SRL Archive - Bot Information and Spottings

Don't think this has been posted yet and its a good read so I'm sharing.
Discuss?

Originally Posted by Jagex
Jagex Macroing Detection
From the RS forums

Our macro detection system is highly advanced, reminiscent of our efforts to curb rule breakers prior
to the removal of unbalanced trade. Admittedly, we devote more of our energies towards
introducing actual game content.

The use of macros is nevertheless unacceptable, and contrary to popular belief we have not ignored
the recent outbreak of bot usage. Modern macros however are quite advanced, rarely interact with
the client, and issue commands the same way players point and click, rotate the camera, etc… We
presume this sudden leap of sophistication to be due to the fear of being caught with well developed
accounts, as most macro users seldom use throwaway accounts. Many recent macro users actually
have comparable gameplay hours to legitimate players.

[name removed], I don't actually know the very specific details. It's likely that nobody knows the
entire system to the letter, given the vastness of all of the software involved.
Firstly, we only issue bans if we can beyond a reasonable that the individual in question has
committed a violation of the rules. We have stated this to the public quite a bit, and it really is true. I
wouldn't lose sleep over the bans we've issued at all.

Our actual detection system monitors player behavior autonomously. As most bot programmers
have unfortunately and conveniently guessed, it works on a comparison of expected human behavior
to the observed behavior. Thus, macros that follow a set series of commands would be incredibly
easy to catch, if they would even be operational. Random camera shifts usually thwart these, and
finding them is a very rare occurrence.

We regularly dismantle macros, and the most common approach taken is object recognition with a
series of programmed responses. One of our very first attempts to counter this was random color
changes, usually not very noticeable. This turned out to be a failure as object recognition technology
proved to be far ahead of this eventuality."

"Unless the appearance of the interface was changed sufficiently enough to make it unusable to even
a regular player, it was not practical to make the game unrecognizable to a macro program.
All that we could do was analyze rather than inhibit, so to speak. By determining sets of behaviors
that are not characteristically human, in "criteria", we would get the alarm from the system if all
were met.

The first criteria is quite a bit similar to that of most first person shooter (FPS) games who take steps
to detect "aimbots." This would be simple movement. Inhumanly fast cursor movements are highly
suspicious, and consistent patterns of such movements (to discern from some player who gets bored
and plays with the mouse .) I don't know the actual numbers involved, sorry. Some exceptionally
skilled players frequently do trigger this, which is why multiple criteria exist.

The second criteria is the "accuracy" of the clicks. The interface determines exactly where any
specific click was made, and is further divided into the actual buttons such as the inventory, worn
equipment, etc…

Primitive programs typically recognize the object, but click the same spot (often the same pixel.) This
immediately raises the alarm if it is done consistently. Most programs do not do this, though, but
rather have an "area of uncertainty" where the click will randomly fall in.

This is still easy to detect. There is accuracy, and precision. These programs do not replicate human
precision. Consider the dartboard as an example:
The goal is to simply "hit it." A human will still aim for the bullseye, to increase the chance of hitting
the dartboard. Thus hits will be concentrated towards the bullseye, but there will still be hits
nowhere close, and some misses too.

A macro does not have human flaws, and can always hit the dartboard. However, if randomized in
the "area of uncertainty" there is no such pattern."
This will also raise the alarm. More advanced yet, some macros will actually form concentric regions
of where the clicks will land. Still, we're always ahead of rulebreakers. Our final line of defense in this
criteria is to analyze the regions most commonly clicked.

A macro tends to click in a perfect square, circle, or sometimes the shape of an interface icon.
Sometimes even the region is randomized. Human behavior is not truly random however. The region
most commonly clicked is related to placement, which is all I know about this.
Highly advanced bots have made an attempt to replicate even this, but we have not seen anything
convincing yet. Admittedly, we're disadvantaged in this aspect, so we cannot fully rely on simple
movement and accuracy to detect a macro program.

The next criteria is the actual sequence of actions. A player that decides to cut some trees for logs,
and sell them for profit actually has a longer list of actions to perform than you'd think. The efficiency
of which this is completed can be analyzed, and much more easily compared to the behavior of a
macro programs' attempt to replicate it.

If each step is merely randomized with the same bounds of uncertainty like virtually all bots seem to
do today, the actual time it takes to execute the actions in all converges to a specific value! It's
similar to flipping a fair coin multiple times, and converging to a frequency of outcomes (namely
50%.) Humans are generally much less consistent, and once the consistency falls within a certain
range, the alarm is raised.

One more of many criteria is the effect of total gameplay time. As expected, exhaustion will set in for
most players and slow down their actions. This is not a completely reliable method, since some
players have been able to keep up their concentration for remarkably long periods of time."
"The last criteria I really know of is probably the most obscure and advanced. Human players tend to
have much better object recognition capabilities than a macro program, and the limitations of the
procedure can be exploited. While a human may be able to recognize a tree at a very unusual and
discrete angle, many macros lack this capability, and thus keep the camera angle within a certain
range. Some fail to change it entirely.

Macros tend to locate objects that are far out of reach by going close to the area in question, and
then finding it. Normal players tend to look ahead first.

There are probably many more techniques employed, and the genius and innovative capability of my
coworkers is simply amazing. I am very confident in their ability to enforce the rules, and keep RS a
fair, and equal environment. The detection system is definitely conducive to such, but that is not our
only method.

The next is abuse reports. There are many new and better bots, just written, that can avoid at a few
of the criteria, and not be flagged. The intuition of a human being can never be surpassed, and abuse
reports give us an all seeing eye that brought many rule breakers to justice. Abuse reports are also
helpful for locating the archives, and comparing the new behavior of the new macro that was
previously able to avoid detection. We can update accordingly.

We highly encourage abuse reporting, and we will not punish players who send in reports with a
reasonable cause to suspect the player in question is using a macro.
Circumstances (such as the usual range of playing time) is taken into account as well.

stupid fagex im botting for 6 months nolife nothing happend big talks less actions

Yea, also this leak is a bit old but after giving it a good read it seems to be targetted at Simba

I feel like I read this a year or two ago.

This is definetly old :L

A macro does not have human flaws, and can always hit the dartboard. However, if randomized in
the "area of uncertainty" there is no such pattern."
This will also raise the alarm. More advanced yet, some macros will actually form concentric regions
of where the clicks will land. Still, we're always ahead of rulebreakers. Our final line of defense in this
criteria is to analyze the regions most commonly clicked.

I don't know how Simba randomises it's clicks, but we could use standard deviations to combat this :)

From: momotron
I don't know how Simba randomises it's clicks, but we could use standard deviations to combat this :)

Such functions have already been made for Simba.

This quote is really old

it is old. I bet if you search through 7 years SRL forums…you will find it! I remember back when we read this, we immidiately increased the overall randomness in SRL… which gave some problems in scripts :smile:

This is a true story but we have been anticipating on this for years :smile:

Found a thread on PB sharing this same thing as a pdf from December 3rd, 2010. Old news is rotten toast.

Cool story jagex. Good luck monitoring thousands of accounts.
They just cant do it.

One thing I took away from this post:

The second criteria is the "accuracy" of the clicks. The interface determines exactly where any
specific click was made, and is further divided into the actual buttons such as the inventory, worn
equipment, etc…

Primitive programs typically recognize the object, but click the same spot (often the same pixel.) This
immediately raises the alarm if it is done consistently. Most programs do not do this, though, but
rather have an "area of uncertainty" where the click will randomly fall in.

A macro does not have human flaws, and can always hit the dartboard. However, if randomized in
the "area of uncertainty" there is no such pattern."
This will also raise the alarm. More advanced yet, some macros will actually form concentric regions
of where the clicks will land. Still, we're always ahead of rulebreakers. Our final line of defense in this
criteria is to analyze the regions most commonly clicked.

Make your bots miss click!

GaussMouse was made for that very reason.

-RM

From: Sir R. M8gic1an
GaussMouse was made for that very reason.

-RM

Can u share us that pls? :)

Look in mouse.simba ;)

From: Kyle Undefined
Look in mouse.simba ;)

Cant find that.

It's in /Simba/Includes/SRL/SRL/core/

From: Kyle Undefined
It's in /Simba/Includes/SRL/SRL/core/

Its not there.

Are you sure about that?

From: Kyle Undefined
Are you sure about that?

The function is not in that simba file. Isnt it easier to copy/paste that funcion than posting useless answers? ….

I didn't say that function was in that file, you said you couldn't find the file and it wasn't there. If you were talking about something else, then you need to clarify that.

Also, by looking in mouse.simba, you'll see the GD functionality, but it's NOT an actual function.

All of this could of been avoided if you were to just look in the file like I said in the beginning.

Even though it's old. It's still a good read.

Thanks.

From: Kyle Undefined
I didn't say that function was in that file, you said you couldn't find the file and it wasn't there. If you were talking about something else, then you need to clarify that.

Also, by looking in mouse.simba, you'll see the GD functionality, but it's NOT an actual function.

All of this could of been avoided if you were to just look in the file like I said in the beginning.

I am not stupid, u said look in mouse.simba, and I did it, no GaussMouse there.

Check in math.simba for some gauss methods.

From: RISK
Check in math.simba for some gauss methods.

I dont know how that function works, I cant make it myself, I was just curious, I just want to test it.

i only got down to like 5th paragraph, yeah basicly if you (movemouse(x,y)) and have 50k ore you are no doubt in the red zone. i am surprized who ever wrote that thread said "botting technology has far superiority grown" isnt pascal older than java?

From: wantonman
"botting technology has far superiority grown" isnt pascal older than java?

It's not the programming language itself that defines how advanced technology is, its how it is used.

This is all true, but JAGEX relys on PLAYER REPORTS to know who to moniter. If you have ticked off the system and you have met all the critera to be botting, they will then send in a mod to try to talk to you as the last piece of evidence. basically, if you are not reported then you are safe.

I recently got reported for botting at yaks because the script kept clicking the same yak as a legit player, so he reported me before i could reply.. From then on, the past three days, when I am at yaks; there is pmod who logs in right behind me, pretends to be training on the yaks and after about 20 minutes of gameplay, they will ask me how my day is.. Luckily I have been there babysitting all three times. I believe that I was reported, the report was reviewed, Jagex set up their bot detection program to my account, got all the proof they needed from that, now are on the last step of receiving the thumbs up from a Jmod or Pmod.. I would like to stress that for three days in a row this has happened to me so its surely no coincidence.

From: exilednoob
This is all true, but JAGEX relys on PLAYER REPORTS to know who to moniter. If you have ticked off the system and you have met all the critera to be botting, they will then send in a mod to try to talk to you as the last piece of evidence. basically, if you are not reported then you are safe.

I recently got reported for botting at yaks because the script kept clicking the same yak as a legit player, so he reported me before i could reply.. From then on, the past three days, when I am at yaks; there is pmod who logs in right behind me, pretends to be training on the yaks and after about 20 minutes of gameplay, they will ask me how my day is.. Luckily I have been there babysitting all three times. I believe that I was reported, the report was reviewed, Jagex set up their bot detection program to my account, got all the proof they needed from that, now are on the last step of receiving the thumbs up from a Jmod or Pmod.. I would like to stress that for three days in a row this has happened to me so its surely no coincidence.

Did you manage to capture a screenshot of the jmod at ur yaks? I've never heard of jagex needing this extra step of actually appearing to the botter and talk to him as last check before banning (it'd be time-consuming too due to the large amt of botters). In fact its extremely rare to see a jmod in game (except those that likes to stalk suomi) unless theres an event/bug.

From: riwu
Did you manage to capture a screenshot of the jmod at ur yaks? I've never heard of jagex needing this extra step of actually appearing to the botter and talk to him as last check before banning (it'd be time-consuming too due to the large amt of botters). In fact its extremely rare to see a jmod in game (except those that likes to stalk suomi) unless theres an event/bug.

It was pmods and yeah i got two scree

yeah i got two screen shots, the client automatically takes them but they both have my username on them and both of them involved the Pmods asking how I am doing, identifying me by my username.. Also, Just because you've never "Heard" of it happened, or never "Seen" it happen, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

[that double post wasnt my fault, it was lag]

interesting read, but seems kind of 'too obvious' and was evidently to stop everyone constantly asking…

JaGex's best chances against bots are definitely law suits.

Are you suggesting that Jagex is Apple? :p

From: Flashhh
interesting read, but seems kind of 'too obvious' and was evidently to stop everyone constantly asking…

JaGex's best chances against bots are definitely law suits.

From: exilednoob
yeah i got two screen shots, the client automatically takes them but they both have my username on them and both of them involved the Pmods asking how I am doing, identifying me by my username.. Also, Just because you've never "Heard" of it happened, or never "Seen" it happen, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

[that double post wasnt my fault, it was lag]

oh srry i misread it, thought u were saying a JMOD checking on you. but even then will jagex actually send PMODs to check on suspected botters? could it be just coincidence that u bump into a few pmods?

I read this and I got bored after the 3rd paragraph all in all jagex wasted time and money with their effort to stop macros