84 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

Sandpit, on 14 January 2016 - 09:27 PM, said:

can't do that according to Russ. Planets have a single queue for all planets. That's why they can't do varied drop decks on different planets and such.
Same thing would apply here I would think

Out of curiosity when did he state that? I seem to remember him saying we could have varied drop weights based on planet, or at least that was goal at one point in time. If that really is the case then yeah I would assume the same problem applies to separate queues for solo CW and unit CW.

[Mystere]

Sereglach, on 14 January 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Anyone trying that hard to mask alt accounts, and going to go to all that trouble to try to exploit a game, really needs to get a life. Besides, there are serious issues with the methodologies you present. They also don't require much technical know-how to see the problems (so it's not like this is giving anything to the possible cheaters out there).

Well, I have news for you. Apparently, there are quite a number of people who are actually like that. Why do I say that? Because the new router I spoke of is a newly-released gaming router. My older non-gaming routers do not have such a feature.

And it's actually not difficult to do. It took me around 5-10 minutes to figure out a way, including an account naming convention to keep everything easily manageable.

Sereglach, on 14 January 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

1. Spoofing MAC addresses only works so well and has legal repercussions of its own (it's been used to show intent to commit crime in court, and succeed). Theoretically if MWO sees you spoofing your MAC address by constantly signing in with different MACs, then they can accuse you of having intent to cheat and it'd stand up in court. Besides, article 5 of the TOS states you're always going to use and provide accurate personal information, so masking your MAC would be a failure to follow the TOS and could result in losing your ability to play the game.

2. Also, again, if you want to use constant VPN's with different locales, or just to spoof your IP address, then you're opening yourself up to be again questioned about possible violations to terms of service article 5. This, again, could result in revocation of your ability to use the product under the TOS.

3. Your ISP gives you boatloads of emails, but they're also all linked back to your ISP and your account . . . and thusly all identifiable as you.

Seriously, though, if people want to go to that much trouble to exploit the system, then there's always going to be cheaters (as there always is and always will be, because some people are pathetic and useless like that . . . and the only people who will take offense to that remark are cheaters). If people want to do that, then it's their prerogative; and with higher stakes on the table (in this case MC rewards) then the security is going to be upped and people will be much more likely to turn someone -who's cheating around them- in, because they don't want to go down with the cheater and lose their own stuff in the process.

Regardless, this isn't about how many ways you can try to find to game the system; although some of the reasoning for the concept in question is designed to help address the exact kind of stuff you're bringing up. It's about the validity and philosophy behind methods, such as recruitment fees, to help control unit populations and assist in creating a healthy and competitive environment in Faction Warfare for Phase 3 and beyond.

I seriously doubt PGI will go through the trouble of going through the justice system, especially outside of Canada just to identify cheaters. And I am pretty confident they would also not do the same for ISPs, especially those also outside of Canada.

As for VPNs, you do realize many people use them as an SOP for online communications and as such is already second-nature to them, right?

Internet lawyers.

Edited by Mystere, 15 January 2016 - 08:28 AM.

[TLBFestus]

Well it's commonly been said here that there are not enough units in CW.

Making it painfully expensive (and I mean really steep) to have anything over 200 members or so, would make more "units".

I'm sure that they have a master plan to deal with sync dropping and such.

[Sereglach]

Mystere, on 15 January 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

Well, I have news for you. Apparently, there are quite a number of people who are actually like that. Why do I say that? Because the new router I spoke of is a newly-released gaming router. My older non-gaming routers do not have such a feature.

And it's actually not difficult to do. It took me around 5-10 minutes to figure out a way, including an account naming convention to keep everything easily manageable.

I seriously doubt PGI will go through the trouble of going through the justice system, especially outside of Canada just to identify cheaters. And I am pretty confident they would also not do the same for ISPs, especially those also outside of Canada.

As for VPNs, you do realize many people use them as an SOP for online communications and as such is already second-nature to them, right?

Internet lawyers.

You want to use them, then use them. Same for anyone else using them. I know how they work; but I also know all the legal messes that they've been involved in. Thusly, the honest truth of the TOS is there, and if PGI wants to nail someone for using them, or using them as a means of exploiting, then it's there in their Terms of Service. It's like how it's against the TOS to use the 3D materials -or any art, for that matter- to make minis, statues, etc. but currently PGI says they're not going to nail people for it. However, if they change their mind, then a whole lot of people are in violation of the TOS really quick, including people who've made fan videos by removing assets from the game.

You can laugh all you want. I don't think people will be laughing when it's used as part of the reasoning for having their account banned. I love how people think they're just king crab of everything and know-it-all until their plans and policies backfire in their face . . . then scream and cry and say it isn't fair. Need I bring up the 30+ page thread of bickering because of that last ban-wave and the certain high-profile player that was banned? Russ even said on his twitter that more waves are inbound.

You can think you have all the ways around the system that you want, but I won't be surprised when the ban-hammer comes down hard once MC rewards are involved; and I fully expect them to start bringing it down like a sickle to wheat.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sereglach, on 15 January 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

You can laugh all you want. I don't think people will be laughing when it's used as part of the reasoning for having their account banned. I love how people think they're just king crab of everything and know-it-all until their plans and policies backfire in their face . . . then scream and cry and say it isn't fair. Need I bring up the 30+ page thread of bickering because of that last ban-wave and the certain high-profile player that was banned? Russ even said on his twitter that more waves are inbound.

As a threat, they have no intention of getting CSR's to sit down and watch hundreds of games worth of footage if they can help it.`

[Sereglach]

DV McKenna, on 15 January 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

As a threat, they have no intention of getting CSR's to sit down and watch hundreds of games worth of footage if they can help it.`

They don't need to. There are security and software programs that sift through all the data for them and check the numbers for them. The only thing the parties responsible for the bans would have to do is sift through the materials that the security measures flags them for.

Now, at this point, people seem to seriously be advocating various levels of exploits to be utilized in any form of CW phase 3 . . . trying to make them seem like they're innocent or par-for-the-course. Why go to all this trouble to defend things that could be considered against the TOS, whether PGI is currently nailing people for it or not?

The funny thing is, this kind of stuff happens all the time in the real world and people just ignore it until the legal weapon is pointing at them. For example: Littering can usually carry up to a $1000 fine in the US and even possible jail time in some cases. Do cops just run around giving people $1000 fines and hauling them in whenever someone happens to drop some trash (which could be construed as littering)? No. However . . . when they want to . . . they can nail whoever they want with it. The same goes for PGI's TOS . . . just because they're not nailing everyone using spoofed MAC addresses or VPNs for violating the TOS doesn't mean that they can't do it in the future, or utilize it as a weapon to help enforce other policies and weed out cheaters.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sereglach, on 15 January 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

They don't need to. There are security and software programs that sift through all the data for them and check the numbers for them. The only thing the parties responsible for the bans would have to do is sift through the materials that the security measures flags them for.

Now, at this point, people seem to seriously be advocating various levels of exploits to be utilized in any form of CW phase 3 . . . trying to make them seem like they're innocent or par-for-the-course. Why go to all this trouble to defend things that could be considered against the TOS, whether PGI is currently nailing people for it or not?

The funny thing is, this kind of stuff happens all the time in the real world and people just ignore it until the legal weapon is pointing at them. For example: Littering can usually carry up to a $1000 fine in the US and even possible jail time in some cases. Do cops just run around giving people $1000 fines and hauling them in whenever someone happens to drop some trash (which could be construed as littering)? No. However . . . when they want to . . . they can nail whoever they want with it. The same goes for PGI's TOS . . . just because they're not nailing everyone using spoofed MAC addresses or VPNs for violating the TOS doesn't mean that they can't do it in the future, or utilize it as a weapon to help enforce other policies and weed out cheaters.

Except they've never alluded that this is what they have, why do you think there have been limited ban waves thus far? because these things don't exist to do the donkey work for them....otherwise there would be constant ban waves.

The last one like everything they do was to appease the baying playerbase.

They will never ever cross the line of banning people for using VPN's. Because there are very legitimate reasons to use one in many countries, and are only getting more popular as governments try to dictate what people can and cannot access.

Edited by DV McKenna, 15 January 2016 - 10:08 AM.

[Sereglach]

DV McKenna, on 15 January 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

Except they've never alluded that this is what they have, why do you think there have been limited ban waves thus far? because these things don't exist to do the donkey work for them....otherwise there would be constant ban waves.

The last one like everything they do was to appease the baying playerbase.

They will never ever cross the line of banning people for using VPN's. Because there are very legitimate reasons to use one in many countries, and are only getting more popular as governments try to dictate what people can and cannot access.

Banning FOR using a VPN? No, I'm not saying that. However, using someone's VPN or spoofed MAC addresses as part of the evidence or reasoning behind someone utilizing alt accounts to attempt to game the system? Very much so.

It's a weapon, plain and simple; and it's the same kind of weapon that is reserved in nearly every TOS that you agree to whenever you sign on to play any online game out there. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will; but when they want to, they will.

Also, we'll have to see about the ban waves, because Russ is quoted on twitter as stating that there are more massive ban waves coming in (that was stated yesterday, so it's actually a very recent statement). Therefore, if they do show up, then I'm vindicated in my points; and if they don't show up then people like yourself are vindicated.

Regardless, the whole point of this thread is the discussion of recruitment fees and other measures of controlling unit populations and facets of Faction Warfare. Again, people are going very far out of their way to legitimize things that are against the TOS; and their possible use as tools for cheating. Personally, I just find that pathetic.

[Mystere]

DV McKenna, on 15 January 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

Except they've never alluded that this is what they have, why do you think there have been limited ban waves thus far? because these things don't exist to do the donkey work for them....otherwise there would be constant ban waves.

The last one like everything they do was to appease the baying playerbase.

They will never ever cross the line of banning people for using VPN's. Because there are very legitimate reasons to use one in many countries, and are only getting more popular as governments try to dictate what people can and cannot access.

Not only that, public wi-fi is getting widespread, and so are people who prey on others who use that same wi-fi. As such, if you're not on a VPN, you're asking for trouble.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sereglach, on 15 January 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Banning FOR using a VPN? No, I'm not saying that. However, using someone's VPN or spoofed MAC addresses as part of the evidence or reasoning behind someone utilizing alt accounts to attempt to game the system? Very much so.

It's a weapon, plain and simple; and it's the same kind of weapon that is reserved in nearly every TOS that you agree to whenever you sign on to play any online game out there. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will; but when they want to, they will.

Also, we'll have to see about the ban waves, because Russ is quoted on twitter as stating that there are more massive ban waves coming in (that was stated yesterday, so it's actually a very recent statement). Therefore, if they do show up, then I'm vindicated in my points; and if they don't show up then people like yourself are vindicated.

Regardless, the whole point of this thread is the discussion of recruitment fees and other measures of controlling unit populations and facets of Faction Warfare. Again, people are going very far out of their way to legitimize things that are against the TOS; and their possible use as tools for cheating. Personally, I just find that pathetic.

The day PGI manage to track someones VPN accurately is the day the world ends, its just too much work and hassle for them.

It will never happen in my opinion.

[Sereglach]

DV McKenna, on 15 January 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

The day PGI manage to track someones VPN accurately is the day the world ends, its just too much work and hassle for them.

It will never happen in my opinion.

Don't need to track a VPN to have ammo for the weapon. Are you constantly connecting to the game via different IP addresses that do not link to the same ISP and/or region? There, that's all they need, period. People seem to think it's so complicated in some regards, when in reality it's so simple.

[Mystere]

Sereglach, on 15 January 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Banning FOR using a VPN? No, I'm not saying that. However, using someone's VPN or spoofed MAC addresses as part of the evidence or reasoning behind someone utilizing alt accounts to attempt to game the system? Very much so.

It's a weapon, plain and simple; and it's the same kind of weapon that is reserved in nearly every TOS that you agree to whenever you sign on to play any online game out there. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will; but when they want to, they will.

Also, we'll have to see about the ban waves, because Russ is quoted on twitter as stating that there are more massive ban waves coming in (that was stated yesterday, so it's actually a very recent statement). Therefore, if they do show up, then I'm vindicated in my points; and if they don't show up then people like yourself are vindicated.

Regardless, the whole point of this thread is the discussion of recruitment fees and other measures of controlling unit populations and facets of Faction Warfare. Again, people are going very far out of their way to legitimize things that are against the TOS; and their possible use as tools for cheating. Personally, I just find that pathetic.

As I said in another thread:

Mystere, on 14 January 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

There is a huge difference between people trying to anticipate exploits in order to mitigate them, and doing the same thing to actually abuse them.

Don't automatically assume malice when there might be none. So far, what I am seeing are mostly people anticipating said potential problems. And this is being done in the hope that PGI will design their stuff with these in mind.

Edited by Mystere, 15 January 2016 - 10:28 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Sereglach, on 14 January 2016 - 11:51 PM, said:

stuff

There's been nothing mentioned about unit membership dues. There has been, however, mention of recruitment fees that units would need to pay in order to pick up new members. Those fees would grow in size based on the number of members in the unit (c-bill values and unit size correlations have not been revealed in any degree). That is, in fact, a form of logistics; because units would need to be wary of their size and managing recruitment to coincide with what they can afford to support/hire.

And there is nothing indicating "individual" unit additions. They may have Pack costs of 10, 15 or 25 new members.

[Sereglach]

Mystere, on 15 January 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Don't automatically assume malice when there might be none. So far, what I am seeing are mostly people anticipating said potential problems. And this is being done in the hope that PGI will design their stuff with these in mind.

I'm not assuming malice. I am, however, explaining the counters, reasoning, and logic behind facets that can and will be used when it comes to enforcing policies and preventing cheating. Again, people seem to think that things are so easily countered and beaten, when the means of utilizing defensive measures are just as simple and just as effective.

[Sereglach]

Almond Brown, on 15 January 2016 - 10:31 AM, said:

And there is nothing indicating "individual" unit additions. They may have Pack costs of 10, 15 or 25 new members.

It would be interesting if they did it in packs. However, I'm more inclined to believe that the fee is on a per-person basis, based on the information we've been given.

I do agree with the concept, however, that the fee size may go up based on the number of unit members in "packs" . . . so under 20 may be free or extremely minimal, then kicking off at member 21 and going up from there per 10 members (probably on some sort of exponential cost curve).

[Almond Brown]

Mystere, on 15 January 2016 - 10:31 AM, said:

But at least your designs should account for and mitigate that possibility.

As best as can be done without incurring ridiculous costs doing so. It is a game after all and the Community at some point, if things get out of hand can intervene on their own behalf, or the game simply dies as increasing costs to prevent the DB's simply begin outweighs the benefit of carrying on.

So in the end, the Players/Community will blame PGI for the games demise when in fact it was the "players/community" themselves, who either via gross amounts of "cheating" or lack of self due diligence, being the "concerned" group continues to allow the "few" to adversely affect/kill the game as a whole, are the real cause.

Sadly the term "Community" is just a poorly used term when it concerns Games. There is little real "Community" as so many will "cheat" for their own sake, while the rest just sit back and blame the DEV for not spending ridiculous sums of cash to prevent it when they themselves can help but tend to do nothing.

Edited by Almond Brown, 15 January 2016 - 10:56 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sereglach, on 15 January 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Don't need to track a VPN to have ammo for the weapon. Are you constantly connecting to the game via different IP addresses that do not link to the same ISP and/or region? There, that's all they need, period. People seem to think it's so complicated in some regards, when in reality it's so simple.

And what? as you've just said above it's nothing special to be using a VPN service, and they are quite popular.
It doesn't prove or evidence anything other than the use of a VPN.

Is this going to be the next boogeyman...oh the alts..its so unfair...oh he must be using a VPN.

[DAYLEET]

There should be zero rewards to CW, that would clear things up. Then you can have your single giant unit faction that own every planet and nobody will bat an eye. I remember having this argument on the forum when Russ first mentioned it in a previous townhall, MC rewards is a big no-no, it only brings negativity. The people who don't want to play without MC rewards are playing CW, or anything else, for the wrong reasons. People who want to exploit the system and ruin it for everyone else are just using the tools provided by the game, sure they are ******** but you can't blame them IF cash is in play.

Russ want CW to be a thing and popular, bringing cash in it will just poison it.

All of the changes and concerns are an after effect of trying to make CW relevant with rewards. Keep the game fun and you wont need restricting rules.

Edited by DAYLEET, 15 January 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[Nika Romanova]

How many different ways to do unit names? SWOL, SW0L, 5WOL?

[Satan n stuff]

Lyoto Machida, on 14 January 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

It's a money sink to discourage 500 player units.

How about just discouraging faction hopping as a 500 player unit, because that's what this is all about isn't it? To deal with large mercenary groups like MS they're going to screw over every single large unit in the game?
Seriously PGI is it too much to ask that you come up with a solution that actually addresses the problem without causing any new ones just once?