at a target.


Edited by RamRaid90, 10 June 2017 - 11:06 AM.


Dundato #18 Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:07 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26302 battles
  • 715
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostTungstenHitman, on 10 June 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

A question many of us have wondered, just who is that guy that doesn't respond to requests of help, map pinging or completely ignores the minimap, ignores the obvious.. in fact, appears to ignore just about the entire everything? A drunk? An idiot? worse? well.. in some cases for sure and look this isn't a thread about bashing bad players, God knows we have all had shockers over the course of our battle numbers, clocked out early, driven off a cliff, rolled upside down, drowned.. I'm certainly guilty of doing all of those things and more, fine.. and funny too on reflection.

But what about that players that go beyond displaying any form of.. well.. life? teammates that display absolutely vacant levels of anything, a BOT? a computer controlled NPC, Do they exist? well I checked a few players displaying this zombie like aimless and illogical approach to some battles I was in and this is what I found, I'll show one of the worst and most obvious bots that prove they do exist in this game

Spoiler

 

So there is the battle use as an example, now this is a tier10 battle, "the best of the best" at least should show some level of spacial awareness and some sort of improved ability to reflect the 10k+ battles of experience necessary to get those tanks, I mean, you gotta be learning something along the way right?

 

And here is the player in question, what I believe 100% is a real BOT

-Just over 43% win rate

-No High Caliber

-No Top Gun

-Not much anything tbh

-183 average experience, really??

-98 average damage.. are you forking kidding me?? 98!! at tier 10???

-maximum kills.. wait for it... 4, in 10.5k battles, 4 kills?

-25% hit ratio

-Zero Ace tankers

 

This goes beyond a bad player, 100% BOT

Spoiler

 

I went one further with this player, to WOTLabs, to explore a little deeper as to what I believe is proof that BOTs are in this game. Appears as though this BOT is generally included at lower tiers, probably for training battles or noob battles but as you saw, can feature at even tier10, average wn8 is wait for it.. 41!! 

 

Spoiler

So I think this proves there are BOTs included in this game, the real question is why? and why at tier10??

 

How else do you think they make the numbers up. The game is dying



TheJumpMaster #19 Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:21 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 47548 battles
  • 4,549
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostClarrissa_the_Third, on 10 June 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

 

you'd be surprised, some simply have fun from "im driving a tank!!!!",

 

As a former paratrooper, this is the closest I want to get to tanks - and this is fun :P

Scabolcz #20 Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14041 battles
  • 334
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014
And it has 2 Kolobanov's medal... Just how? lol




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users