Cheating!!! Not right!! Watch your back!!

All discussion regarding the world of Theoris
Caprontos
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:35 pm

Postby Caprontos » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:58 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:
These are not necessarily illegal multiple accounts ~ "Hey Alice, I need you to create a temporary Nile account for a few days". However, they definitely can be. After Alice's job is done, she deletes. Later, "Hey Alice, I need your help again".

The biggest problem with the free temporary accounts is the fact that when they delete, the monuments go immediately to rubble, instead of only losing one level. This can be devastating to the owner to lose an L5 so quickly & nothing to attack back. No L4 left.


not to mention theres no bandits int he monument plot (that you pointed out i think? and others possibly?)


I still believe that the griefing problem can be solved by making PvP cost scarabs. It is the free accounts that introduces the temporary account that causes the exploits, especially the free account that last only a few days (Palace 1 & a Barracks sending one soldier) to uncap the other account or transfer bread/soldiers from one account to another.


But if they have to spend some of there 10 free scarabs on something they will only need in that temp account it wont help anyway...

you'd have to make it so you must pay for the scarabs first.. but then there would be even less monument attacking when they wanted more?

1. A lot of people say that there are too many monument plots anyway.


limited to 2 per nome and it'd make more fighting for it.. and it'd make less need to uncap with temp accounts
Last edited by Caprontos on Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:44 pm

"Caprontos" wrote:not to mention theres no bandits int he monument plot (that you pointed out i think? and others possibly?)


Indeed. Another of my threads. ;)

But if they have to spend some of there 10 free scarabs on something they will only need in that temp account it wont help anyway...


In the extreme, a PvPer would have to be a Nile Supporter ~ meaning actually buy scarabs from TM.

Another possibility is to have the ability to either build barracks or PvP another player cost 11 scarabs at the scarab store (more than the ten free ones).

It would still be free to play a peaceful game. With the extreme barracks part, the peaceful player would have to either trade or buy stones from the market & also not be able to do Bandit Outpost Events (they are not exactly peaceful anyway, just not PvP).

you'd have to make it so you must pay for the scarabs first.. but then there would be even less monument attacking when they wanted more?


True! Getting free scarabs from quests introduces another exploit & even the temporary multiple account could be gifted that one additional scarab from the main account, if the main account is a scarab buyer Nile Supporter (free players cannot send scarabs to anyone).

I would prefer that there were no free scarabs from quests either, for many reasons, this one included.

I also dislike gifting scarabs at all, cuz it leads to illegal trading of scarabs ~ buying a quick rank.

A lot of the Nile problems are inter-connected & would require a LOT of new security programming from TM (not the least upsetting the free players). I doubt we will see any more Nile programming, so solutions need to be simple & not complex.

limited to 2 per nome and it'd make more fighting for it.. and it'd make less need to uncap with temp accounts


The two quarry plot cap that prevents us from PvPing is the source of the illegal accounts/legal multiple accounts anyway. Most of the time, these players are working around the cap, cuz they wanna PvP.

If the number of quarry plots was reduced, I believe that there would be more cheating, not less.

Unfortunately massive exploits are built into the game & the game is not policed at all. This is why I talk about playing an Honor Game & have found that Honor is not that common on the Nile. The old "Anything goes in the chase for fast & rank". I was shocked over this discovery.

Honor must be programmed into the game & not left up to players.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Nameraka
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:28 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby Nameraka » Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:55 pm

Edit: All fix'd.

"Caprontos" wrote:also maybe they should employ a soldier limit, so larger players can field larger armies, that way no new account can just magically get 1000's of soldiers. if a new player can only have 50 soldiers they wont be able to take a monument from someone with there 600 show soldiers

Punishes smaller players more I suppose, makes it harder for them to defend themselves.. (So maybe improve the amount with monuments?).

or make it so the palace level and barrack level are connected like the warehouse... so like you need a level 5 palace for a level 5 barrack. that would make it more costly to do it also.. since they cant "just" upgrade there barrack, though I guess could also hide it better?.. but the potential gain may not be worth the loss. which is the main point?..


I wouldn't be too worried about this punishing lower levels. It would be just another incentive to produce and trade more and level up faster. The barracks and soldier limit should be tied to palace level, though; if the limit was just based on monument level, the griefer could simply grab hold of a L5 monument and the problem's solved.

"tutmoses ii" wrote:Edit: the data for a player in my capital nome on Sabah; I doubt that he laid down scarabs for immunity to inactivity:
Vagrant Acherousis (Rank: 1794) (High: 0) (Age: 80 years)
Birthdate: October 31st 2008
Yes, he's been inactive for more than a year!


An 80-year old vagrant? Must be one wise man.

"Tinkerbell" wrote:I still believe that the griefing problem can be solved by making PvP cost scarabs.


I like this idea when it's tied to the next one:

"Caprontos" wrote:you'd have to make it so you must pay for the scarabs first..


Or just have the PVP option cost > 10 scarabs.

Unfortunately, it would leave the non-paying OCCers at a disadvantage. Maybe the scarabs acquired through quests can count too. (Rare as they are.)

The time required to get a "helper" account to level 7 for the quests to be available should be a good deterrent. (Edit: I forgot that scarabs can be sent to another player. See below.)

"Tinkerbell" wrote:True! Getting free scarabs from quests introduces another exploit & even the temporary multiple account could be gifted that one additional scarab from the main account, if the main account is a scarab buyer Nile Supporter (free players cannot send scarabs to anyone).


Then in order for the PVP option to be enabled, the scarabs have to be linked to the account purchasing that option (i.e., not gifted from someone else). Maybe a bit too complex of a fix, though...

tl;dr

Easy money-making fix: Gold cities can PVP. Only $5 per griefer!
Complex fix: Scarabs that the account itself acquired (purchased or quested only) can be used to buy PVP option.
Last edited by Nameraka on Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:13 pm

Nameraka, the problem is that a scarab is a scarab. The game cannot tell bought scarabs from unbought free scarabs.

We have had suggestions of creating two different scarab types, but that would be another massive programming change.

Solutions are not simple & some players will yell & scream regardless of what TM does.

It is kinda like gifting. Some players like gifting/team playing & some of us do not. Some players wanna be able to send their stuff to a "friend" to hold while they go Immortal/delete & get their stuff back in their new restart account, or pass their stuff off onto "friends" to push them to the top & some of us want players to die with all their stuff. Some players serially delete their start account until they get a resource/location they want, & some us do not want that to be possible. Some players wanna play for free & some of us do not want to have free players at all.

So far, I have only found about two things about Nile that cannot be cheated/exploited

1) Building upgrade times

2) Quest Profile Items
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:34 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Nameraka
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:28 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby Nameraka » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:28 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:Nameraka, the problem is that a scarab is a scarab. The game cannot tell bought scarabs from unbought free scarabs.

We have had suggestions of creating two different scarab types, but that would be another massive programming change.


No wonder 11+ scarabs are required before someone can gift one. That's too bad.

Gold cities it is, then. Unless TM suddenly decides to link barracks and palace level.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:38 pm

"Nameraka" wrote:No wonder 11+ scarabs are required before someone can gift one. That's too bad.


Absolutely! Before that bug was fixed, it was a disaster & we didn't have that many cheaters then as now with mature servers.

TM fixed that one very quickly. Kudos to them!

PantherX
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The Beautiful Monterey Bay California

Postby PantherX » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:15 pm

I think the easy/simple answer is multiple servers with just a few minor tweeks in the code.

Free or Pay server - what we have now, no changes. Theoris

Pay only server - perhaps something simple like a one time purchase of the 25 scarab package or even the smallest package to allow access to the server. This will keep the more serious players together and should help eliminate the few griefers and multi-account cheaters. No changes to the game code required, but some method developed to require purchasing to log on.

No PvP more PvE Server, Simply a server without any PvP and increased PvE. Perhaps the bandits daily attack your monuments based on the quarry level. This would require you to have the military machine constantly creating troops to send to the monuments to replace those fallen in battle. If the machine falls behind and looses the battle then the bandits take the food and limes and leave, no monument or quarry destruction. Perhaps at some point the defenders realize they are beat and run into the desert only to return after the bandits leave with the spoils.
If the bandits show without any defenders, they take whatever spoils there are and perhaps one monument OR one quarry level and leave.
The time they show up with no defenders , no quarry, no monument they take over the monument and it becomes available for whomever next wants to try to hold it.
This does require some coding but since I am not a programmer nor am I looking at the code, it's just a guess as to how easy/fast/hard/slow it may take.

Either way, if it is not too hard to code, reduce the world size. I suggest that we goto a smaller world. The 24 hour shipping cap is fine but let's make the Nile smaller, 200 Nomes total ?? This is to keep everyone closer together for a more dynamic market and faster wall trading. If the world fills up, we can easily start another.

I would guess that with multiple worlds there would be quite a lot of people playing in each world. Also at this point we need to be able to log-in and purchase scarabs from a single "main" account and be able to log into any of the available worlds. Perhaps here Quest Scarabs do not transfer to the main account but rather stay in each world account.

Whatever TM decides to do, if anything, I hope it continues to make them money so they can keep working and making great games. :cool:
:cool:

Mr Ears
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Anyville

Postby Mr Ears » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:36 pm

The cap has to be removed, it's that simple. I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense. Because the big players would take all the monuments and the small players won't have a chance? Wrong! The more monuments one has, the more costly it is to defend them. Even a Pharaoh will not be able to defend 10 monuments. He simply can't produce enough bread to feed all his garrisons.

And by the way, wasn't the monument game supposed to be a king of the hill game? Well, why the heck do we need three hill kings on each nome side? That's ridiculous! That's almost as many monument plots as there are active players in each nome!

Make it one monument plot on each side of the nome, and we will have something like a king of the hill game!

Caprontos
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:35 pm

Postby Caprontos » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:55 pm

"Mr Ears" wrote:The cap has to be removed, it's that simple. I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense. Because the big players would take all the monuments and the small players won't have a chance? Wrong! The more monuments one has, the more costly it is to defend them. Even a Pharaoh will not be able to defend 10 monuments. He simply can't produce enough bread to feed all his garrisons.

And by the way, wasn't the monument game supposed to be a king of the hill game? Well, why the heck do we need three hill kings on each nome side? That's ridiculous! That's almost as many monument plots as there are active players in each nome!

Make it one monument plot on each side of the nome, and we will have something like a king of the hill game!


the cap makes it so you can't get more then 10% bonus also...

you go far enough south or north no one will bother to take the monuments (and there would be nothing in them save you'd send limes to get it to level 5) and you could get really high production bonuses... you'd have to make it required to hold a garrison with the bandit attacks idea.

but people heavy on the attacking bit would have a field day with it... since the cap is the only thing stopping them.. and they don't want the monuments just wants in side... you can have it back after they take the stuff..

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:01 pm

"Mr Ears" wrote:The cap has to be removed, it's that simple. I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense. Because the big players would take all the monuments and the small players won't have a chance? Wrong! The more monuments one has, the more costly it is to defend them. Even a Pharaoh will not be able to defend 10 monuments. He simply can't produce enough bread to feed all his garrisons.

And by the way, wasn't the monument game supposed to be a king of the hill game? Well, why the heck do we need three hill kings on each nome side? That's ridiculous! That's almost as many monument plots as there are active players in each nome!

Make it one monument plot on each side of the nome, and we will have something like a king of the hill game!


Now this is rich. You have never built any monuments at all in your free Sabah griefing account to defend, nor your other free griefing Sabah accounts, nor your Theoris free griefing accounts.

You are King of the illegal upcapping account also.

You are precisely the reason why TM has the two plot cap. To stop players like YOU.

It is not hard to support lots of monuments when you would be the first player to have tons of illegal pushing & griefing free multiple accounts.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PantherX
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The Beautiful Monterey Bay California

Postby PantherX » Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:05 pm

"Mr Ears" wrote: I haven't heard any good reason yet why the cap makes sense.


Every time you open your mouth you show your ignorance, Please continue!

Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information.
:cool:

User avatar
Jeff Fiske
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby Jeff Fiske » Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:24 pm

FYI-
From an electronic signature point of view, these are are individuals.

Some from different continents.


I know that there are many legitimate points in this thread, but I just wanted to comment on the fact that these appear to be unique accounts.

I will look into other aspects of this, such as overstocking an account and attacking from it and then going on vacation.


Jeff

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:03 pm

Here ya go, Jeff. Enjoy this one from the sabah trade wall a few minutes ago.

Highlights

Athnotep I [SAC forum name] (83N) [3:26 pm [11/30/09]] » The best deal for a Scarab I've done is 500K bread along with 25K each luxury... That was pretty good! :)

Athnotep I (81N) [3:24 pm] » Oli! Just sent you 1K henna as a thank you gift! :)

Athnotep I (83N) [3:17 pm] » Tibony, I've received 100K bread or bricks for 1 Scarab!

Athnotep I (83N) [3:15 pm] » Well, I've bought Scarabs as well 'cause 10 is far from enough... bur I've traded a few for big amounts of bread and bricks... :)

Athnotep I (83N) [3:12 pm] » And even though I don't care much for ranks, I'm now ranked below 500... :) yay


EDIT: I admit that 500K bread means 5000 boats, so someone is stretching the truth here, obviously. That is unless there was a monument transfer involved. Player has two monument takes with defeated soldiers & no defends/lost monuments. Profile clearly shows a dishonest player. Waaay too advanced for 9 game years. ;)
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:34 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Jeff Fiske
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby Jeff Fiske » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:44 pm

I was specifically trying to track down people who were creating new accounts and then receiving excessive goods for them to make an army with - which then gets used against a rival of either of these two players.

Granted they could do this through scarab purchase- and then gifting, but I doubt they would.

I frequently check the sale and gifting of scarabs for abuse, and by my definition many of these trades (like the chat mentioned) are not in the spirit of why we allow gifting of scarabs to continue. But they seem isolated and the same person does not seem to repeat the behavior habitually.

(A particular record is created every time scarabs are purchased as well as whenever a scarab is gifted. Should anyone get greedy to the extent where they gain a large advantage, the situation should be recognizable.)

Funny how hard it is to try and preserve a dynamic where you can't pay to get ahead, while other games try and encourage the player to spend to get ahead! One might even say that entire game designs focus on trying to get players to out-spend each other.

I think we are a long, long way away from that.

(though I will check it out- as u say about the individuals accelerated progress).

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:52 pm

Sorry, Jeff. I added an off-topic post since you posted here & would read it. ;) I wouldn't want you to single out one player when the Nile has a lot of this. It is symptomatic of the late game bread/goods glut problem that results in gifting. This supposid scarab trade was in reality a gift from a high-ranking late gamer most likely.

Massive soldiers in baby accounts is accomplished via monument transfer along with incoming reinforcements being captured by new low-level owner. The monument is captured by low level player with only one soldier.

Precise timing is required.

No way can the low-level player make soldiers by self just with incoming warmats.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Mr Ears
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Anyville

Postby Mr Ears » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:21 pm

@Tink: You're really chasing phantoms...

Why don't we rather rationalize than emotionalize and bring it down to maths: If there are aprx 7-8 active players in each nome, 6 monument plots is too much. Actually it's a real monument glut. So many abandoned monuments everywhere...

@Panther: You tend to emotionalize everything.... don't forget, monkeys use to do so, not human beings ;)

Lowering the monument "supply" would be a way to address this issue.

And about the monument cap issue: The more monuments one takes, it won't only get more costly to have them guarded - you will also will have more enemies who will target you, which means even more has to be spent on guarding a large number of monuments. So at the end of the day a system without the monument cap will be a self-regulatory system.
Last edited by Mr Ears on Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jeff Fiske
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby Jeff Fiske » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:24 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:Sorry, Jeff. I added an off-topic post since you posted here & would read it. ;) I wouldn't want you to single out one player when the Nile has a lot of this. It is symptomatic of the late game bread/goods glut problem that results in gifting. This supposid scarab trade was in reality a gift from a high-ranking late gamer most likely.

Massive soldiers in baby accounts is accomplished via monument transfer along with incoming reinforcements being captured by new low-level owner. The monument is captured by low level player with only one soldier.

Precise timing is required.

No way can the low-level player make soldiers by self just with incoming warmats.


Understood.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:30 pm

"Mr Ears" wrote:@Tink: You're really chasing phantoms...

Why don't we rather rationalize than emotionalize and bring it down to maths: If there are aprx 7-8 active players in each nome, 6 monument plots is too much. Actually it's a real monument glut. So many abandoned monuments everywhere...

@Panther: You tend to emotionalize everything.... don't forget, monkeys use to do so, not human beings ;)

Lowering the monument "supply" would be a way to address this issue.

And about the monument cap issue: The more monuments one takes, it won't only get more costly to have them guarded - you will also will have more enemies who will target you, which means even more has to be spent on guarding a large number of monuments. So at the end of the day a system without the monument cap will be a self-regulatory system.


You mean "teams" of exploiting players would take over the Nile & control the price of limestone. Right down your alley, Ears.

No thank you.

I want the cap removed, but not to be able to have more than two. Current number of plots is fine.

Special rule for you. If you don't own monuments ~ No PvP for you.

The player attacked must be able to attack back, not just take his/hers back; but actually come after the attacker & hurt him/her. I don't want cities to be attacked (cuz of peaceful players), so there must be some type of retaliation if I am attacked. Your attacks on me have never had this possibility, since you refuse to hold monuments (you actually get rid of them with illegal uncapping accounts), but only attack from your free griefing accounts repeated all over the Nile.

You previously claimed that you were the "puppetmaster" and these griefing accounts were your "puppets". that you "hired" them. Nonsense. These accounts were set up specifically to be griefing accounts via serial deleting until the capital was a warmet & then expanded to have the other two warmats until 10 free scarabs ran out. All four are identical, two on each server. They even have the same city names.

Three city low-level non-scarab buying warmat-only accounts that never progress, only sit there inactive until needed. Mr Ears, Arnold, Arnold II, Wayne et all on both servers. sunburn is the main account in theoris that buys scarabs & the one who took JuliaSet's monument in Theoris.

Who are you in Sabah, Ears? You are definitely not just Mr Ears. Which is the main account that does buy scarabs in Sabah?

Here is a good question for you, Ears.

How does TM change the game to stop YOU?
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:51 pm, edited 12 times in total.

Mr Ears
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Anyville

Postby Mr Ears » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:44 pm

Tink is emotionalizing, just like Panther, tssss.......

Why are you so afraid of letting it "react on its own temperature"? Why are you so afraid of letting the monument game regulate itself? Why do you want to have it all regulated from above, killing all the self dynamics that would be possible?

As I already said, an increasing number of monuments hold by one owner would exponentially increase the defense costs - a) by increasing total garrison, b) by having more enemies. It's simple maths.

Rationalize it to maths, not fears. Fears are fantasies, maths are real!
Last edited by Mr Ears on Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mobius
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:14 am

Postby mobius » Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:09 am

Different IP addresses doesn't mean much.

Good to see TM is looking into this.

@MR Ears
It is possible to have every monument produce an extra 1,600 bread. That means each monument can self-sustain 1,600 troops. Add that each monument also brings a 5% bonus to all other production. A player on bronze, leather, cedar, and some other resrouce has a huge advantage. That math is good to have lots of monuments.

The simple solution would be to cut the number of monuments available to players and kill off any incoming troops on a takeover.
Last edited by mobius on Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:36 am, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “World - Theoris”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests