Guild Wars 2

Currently the stack limit is 250 items. Which means no order on the trading post can have more than 250 items in it. Which means power traders will make multiple identical orders. This seems like it would reduce TP performance for everyone.

The big thing I see is when a power trader decides to change the price on one of their items. If there was no stack size limit, it would be two transactions: One to cancel the order, another to make the new order at the different price. But with the stack limit they have to change the price on multiple stacks. Two stacks and they have doubled the amount of processing time devoted to the power trader. Three stacks is triple, etc. All of which means less processing time for everyone else.

Especially if they bot it, which seems like a trivial task.

They shouldn’t be botting it. Are you saying people bot the TP? Guess Anet needs to start taking a hard look at DR on the TP.

SteepledHat.1345:

They shouldn’t be botting it. Are you saying people bot the TP? Guess Anet needs to start taking a hard look at DR on the TP.

Wait, what?

SteepledHat.1345:

They shouldn’t be botting it. Are you saying people bot the TP? Guess Anet needs to start taking a hard look at DR on the TP.

people been botting the TP since release.

I suspected this might be the case. Then anything that makes botting easier I’m against. It think this idea would probably make it easier.

this would not effect bots. Bots have scripts to buy stacks as fast as possible in any way.

currently its not hard for a bot to make 10000 orders in 3 mins while a human would probably get bored and frustrated.

SteepledHat.1345:

They shouldn’t be botting it. Are you saying people bot the TP? Guess Anet needs to start taking a hard look at DR on the TP.

I’m not saying that people bot the TP. Only that it seems like it would be very easy for them to do so.

Esrever.8613:

this would not effect bots. Bots have scripts to buy stacks as fast as possible in any way.

currently its not hard for a bot to make 10000 orders in 3 mins while a human would probably get bored and frustrated.

Exactly. But I’m not talking about how this would affect bots. I’m talking about how bots effect everyone else by making the TP have to process those 10,000 identical orders, when it would only have to process a single order if there was no stack limit.

I think that ArenaNet has a good system in place already. There isn’t really a need to change it.

If they WERE to change it, I suggest they only do so on the Buy side. The limits they have in place to reduce mass selling hinder botting on the TP. They don’t stop it completely, but they do slow it down. This also hinders real players, but that hindrance to slow down botting is acceptable, imo.

I have a feeling if they eliminated the stack limit on the Buy side, bots would just be able to place buy orders faster, but I don’t know if that would negatively affect anything. I’ve tried thinking about it, but couldn’t come up with anything.

If ArenaNet wanted to make a change, I would suggest they leave the Sell side the way it is and remove the stack limits on the Buy side. I doubt they’ll make that change though….especially seeing as it functions just fine the way it is.

This also hinders real players, but that hindrance to slow down botting is acceptable, imo.

Most silly argument ever made. How about preventing bots, while not hindering players? I dont understand why gamers so readilly accept limitations under false pretenses that its for their own good.

Rogacz.9865:

This also hinders real players, but that hindrance to slow down botting is acceptable, imo.

Most silly argument ever made. How about preventing bots, while not hindering players? I dont understand why gamers so readilly accept limitations under false pretenses that its for their own good.

Ever went through security before entering a concert? Did you complain there as well that they only should hinder the people who have knifes/bottles etc?

Rogacz.9865:

Most silly argument ever made. How about preventing bots, while not hindering players? I dont understand why gamers so readilly accept limitations under false pretenses that its for their own good.

It sounds like you have an amazing idea to combat botting on the TP without negatively affecting players as well. Do tell!!!!

Until an idea comes up that will actually work, the current system IS acceptable…..IN MY OPINION.

The ONLY way to cut down on botting is to limit the number of ‘BUY ORDERS’ that you are able to make. Guess what? It also hinders power traders.

The answer is an obvious yes, the amount of queries that have to run back and forth to get real time info would impact performance, I suspect the buy/sell/bought/sold tabs bugging up and showing “no results found” quite regularly is just one sign that it’s not coping that well and well the fact it’s usually painfully slow to load/search/switch tabs being another. The stack limit is more of an annoyance than a deterrent for anyone and it’s ultimately affecting everyone in a negative way one way or another.

We all agree that the stack limits are annoying, but is there really a better way to combat botting?

Maybe it doesn’t make any difference. Maybe it does. Who knows?

I think if stack limits and the sell timer were removed from the TP, everyone’s speeds would increase….including bots.

The question I have is….

Is there a way to reduce the buying / selling speed or effectiveness of bots without also reducing it for real players? I honestly don’t think there is.

If a human can do something, then a human can figure out a way for a bot to automate the same task. THAT is what botters do.

Removing it should make it more obvious who’s botting if that’s occurring or at least raise red flags on who to watch. The bigger issue is ANet’s response time to botting, bot bans happen in waves….weeks after they bots have been running.

I don’t think it would make it more obvious to who is and who isn’t botting.

I deal in the 10,000’s of items on a daily basis. I’m NOT a bot. I HATE botters and think they should all be banned.

I guarantee you that if Anet determined that the volume in which you trade was a metric that determined who is botting….I’d be tagged as a botter. I wouldn’t like that at all.

The solution to botting has yet to be determined. There isn’t a game out there that’s figured it out yet. If there were, we wouldn’t see any bots anymore….at least not until the botters figured out a way around that system.

The key is to find a minimally intrusive system to players that is a GIGANTIC pain for botters. I hope someday game developers figure it out, but until then…..this current system isn’t that bad. It could be worse.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

I think that ArenaNet has a good system in place already. There isn’t really a need to change it.

The trading post running slower for everyone* because it’s having to do more processing because the limit means people just make multiple identical orders sounds like a good reason to me. That’s why I’m asking if it is the case.
My argument is simple:
– Every buy or sell order is a transaction on the TP database.
– The more transactions per second on a database, the slower it runs.
– Having a transaction with a large number is still a single transaction.
– The stack limit means that people are making tens, if not hundreds or thousands of transactions when, if the stack limit was removed, they would only make one.

*Is it just me, or has the “unable to sell” error on the TP been getting worse over time ?

If anything, the transaction limit only encourages bots. With the limit you have to chose between entering the details into the TP for every single order you make, or just telling a simple bot the price you want once and letting it handle all the orders.
With no stack limit, you would only have to enter the numbers in the trading post once. So no desire for a bot to automate placing orders. Thus less people deciding that, since they already have an order placing bot, going to a more complex bot (which will harm GW2 more if it spreads) isn’t much of a step.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

We all agree that the stack limits are annoying, but is there really a better way to combat botting?

How does the stack limit combat botting ?

What the stack limit does is ask players to perform one menial task repeatedly. Something bots are much better at than humans. Thus it encourages bots.

Disclaimer: I don’t work for ArenaNet, so the following is just my opinion.

I believe the stack limits are in place for the selling side and are only carried over to the buy side for simplicity of coding.

The stack limit on the sell side requires multiple transactions to sell a large number of the same item. Those transactions are timed and counted so that you can only place a certain number of sell orders in a given amount of time (determined by ArenaNet). THIS is how stack limits are used to combat botting. If those stack limits didn’t exist, a player (or bot) could post a single sell order for a LARGE number of a single item without hitting the “Unable to Sell” error. WITH the stack limits, it forces multiple transactions, thereby causing the “Unable to Sell” error to occur more frequently….thus slowing down botting….and slowing down real players too.

For the average player, I bet they rarely see the “Unable to Sell” error, but for power traders (like me) and bots…..we see it ALL THE TIME!!!!

There are far fewer power traders than there are average players in this game, so ArenaNet decided to implement a system to reduce botting that affects a smaller portion of the player base.

Basically….if we want to trade like bots….then we’re going to be hindered like bots.

What is your idea for combating botting while leaving the power trader to do his business un-hindered? If you have one….I’d love to hear it. I’ve thought about it long and hard and have yet to come up with anything that doesn’t either hinder the entire player base or couldn’t be easily circumvented by a creative botting program.

A human can only make so many trades per second <— rules based on this work just fine to limit bot interactions, though I don’t believe Anet has this in place anywhere.

A stack is 250 because it is a very small number in binary, it’s pretty small in hex too. Increasing this beyond 256(0-255) would increase the database size for trades by more than double.

And focusing on the bots will always hinder players, this is Anet’s stance. It’s much better to focus on the players than on bots.
It’s like putting up police checkpoints at every intersection because of drunk drivers – you know, to keep the people safe… It hinders normal people while doing little to combat the problem – alcoholics living too far away from bars.

might as well put a capcha for trades above 250 and make it so stacks are much more.

in the beta the stacks were 1000.

and they didn’t choose 250 per stack because its smaller number to store since all the bits would need to be stored as a 32bit number either way and unsigned 32bit ints have a range >4billion. Anet can change something really small in their code and we could have 4b stacks in 1 small update.

Esrever.8613:

might as well put a capcha for trades above 250 and make it so stacks are much more.

in the beta the stacks were 1000.

and they didn’t choose 250 per stack because its smaller number to store since all the bits would need to be stored as a 32bit number either way and unsigned 32bit ints have a range >4billion. Anet can change something really small in their code and we could have 4b stacks in 1 small update.

Then bots would still buy in 250’s.

It sounds like you have an amazing idea to combat botting on the TP without negatively affecting players as well. Do tell!!!!

Until an idea comes up that will actually work, the current system IS acceptable…..IN MY OPINION.

Firstly. The current system doesnt stop bots, because placing another order is quicker and easier for a bot – a program that just sends premade data packet as compared to player, who has to retype every listing detail. So the current system hinders players way way more then it hinders bots, if it does hinder them at all. After all thats what you write programs and scripts for – to automate bothersome actions.

Secondly, yes, i have a rather easy idea for TP bots. Get rid of public http API and embedded browser in game, and instead write proper ingame network code which will use properly encrypted communication. Then players dont see the difference, but bots will no longer have access to TP in form of plain text data, and instead will have to either read memory, which is in some cases detectable, and has high risk of error considering data volume, or will have to perform text recognition, which so far hasn’t been perfected, but even if, then it would actually require proper pc to render in reasonable quality. Then you d have to read memory/scan screenshots for places of textbox so bot can put in listing details. But such solution would actually require work, so its better to just hinder players, in the name of protecting them. Some can’t even see through that silly ploy.

And thirdly, same can be said for botting certain areas of ingame world. If the game was actually dynamic and challenging, you wouldnt need DR code. Another flawed concept which is harming players much much more then it is harming bots, which dont really care how much loot they get, as long as they still get some. Not to mention you could just switch over to another char in another area and avoid DR altogether. Again, simple task for a bot.

Ever went through security before entering a concert? Did you complain there as well that they only should hinder the people who have knifes/bottles etc?

Firstly, and most importantly, did you just compare a threat to your life with nonexistent currency manipulation/selling that can only be used to move some pixels? Cause that seems rather inadequate comparison.

Secondly, yes i went through various security proceedures, and vast majority of them are extremely benign. Even in the example you use – all that has happened is that at one point, you are required to show that you dont have any potentially dangerous objects – and that likely only if you are dressed in such a way that you could have concealead something like that. Few times i was dressed plainely nobody even looked at me at security gates. So an equally adequate measure would be to at one point determine if we are dealing with a bot or player, which again comes down to publicly exposed http API.

And thridly, your comparison is flawed in the most basic way, which i ve already mentioned. You are not being constantly checked by security when you are at a concert. But you are constantly hindered by TP when you have to enter listing details again and again, and in similar manner constantly hindered by DR when you are doing PvE content.

Esplen.3940:

Esrever.8613:

might as well put a capcha for trades above 250 and make it so stacks are much more.

in the beta the stacks were 1000.

and they didn’t choose 250 per stack because its smaller number to store since all the bits would need to be stored as a 32bit number either way and unsigned 32bit ints have a range >4billion. Anet can change something really small in their code and we could have 4b stacks in 1 small update.

Then bots would still buy in 250’s.

Which would then make it really obvious when it’s a bot because legit players aren’t being hindered because they aren’t bots like the current system does…

Then all the bots will get banned, prices will inflate, and people will all be angry happy!

Then all the bots will get banned, prices will inflate, and people will all be angry happy!

Thats one extra thing i forgot to add to the previous wall of text. I honestly couldnt care less if there were so many bots everywhere they would be choking to death, as long as i could perform acomplish desired actions in the game within reasonable timeframe.

I really dont care if there are people/bots farming mats 24/7, manipulating prices on TP to some absurd levels or exploiting WvW/karma/dungeons. All i want is to be able to play the game unhindered.

Rogacz.9865:

Thats one extra thing i forgot to add to the previous wall of text. I honestly couldnt care less if there were so many bots everywhere

Your entire wall of text is bashing bots. You very briefly touch upon the subject of hindering players by trying to stop bots, but what you don’t realize is that the 250 stack system has been a part of GW2 since before GW2 was even thought up. 250 stack sizes were in GW1 and were just as annoying since you’d easily have more than 250 of an item and bank tabs weren’t nearly as large.

No. My entire post bashes the idea that hindering player in order to combat bots is good. All i did was provide alternative solutions, cause apparently logical conclusion as to what is and is not good for end user experience is invalid without providing alternatives. As evident by quote i ve included in the post of Charismatic Harm.9683.

What you seem to not realize is that GW1 doesnt have TP, so I cannot see how it relates to the problem of buying in bulk on TP in GW2 [to combat bots as seen by some]. Especially since you dont need to increase stack size. All you need is adding the possibility for players to buy more then one stack, regardless of whether it would be in multiples of desired stack size, or simply allowing to buy order more then a single stack, since the game automatically splits goods into stacks anyway on delivery.

And i ve probably played more GW1 then you so no clue why you’d think i dont know where 250 comes from.

No. it doesn’t harm TP performance. Here is why

There is a reason behind 250 stack limit. and it is a technical reason.

To store items, you need a number to represent the stack size.
To store this number, you need to allocate memory for it. (in database, network, computer ram, etc)
To store 256 unique value you need 8 bits, which is 1 Byte of data.

Edit: thanks goldi for correcting my mistake. guess i was half drunk

Max.4786:

No. it doesn’t harm TP performance. Here is why

There is a reason behind 250 stack limit. and it is a technical reason.

To store items, you need a number to represent the stack size.
To store this number, you need to allocate memory for it. (in database, network, computer ram, etc)
To store 256 unique value you need 8 bits, which is 1 Byte of data.

To allow stack size of 9999 would require 40 Byte of memory to store just 1 stack.
Think of memory allocation as planning for space to put the box. even if you have only 2 candy corn in the box, the computer still has to allocate 40 Byte of memory for the entire box.

So 250 happens to be a nice pretty number that can fit into a small box.
1. It is much easier to shift small boxes around.
2. It is a more efficient use of the warehouse space.

Uhm.
Or you use an unsigned short that can store up to 65,535 in 2 bytes.

Or you run a script in the background that splits it into 250 stacks (like when you’re crafting 4000+ of an item) before hitting the database. The amount of queries to the database is excessive and shows in how slow it performs and how often it fails to even return results (selling/buying/sold/bought tabs often time out and fail)

Or you run a script in the background that splits it into 250 stacks (like when you’re crafting 4000+ of an item) before hitting the database.

This.

Or you let database handle proper memory allocation.

Or you create dynamically expanding structure. Not that stack size changes so often on TP in buy orders/sell listings.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

What is your idea for combating botting while leaving the power trader to do his business un-hindered?

First of all, stop encouraging people to bot by forcing them to chose between repeating a menial action (entering an order) or having a bot do it. Thus less people will be frustrated enough by the stack limit and the unable to sell order that they go find/write a bot to get round the frustrations.
Then, because they aren’t encouraged by ANET to use a simple bot, that simple bot is no longer reducing their inhibitions against botting, or coming with extra features that they are tempted to use now they have the bot installed.

In short, the limits only encourage botting.

Esplen.3940:

Esrever.8613:

might as well put a capcha for trades above 250 and make it so stacks are much more.

…

Then bots would still buy in 250’s.

That would make the bots very obvious as they would have multiple identical orders of 250, while the human traders would do a single giant order. So a captcha sounds like the perfect solution.
Assuming ANET implements a captcha bots can’t read.

Max.4786:

No. it doesn’t harm TP performance. Here is why

There is a reason behind 250 stack limit. and it is a technical reason.

To store items, you need a number to represent the stack size.
To store this number, you need to allocate memory for it. (in database, network, computer ram, etc)
To store 256 unique value you need 8 bits, which is 1 Byte of data.

All this means is that there is a tradeoff between how much data needs to be stored and how much CPU activity is needed to handle the data changing. Well, there might be a tradeoff. Remember, the order has to store other data, and that data must be repeated if multiple identical orders exist.

Please run your example with someone listing 10,000 units of an item and compare space used between 40 250 unit orders and 1 10,000 unit order. Be sure to include space used for recording the price, ID of the person listing the order(s) and time the order was placed (which ANET does attempt to record).

Esplen.3940:

Then all the bots will get banned, prices will inflate, and people will all be angry happy!

I would like the stack size to increase because when you deal in materials or thing like that, it’s a major pain to enter 32 stacks of 250 at x price.

If nothing else, at least give us a button to let us repeat our last order, good grief

And while you’re at it, let us buy items from the crafting vendors in quantity or full stacks at a time.

Esplen.3940:

Esrever.8613:

might as well put a capcha for trades above 250 and make it so stacks are much more.

in the beta the stacks were 1000.

and they didn’t choose 250 per stack because its smaller number to store since all the bits would need to be stored as a 32bit number either way and unsigned 32bit ints have a range >4billion. Anet can change something really small in their code and we could have 4b stacks in 1 small update.

Then bots would still buy in 250’s.

then its easy to see who is a bot

Rogacz.9865:

Then all the bots will get banned, prices will inflate, and people will all be angry happy!

Thats one extra thing i forgot to add to the previous wall of text. I honestly couldnt care less if there were so many bots everywhere they would be choking to death, as long as i could perform acomplish desired actions in the game within reasonable timeframe.

I really dont care if there are people/bots farming mats 24/7, manipulating prices on TP to some absurd levels or exploiting WvW/karma/dungeons. All i want is to be able to play the game unhindered.

might as well play a single player game.

might as well play a single player game.

I dont care about bots. Doesnt mean i dont play with friends. But I would not be bothered by what they have neither.