Consensus = Cheaters gonna cheat, trolls gonna troll (I give up)


#61

tl;dr
OP does not change how the devs work, but thanks for the feedback!

Finishes off popcorn and puts trash in the receptacle :popcorn: :recycle:


#62

I don’t understand how a feature request that wouldn’t hurt the game turned into AWR hate. BUT, if you wanna help me understand, twitch.tv/lopedo is the place to go as I’m about to stream LIVE and discuss this bullshit because it gave me talking points! <3


#63

I agree that there was no reason for it to get personal, and there’s no justification for the “hate.” My argument is that the point was devoid of merit as a feature request. There’s no feature here, just a reminder to the devs to do what they are already claiming to do. As such, there’s really nothing to discuss aside from whether you believe they are honest about their word — which is polarizing, sure, but not productive.


#64

Whether there is cheating or there is not cheating, my only hope is that you hold to your word and give up. I am happy this will be the last we hear of this subject from you.


#65

I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of cheating. I also think it likely the devs are systematically finding and banning cheats on a very regular basis. It’s always an arms race of code, time and resources. The devs aren’t going to discuss further. I’m sure anything racy enough to trigger angst from the author here will already be under investigation…


#66

Account sharing isn’t an issue. PvP is intentionally designed to reward playing “much”, not playing “well”. Any group of people is welcome to hand around a mobile device to play around the clock, feel free to do the same in case it floats your boat. What you want to root for is an additional PvP mode that uses sigils, it’s unlikely that the currently available modes will see any radical changes.

Tinkering with your game client to, say, modify all your opponents to have 1 health and 0 armor is an issue, especially if your team somehow ends up containing a troop able to deal area damage on the very first turn. There are fairly easy ways to allow the server to detect this, with each detection attempt in theory being 100% reliable. For all practical purposes I don’t really see GoW getting there, which feels very much like a lost opportunity.


#67

So at one point I collected peoples’ win rates, and combined that with all of the visible data in-game too. Results:

  • Average win rate: 92.4%.
  • Stdev: 4.1%, which means that most players had a win rate between 88.3% - 96.5%.
  • Highest win rate: 98.3%.

So…yeah. My position has always been “most players usually win most matches”, and that is absolutely borne out. The down side of that is that when you’re almost always winning, the very very rare losses really stick out in your head and seem suspicious.


#68

I was looking at somebody’s profile yesterday and they had a 772 match win streak, does that seem feasible or more than likely cheating?


#69

I’m going to say this about people that work for this game:
I’ve emailed back and forth with Steve Fawkner about the Warlords and Battlecry games and how they respond on modern systems. I bought the retail versions and I tried to install and played each game. We emailed a few times and I found him very professional and took pride in his games

If you ever joined the live streaming With Salty or Cyrup, you would know they are funning, knowledgeable and really dedicated to this game. So, don’t put down the devs in any way. They don’t deserve it. Any studio that puts out games don’t want cheaters/hackers to ruin them. Have any of you realize that this is their job! This is how they make their paychecks.

Or in the IMMORTAL words of Stan Lee" "Nuff Said.


#70

If they have been playing a long time, maybe not. A long while back, you could exit out of the game if you were losing and it would not count as a loss. Some people have win streaks in the thousands because of this.


#71

Glad they fixed that! I’ve been playing for about 2 years on X1, and had never heard of that before so thanks for the info!


#72

So let me get this straight I have been top 10 pvp all week, and other people who play a lot are being deemed as cheaters, because they are fast, and good at pvp?


#73

More like: Since PVP is designed to reward playing much instead of playing well account sharing becomes a problem because the competition don’t have a fair ground. It’s like a marathon where someone runs from begining to the end and another person runs it halfway and then is substituted by another person full of energy who runs the rest of the course.

To be honest i can live not caring about if the devs leave PVP as it is, a false competitive “resource fest” mode. It doesn’t affects me, but there are some players who get bummed for not being able to be in the leaderboards due account sharing practices and my proposition could change the mode into a better experience in this sense.

Me and others probably wouldn’t still care about the competitive aspect/leaderboards, but maybe people are disgusted with this game mode in the first place because there is no point in putting effort on it because they can be outraced by two people using the same account and playing twice as much any normal single person could. Moving on and showing indiference has been the usual treatment anyone gave to PVP once they reach Tier 1 (exception are some casual play here and there, testing teams and some trophy grind in some guilds).

I decided to put some thinking into it, the devs can do anything with my suggestion regarding this issue even ignore it, but that’s up to them. Maybe they’ll have a better idea along the road, maybe they won’t.


#74

Thing is you can do math to figure out how likely account sharing is going on, and most people dramatically underestimate how much time some people can spend gaming.

In EVE Online, the person who hurt my corporation most was on disability unemployment checks. He played the game 14+ hours daily and slept at random times, effectively making it impossible to plan trade routes around him. He had nothing else to do and did more damage by himself to our corp than 10-year-old alliances of multiple corps.

At the same time, I was in college and had a lot of free time. I often played 11+ hours daily.

Right now, your current #1 on the leaderboard has played 1635 + 16 = 1651 games. If we stick to the average of 0.75 minutes per game, they’ve played for 1238.25 minutes, which is 20 hours and 37 minutes. Since rollover happens on Monday, it’s been roughly 43 hours. Even if we ignore today, which should make them look worse, they only have to average about 7 hours per day to have played this many games. Bumping it to a more conservative 1 minute per play, it’s 27.5 hours or roughly 9 hours per day.

7 hours per day is NOTHING for an addicted player. If anything, the people complaining they aren’t on the leaderboard should be ashamed. Most games I’ve played set up like this required 9-10 hours daily to even think of being on the boards. I don’t think account sharing is involved because I have personally spent more time on games and sustained that pace for months at a time.

I would be more down with assuming everyone on the leaderboard is account sharing if we were seeing average play times more like 16 hours. That’s really pushing into human sleep/meal schedules. As-is, I guarantee you there’s room for dozens of new leaderboard players to dominate the leaderboard with investments that look trivial compared to other games.


#75

Legacy streak counters aside, somebody caring about win streaks could just reroll matches until a Fire Bomb team shows up. 772 matches without your client crashing feels quite feasible.


#76

I’m not assuming everyone, i’m assuming the possibility of some people doing it. Using your seven hours projection and dividing it for two people still gives an advantage that most people don’t have.

It could be addressed keeping in mind the spirit of fairness and making the game mode less about who can play more and more about who plays better, at least for the bragging rights of being the number one on the leaderboard.


#77

Yes, this is why GW and Raids/Invasions are a little more meaningful. Raids/Invasions would be even MORE meaningful if you couldn’t buy sigils.


#78

You don’t seem to be looking at this the right way. You seem to think that account sharing is a problem for this game mode because it doesn’t allow solo players to compete on a fair ground. It’s really the other way around, by playing solo you are refusing to spend the effort expected to compete on a fair ground. It’s like refusing to play more than the first daily Guild War battle due to personal time constraints, then complaining that you are being put at an unfair disadvantage because other players find time for all the battles they are allowed to do.

This game mode seems to be quite popular as it is. If you want a game mode where “playing better” matters, propose a new game mode. It’s the subtle difference between adding content you like and taking away content other players like.


#79

Sorry, but the game mode is called PVP which implies directly that it’s Player versus Player and not "Player vs Family/Couples/Ghotic Cult/Groupies/Whatever.

We are not really facing another player directly (Player vs A.I), but the premisse is that each player should have their own account. The fact the devs allows multiple people to play on a single account, and they allow it by not recognizing the current system rewards such behavior and that they stated this is not against the rules does does not make it right or fair. Just like slavery was once allowed around the world but it doesn’t means it was ever right or fair…

I agree, but if the devs would take my suggestion to limit the number of battles you could play and gain ranked score they should be smart by not introducing it with sigils that could be bought. Otherwise they would just trade a flawed pseudo-competitive system for another and any possible merit of playing better to any extent would be lost.


#80

For the sake of farming resources and testing teams they wouldn’t lose anything. I explained this here: