133 replies to this topic

[Der Geisterbaer]

Sjorpha, on 01 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

Well you could probably program the client/server to detect series of rapid inputs with identical timing, say for example if there is more than 8 clicks with identical intervals in less than 1 second the player gets autobanned or something like that.

Such an approach has several problems:

• As with any automated system PGI would have to deal with false positives
  
• Gaming peripherals with serious macro functionality or macro-ing software - Logitech and AutoHotkey come to mind - actually allow to randomize input intervals without sacrifice to what the respective macro tries to do and ...
  
• ... even without such detailed fiddling Windows still isn't a real time OS and thus input intervals from looping macros will fluctuate without dedicated randomization
  
• attempting a server-side control is additionally subjected to the standard variations in packet travel times as well as dedicated attempts to manipulate those.
  
• Such controls always come at a computational and thus performance cost ... one that people - even those against macro usage - are more than likely not really willing to pay.
  
• trying to exercise a client-side control has technical limitations (for example normal process rights vs. elevated process rights that drivers can have) and bringt along legal ramifications as well once the software attempts to scan / control outside its own process space.

Sjorpha, on 01 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

Manually enforcing it doesn't seem very plausible, I agree with that.

Automated enforcement isn't that plausible either.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

@Koniving - Dude, the flamer issue, you silly guy, you know the issue isn't the damage dealt by macro'ing flamers, it's the heat delivered vs. the heat received. SO, my question because I truly do not know the answer does macro'ing flamers deliver more heat than heat it inflicts than intended (in other words does a macro with flamers defeat ghost heat)?

It can but not in the manner you're referring to there. Macroing flamers doesn't appear to defeat ghost heat at all -> Running more than 4 flamers will reasonably fast overheat your mech with or without macro way before any flamer heat bar is filled. But a properly set macro can and will do these two things:

• delay the time untill each flamer's bar reaches the max -> heat transfer can occur longer
  
• even once the bars are filled, the heat on your own mech doesn't rise in the normal manner -> heat transfer can occur even longer

In a private lobby I could maintain 4 flamers on a PIR-CI for over a minute without reaching 50% on the heat scale.

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

As far as macros and PGI historically, waaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back like 3 or 4 years ago there was some other macro-gate (gauss-PPC macros for pop-tarts?, can't really remember what the gist of it was) that came up and PGI stated something along the lines of, "Many modern mice and keyboards a built to support macros as one of their primary features, and, it would be darn near impossible for us to detect macro use anyway, so as far we're concerned the use of macros is not cheating."

So Tina's post is a definite recent shift on PGI's stance on the use of macros, which is overdue in my opinion.

There's actually no shift in the stance at all when it comes to macro usage: Their code of conduct pretty much always declared anything that exploited a systematic weakiness as a bannable offense - macro or not. Detection and enforcement are separate issues there.

[Sjorpha]

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 February 2019 - 07:59 AM, said:

Such an approach has several problems...

Automated enforcement isn't that plausible either.

Perhaps, and in any case removing the exploit from the weapon should be much easier so it doesn't really matter.

What I don't understand is why they aren't simply disabling RACs in the meantime, they don't seem to quite understand the severity of the issue.

Edited by Sjorpha, 01 February 2019 - 08:27 AM.

[Nightbird]

Both MGs and Flamers had macro exploits before but they were fixed. No reason RACs can't be fixed.

[Luminis]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 07:50 AM, said:

I know of a player who plays a 6 AC2 KGC/6 CUAC2 Night Gyr and he sets up each weapon on its on weapon group then sits there and spams his 1-6 keys getting damn good firing rates for 'em.

I see that sort of thing potentially being seen as an "overflow condition"...

6 UACs can, at maximum, receive 12 inputs per cool down cycle. That's the maximum they require, by design.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Sjorpha, on 01 February 2019 - 08:25 AM, said:

Perhaps, and in any case removing the exploit from the weapon should be much easier so it doesn't really matter.

I wouldn't make any bets on how easy or difficult it is to remove the exploit, but ...

Sjorpha, on 01 February 2019 - 08:25 AM, said:

What I don't understand is why they aren't simply disabling RACs in the meantime, they don't seem to quite understand the severity of the issue.

... the answer to this is rather simple: the issue just isn't as severe as people are trying to make it out to be. Let's be honest here for a few minutes and consider these ascpects:

• How often in this game's history did we see unbalanced weapons being available over a longer period of time without them being temporarily disabled?
  
• How much of a detriment to user happyness is it to disable RACs (possibly even machine guns and flamers) for all players vs. the detriment to user happyness of those that encounter a macro'd RAC? Even with the low population that we have now, the number of legit users that would feel "punished" is most likely far greater than the number of players that truly fall victim to someone using the maco exploit

Nightbird, on 01 February 2019 - 08:28 AM, said:

Both MGs and Flamers had macro exploits before but they were fixed. No reason RACs can't be fixed.

Flamers still can be exploited ... and I have a hunch that the same is still true for machine guns.

[Nightbird]

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 February 2019 - 08:39 AM, said:

Flamers still can be exploited ... and I have a hunch that the same is still true for machine guns.

Why not test them in private lobby, like I did, instead of talk from you know where

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 01 February 2019 - 09:00 AM, said:

Why not test them in private lobby, like I did, instead of talk from you know where

Matter of fact: I tested a four flamer PIR-CI yesterday in a private lobby and kept the flamers running over one minute without overheating the mech ... and if you had cared to read this thread you'd know that. But you're welcome to believe that your own tests were "perfect" and make your usual ad hominem attacks.

[Dimento Graven]

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 February 2019 - 09:03 AM, said:

Matter of fact: I tested a four flamer PIR-CI yesterday in a private lobby and kept the flamers running over one minute without overheating the mech ... and if you had cared to read this thread you'd know that. But you're welcome to believe that your own tests were "perfect" and make your usual ad hominem attacks.

Could you make a vid and post it for us? Having a vid would probably help expedite PGI on resolving the exploit.

[Kubernetes]

Still no hotfix,eh?

[thievingmagpi]

Monday as per Russ' twitter

[Dimento Graven]

thievingmagpi, on 01 February 2019 - 09:35 AM, said:

Monday as per Russ' twitter

I HATE the fact that Russ chooses to communicate to his community almost exclusively through Twitter.

Twitter feels so impersonal and short. You're limited to 180 characters (at least you were when I still participated in it) and an actual dialog is nearly impossible and is incredibly constrained in that format.

Edit: This forum editor gets so damned twitchy in Chrome when you try and use text mods...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 01 February 2019 - 10:09 AM.

[JC Daxion]

/Signed..





I only played it once in two mech for the daily XP bonus, then i found out about the exploit and stopped. I will not play a RAC mech, even a single RAC mech till this bug is fixed (BTW, most of my RAC mechs are single rac anyway.)

[Mikayshen]

I just read the Twitter that it should be fixed Monday...looks like I'll be grinding D3 and/or playing Subnautica all weekend then. Thanks for the update on it though.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 09:07 AM, said:

Could you make a vid and post it for us?

Making a vid is less of a problem. Making a "good one" and then posting it for "you" a whole different thing. I'll come back to this further down.

But I can certainly share the lessons learned from the two occasions that I did my testing in a private lobby yesterday and this evening again:

• Success of macro usage on flamers is affected by latency as suspected
  
• Staggering flamers via macro will impact the heat transfer rate and damage done to the target. Extremely short activation times in relation to longer off times can indeed lead to situations where the flamers run near endlessly - like my original 1+ minute - but in that situation the target mech won't heat up in any significant capacity either. You could still use such a setting on an already heated mech to keep it heat maxed though.
  
• If you have the endurance to search for sweet spots and account for latency well enough you can achieve a situation like this: At latency of 40ms I could burn 4 flamers 16 seconds to reach overheat on my PIR-CI (not firing any of the other weapons) without macro usage. I came close to doubling that time (30s) with a macro that kept the flamers burning for 14ms and then kept them off for 36ms while increasing the time to heat the enemy mech by roughly 30%. So the effect on slowing heat transfer to the target was noticable to the target but not doubled like the overall flamer burn duration till shutdown.

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 09:07 AM, said:

Having a vid would probably help expedite PGI on resolving the exploit.

Unless I were to go through the trouble of recording both my and the target's views I can't see how a vid could expedite things there in any way. It's a depressing enough thought that it takes videos in the first place to even make them consider the possibility that something is wrong but I'm certainly not going through the trouble of recording from two perspectives and then editing things together in order to show that a well enough timed macro can still cause effects that supposedly should no longer occur.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 01 February 2019 - 11:00 AM.

[Nightbird]

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 February 2019 - 10:58 AM, said:

TL:DR no proof

[Dimento Graven]

Nightbird, on 01 February 2019 - 11:02 AM, said:

TL:DR no proof

Actually I'm more inclined to believe him because I'm 95% certain that I've seen 'mechs using flammers, nearly endlessly.

Last night I ran into a Fafnir who fired what looked like an unceasing stream of 4 flamers. It "felt" like it was going on for nearly a minute which I found incredible, expecting him to have to STOP firing them in less than 30 seconds. All I could do was fire my HG at him, and even then I was incredibly close to shutting down (,and DID shut down at least once).

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 01 February 2019 - 11:02 AM, said:

TL:DR no proof

I gave you all the necessary numbers on my macro usage to do a reasonable peer review as any serious proof would actually demand. You suggested that I do private lobby testing. Now how about you doing that yourself with my numbers instead of going your well established fallacy route?

Hint: Videos are not much of a proof.

[Nightbird]

Anecdotal evidence the best evidence x)

[mad kat]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 06:25 AM, said:

In the group queue, of course.

In the solo queue? PGI has reportedly said, "No we don't... Not even when we make you wait 5 minutes for a match..."

BUT SOMETIMES, it sure feels like you get placed on a team of 11 Tier 5's...

Honestly PGI should post the Tiers on the EOM screens, but keeping it hidden for fear of "stat shaming" (which I consider a BS reason with the ability to report people for such none sense in game) is actually doing a disservice to proving the veracity of what PGI says. We all know that they sometimes make mistakes that for months/years they swear isn't so then suddenly...

Well they're talking utter crap (nothing unusual there then) as the game definitely does drop t1's with t5's in solo queue. I'm T1 and constantly getting t5's in matches if you want to be pedantic you can ask in game (i nearly always get a yes when asking if there are t5's present in team chat) and you see some particularly awful game play you can screen shot the roster board in match and go hunt the players down on the forum/leaderboard.