[plamzi]

Assuming one head also assumes one character. No 'viable trading' of the best item of its kind in game is an equally strong assumption. At that point, I'd much rather have everyone botting than impose such limitations. That's because multiple alts and trading with other people are a big part of the fun in my game.

We come from different places, and I think we're making equally valid points about how to minimize botting in different types of games. Where I raise my hand is where you make multiple assumptions to arrive at words of advice that seem to be directed at everyone. I'm just saying it's not that simple.

If by "advance" you mean gaining levels and not alt development, then that clears up some confusion, because I took "advance" in a more general sense, which included end-game progress. That said, if there's anything harder than non-repeatable level-up content, it's non-repeatable end game content. Setting long-term goals is trivial compared to supplying people with endlessly varied ways in which they can work towards those goals. Again, I have to say that there are some extremely steep mountains to climb here.

In my view, in a truly open-ended game there's a realistic balance between repeatable and non-repeatable content. You can't give people free choice to go anywhere and do anything without giving them the choice to go to the same place more than once. You can discourage grinding and botting by providing diminishing returns, but determined botters will invest (machine) time to make up for it, and determined grinders will hate you because they invest actual time with no reward. Which brings me to one of my original points, that in the case of such a game, enforcing some simple rules against over-the-top botting can be a lot more effective (and less painful for everyone) than restricting indiscriminately in code.