I'm working on a web-based game that's like a leaderboard-driven chance game similar to the Crash gambling game. Instead of cashing out at a certain multiplier, players independently click a button to raise their multipliers, which allows for more varied play styles. I've been transparent about the Random Number Generator's inner workings so players can verify results. The game's social aspect is crucial, with a live leaderboard showcasing player results and additional features like player attacks and shields.
Since it's free to play, players earn in-game currency daily but can buy more if they'd like. The leaderboard resets every four days, and to maintain player engagement during low activity times, I'm considering using bots. My question is how I should present these bots to players. Would it be better to label them as 'automated challengers' or just include a note in the FAQs about their presence during these times? I want to avoid deceiving real players while still creating an engaging environment, and the bots would phase out as regular players join. I'd love your feedback!
2 Answers
I have to say, using bots can come off as slightly deceptive, even if done with good intentions. Maybe consider incentivizing real players to stay active over relying on bots? You could offer bonuses for daily logins or temporary boosts for players who play during low times. That way, you don't have to rely on bots entirely. Just a thought!
Honestly, using bots can be a slippery slope. If you go with the 'automated challengers' label, at least you're being upfront about it. Players appreciate transparency. I think a short FAQ statement works too, just make sure to emphasize that they exist solely to keep the game running smoothly when real players drop off. Being clear helps build trust!
Yeah, I agree. Transparency is key. You might even consider doing a poll to see what players think about the bot concept.
That's a great idea! Engaging players directly might solve the issue without needing bots at all.