100 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

pwnface, on 26 January 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

If you had reading comprehension you'd realize it is actually closer to 50ish minutes off. If you don't think avoiding an hour of sitting around doing nothing is something people want then you are mistaken.

Really, these people are sitting around doing nothing for nothing anyways, I guess a little less time doing nothing will make their doing nothing more....I don't know. Anyways, please continue to announce the sky is falling when there isn't even a sky in place. Nothing will stop people who are going to do mindless busy work for no real gain, so I say let them. If these people want to spend all this time ghost dropping or not fighting or whatever the **** they are going to do to change 1 planet amongst the whole map, even if it's one planet every day, I can't see how it's worth any time from PGI to "fix". People will get bored, and it really doesn't seem like it would take much work from real players to roll it all back. There are seriously many more important and fundamental issues to spend time and resources on than tin foil hattery possibilities.

[pwnface]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 January 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

My Normal CW experience has not been over a 20 minute wait PUG or grouped. And to Ghost cap takes less than 5 minutes. Now Ghost defend... that's 30 minutes. And would/does suck.

I think you are completely misunderstanding this issue here. I'm not discussing what happens when there are live opponents to be found, the scenario being discussed is when there is a 12 man group attacking and NO defenders. In order to ghost cap a planet an attacking 12man normally needs to wait 10 minutes and then drops into an empty match which can be completed in roughly 3-4minutes. By syncing against their own spoof accounts a team can bypass this 10 minute wait EVERY TIME.

Is this a major problem now? I don't know, I have no way to tell.

Is this potentially a game breaking exploit of the current game mechanics? Definitely yes.

It should be incredibly easy for PGI to spot this type of activity if they are looking for it, at the same time it could be incredibly difficult for players to catch others doing this. Anytime both sides of a queue are under 12 people a successful sync could be done. Since the sync would be near instantaneous, I doubt normal players would even receive an attack/defend notification. Unless players are actively looking at the CW map, they wouldn't notice their planet is being taken over incredibly quickly.

[Dawnstealer]

Are you saying people were cheating at Pong?

[Joseph Mallan]

pwnface, on 27 January 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

I think you are completely misunderstanding this issue here. I'm not discussing what happens when there are live opponents to be found, the scenario being discussed is when there is a 12 man group attacking and NO defenders. In order to ghost cap a planet an attacking 12man normally needs to wait 10 minutes and then drops into an empty match which can be completed in roughly 3-4minutes. By syncing against their own spoof accounts a team can bypass this 10 minute wait EVERY TIME.

Is this a major problem now? I don't know, I have no way to tell.

Is this potentially a game breaking exploit of the current game mechanics? Definitely yes.

It should be incredibly easy for PGI to spot this type of activity if they are looking for it, at the same time it could be incredibly difficult for players to catch others doing this. Anytime both sides of a queue are under 12 people a successful sync could be done. Since the sync would be near instantaneous, I doubt normal players would even receive an attack/defend notification. Unless players are actively looking at the CW map, they wouldn't notice their planet is being taken over incredibly quickly.

LOL Power to em if they wanna call that playing the game. Lets see they would have more money than me. No problem there, I'm not here to have the most space Bucks. They would have more Mechs than me! I wanna have my 4 for for CW and thats it. They will have plenty of Modules. I have almost all the ones I need to fight in CW.And if PGI can catch em cheating by looking at the numbers... They will be banned post haste.

I am not seeing the cracks in the sky you are pointing at PWN.

[Donny Line Z]

• [color=#E5740F]Elite Founder[/color]
  
• 
  
• 208 posts

"Posted 23 January 2015 - 10:20 AM
Been on comps since first computers were made, first 1977 ibm clone. Cheating has been around from start. Any person who plays 2 accounts to boost his or her other toon is CHEATING and should be banned"

the first IBM clone didn't hit the market till 1981 (google) just to put the rest of what u say into context

Edited by Donnylinez, 27 January 2015 - 09:57 AM.

[DEMAX51]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 January 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

My Normal CW experience has not been over a 20 minute wait PUG or grouped. And to Ghost cap takes less than 5 minutes. Now Ghost defend... that's 30 minutes. And would/does suck.

Joe - there is no such thing as a "Ghost Defend"

[Joseph Mallan]

DEMAX51, on 27 January 2015 - 10:24 AM, said:

Joe - there is no such thing as a "Ghost Defend"

Well as I only have had ONE ghost drop... I think I can be uninformed on how they work.

[pwnface]

Everyone keeps stating the same rhetoric of "the sky isn't falling" and I don't feel like that is what I'm doing.

PGI has a crack in their boat and I'm pointing it out. No the boat isn't sinking yet, but it doesn't mean people shouldn't be aware a problem exists. Isn't it smarter to patch a crack in the boat before you start taking on water? Or should you wait until water starts flooding in to deal with the issue? CW is in beta, I think we are supposed to be testing the game mechanics and gameplay right? Why is pointing out a flawed system getting so many people riled up?

Joseph Mallan, on 27 January 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

Well as I only have had ONE ghost drop... I think I can be uninformed on how they work.

If you don't even know how ghost drops work how can you say that it's a non-issue? -___-

[HARDKOR]

Well, if you are legitimately concerned about this , making a never dying post on the forum explaining how to do the exploit is shooting yourself in the foot. Report it to PGI in private instead of holding a "how to cheat at CW" class on the forum.

These threads are fail on so many levels.

[Joseph Mallan]

pwnface, on 27 January 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

Everyone keeps stating the same rhetoric of "the sky isn't falling" and I don't feel like that is what I'm doing.

PGI has a crack in their boat and I'm pointing it out. No the boat isn't sinking yet, but it doesn't mean people shouldn't be aware a problem exists. Isn't it smarter to patch a crack in the boat before you start taking on water? Or should you wait until water starts flooding in to deal with the issue? CW is in beta, I think we are supposed to be testing the game mechanics and gameplay right? Why is pointing out a flawed system getting so many people riled up?



If you don't even know how ghost drops work how can you say that it's a non-issue? -___-

You have the right. But in having the right you also have teh obligation to stand fast against the rhetoric. The fact that you may get to point back and say I told you so, will be the redemption.

And I can say it if that is my opinion. You will note I still am not upset even knowing I had made a mistake.

[DEMAX51]

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out this potential exploit now, but it isn't a particularly devastating exploit right now, either, considering planet ownership literally has zero impact on anything other than "bragging rights."

Edited by DEMAX51, 27 January 2015 - 10:35 AM.

[pwnface]

HARDKOR, on 27 January 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

Well, if you are legitimately concerned about this , making a never dying post on the forum explaining how to do the exploit is shooting yourself in the foot. Report it to PGI in private instead of holding a "how to cheat at CW" class on the forum.

These threads are fail on so many levels.

Speaking from personal experience, reporting anything to PGI using their "support" system is an exercise in futility. The best way to get PGI attention is to keep threads up that won't die or to tweet Russ directly. It really isn't hard to figure out how the system can be exploited, I hardly think anyone needs a "class" in how to bypass the ghost drop timer. Planetary control means very little to me at the moment as planetary rewards haven't been implemented yet, House Kurita pilots are used to signing on with all our defense against the clan planets at 100% attacker wins anyway.

DEMAX51, on 27 January 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out this potential exploit now, but it isn't a particularly devastating exploit right now, either, considering planet ownership literally has zero impact on anything other than "bragging rights."

I certainly hope the mechanic will be adjusted before planetary rewards are implemented, otherwise there will be much greater incentive for people to exploit the system.

[HARDKOR]

I promise you that this is only obvious to the paranoid and those who like to cheat. There is no reason for this to even cross your mind unless you are either A. concerned that there is mass unfairness as a reason for your perceived losses or B. you are looking for and edge. This thread is definitely planting the seed for the dishonest underhive and throwing gas on the fire for the paranoid.

Edited by HARDKOR, 27 January 2015 - 11:05 AM.

[dezgra]

One of my favorite reruns...Gilligans Island. Loved that show, which reminds me of a quote.

"I understand everything perfectly! Ginger isn't Ginger anymore, because Mary Ann isn't who she was, when Ginger wasn't who she is, isn't that right Skipper?

[DEMAX51]

Thinking more about this, one way PGI can prevent this sort of exploit would be with drop-costs and logistics. If people seeking to do this had to grind-up a bunch of C-bills on their alt accounts in order to drop enough games for this to be an effective way of taking planets, it might be more trouble than it's worth.

Certainly not a panacea, but a band-aid nonetheless.

Edited by DEMAX51, 27 January 2015 - 11:10 AM.

[pwnface]

HARDKOR, on 27 January 2015 - 11:01 AM, said:

I promise you that this is only obvious to the paranoid and those who like to cheat. There is no reason for this to even cross your mind unless you are either A. concerned that there is mass unfairness as a reason for your perceived losses or B. you are looking for and edge. This thread is definitely planting the seed for the dishonest underhive and throwing gas on the fire for the paranoid.

Okay so I spotted this super obvious way to exploit game mechanics so that means I like to cheat?

Let's be realistic, people WILL cheat if given enough incentive to especially if it is relatively easy to do so. Hackers/cheaters can be found in pretty much any video game that doesn't have a strong way to deter them.

Currently planetary control does little besides bragging rights, giving most players very little incentive to exploit the system. If planetary rewards started to include daily C-Bill earnings or cheaper mech purchases, you can be sure there will be players that will try to get ahead any way possible.

DEMAX51, on 27 January 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

Thinking more about this, one way PGI can prevent this sort of exploit would be with drop-costs and logistics. If people seeking to do this had to grind-up a bunch of C-bills on their alt accounts in order to drop enough games for this to be an effective way of taking planets, it might be more trouble than it's worth.

Certainly not a panacea, but a band-aid nonetheless.

This would be a really cool idea. Launching into a CW match could cost money but a successful match could reap greater rewards. This would ensure there wouldn't be 48 trial mech smurf accounts on defense very frequently.

PGI could also make dropships necessary for travelling to different planets and require players to leave mechs as a garrison to actually defend a planet. Being able to attack / defend anywhere on the map that has a conflict isn't quite the CW I imagined.

[C E Dwyer]

Some highly mature behaviour in this thread, to think some of those acting like 12 year olds might have spawned is scarey

[dezgra]

Cathy, on 27 January 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Some highly mature behaviour in this thread, to think some of those acting like 12 year olds might have spawned is scarey

There you go...derailing this critical thread with taking kids fishing. I like kids, and I like fishing, but this is a serious thread. Go somewhere else to TROLL

[Belorion]

I am not sure I understand the premise of this thread...

If whole groups are creating 2ndary toons, and dropping against their own faction to purposely lose then that's a problem.

It this is just a stats thing, then who cares?

[HARDKOR]

Quote

Okay so I spotted this super obvious way to exploit game mechanics so that means I like to cheat?

Well, the other option is that you are overly paranoid, but you jumped right on te cheater thing, which isn't even what I said.

You already said that it would easy to spot from the dev side, so why sweat it? All this thread is, is "alt account abuse tactics 101" for the disgruntled n00bs that want to troll in CW.

If you want more of something, talk about it a lot. All those threads crying about the 9S sold a lot of mechs.