When I script bot, I often use things like Code (Text): if(Random.nextDouble() < 0.998) { Execution.delay(Random.nextGaussian(someMin, someMax, someMean, someDeviation); } else Execution.delay(Random.nextGaussian(aLargeNumber, anotherLargeNumber, aLargeMean)); the point of which is to have realistic mouse delays, including rare instances of delays of 30 seconds or more. But should we be doing this? Or should we rely on whatever delays the client has personalized for the user?
Static sleeps are almost usually always a bad idea. Conditional sleeps are far better (Execution#delayWhile/delayUntil). Also, I highly suggest not usually all of those arguments in your random calls unless you really know what you're doing. Typically providing the min and max to nextGaussian is more than sufficient enough.
Hm, but the logic doesn't rely at all on the aforementioned sleeps. These sleeps are just anti-pattern measures. The question is whether they should be used as anti-pattern measures, or if the client takes care of all that for us. Okay. I'm not completely sure what I'm doing, but I do know that the standard deviation should be 1 (default) for a relatively wide bell curve and sqrt(0.2) for a steeper curve. I think in-between values result in weird things, so I'll limit myself to only using the default or sqrt(0.2).
I suggest you test generating some values with the random class and verifying your assumptions. Also, I don't think you should be using those sleeps because they will result in a pattern over a long enough period of time.
Thank you. I'll get rid of all my unnecessary sleeps and test any Gaussian functions if I use them again.
As cloud stated, static sleeps are usually a bad idea. However, i think if you were to make a dynamic sleep and then follow it by the chance of having a randomly timed long sleep that shouldn't be too bad. For example if you are waiting for the player to not be moving this is the dynamic sleep you'd use: Code (Text): Execution.delayUntil(() -> !Players.getLocal().isMoving()); Perhaps after that happens you could then have Code (Text): if (randValue > 0.99) { Execution.delay(min, max); }
As a general rule of thumb, anti-patterns can only cause benefits. That being said, implementing anti-patterns incorrectly is usually worse than not implementing them at all. I think the basic concept of what you're trying to do here is very good, so please don't be discouraged.
I'll reintroduce some static sleeps sparingly, make sure they make sense for a legit player, and combine them with shorter, dynamic sleeps, as per Aidden's excellent suggestion. Thanks for the additional input, guys.
