Printable View
We aren't assuming that people that play together log each other. The real issue is that people who xlog and multi (at the most basic level) often have the same characteristics as 2 legit players. In stopping the most common form of cheating we see some people that want to play in the same kingdom will have some blocks on actions. We feel that legit players wil be able to work around this, but cheaters will be stopped to a far greater extent.
So you're saying you wouldn't notice that a province is being logged on to from a kingdom mate's IP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
You might not be able to stop them before it happens but is the risk of getting both provinces deleted afterwards not a good enough deterrent?
I agree that this is possible for maybe the first 24 hours of war but once people have been chained, you might find yourself with no targets in your range because you can't control who will be chained by your opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
We don't want to be reactive though, we want to be proactive with cheating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landro
"The new anticheat system is all about prevention, instead of cure. So instead of staff trying to find instances of people cheating, specific suspicious actions will be immediately blocked."
Dropping the block period would greatly alleviate this and shoudln't affect the main thrust of the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landro
Maybe this should go to some type of "suggestions for new anti-cheat system"
But Bishop, I think the calculos for modifications to the anti-cheat system should involve "the incentive it gives to people to multi and cheat in an egregious matter"+"level of unfair advantage possibly given to legit players" - "the level of good it brings to the game, largely in the form of permitting fair play(both for those who do live in the same IP area, those in a KD that requires their members to have a reasonable amount of activity within the game plan, such as ambushing certain attacks, and for those in the KD that they are warring, who are gaining some type of advantage no matter what).
Following this(obviously metaphorical) formula, i think something like not counting ambushes should be acceptable.
We see monarchs logging kdmates in war all the time, allowing ambush to not fire a block just encourages that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Topsy
That assumes that monarchs are in the same IP as all of their provinces. Now, obviously if a monarch logs in to one of their provinces, they suddenly are in fact operating from the same IP, but they are not living in the same one. I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable enough about the internet to suggest the technical fix, but is there anyway to tell regional proximity to an IP? Perhaps you could have something like "if you are logging in from an IP from x distance away from IP from which account was previously logged from, you cannot log into any other accounts from that IP for x amount of hours." That way, if the monarch x-logged he would be locked out of his own account for a certain duration.
Not going to work if there is a bulk of us who use both phone, work and home computers to log uto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Topsy
Only if you are logging in to other people's accounts from those different locations.
FinalFantasyWorld is right, that would affect people who log in from work and home or using a cell.
Perhaps what I am recomending is not comming across clearly(or i simply don't fully understand what FFW is saying).
In my suggestion, the hour gap comes from logging in to an account from your ip after you have logged in to a different account from that same IP. So say I am a monarch. I traditionaly log in from one IP, then there is suddenly an account logged in from that IP that was last logged in from a great geographical distance. After I have logged in to this account, I cannot log back in to my original account for whatever the time is(say 6 hours?)
If you simply have 3 different IPs from which you log into your own account, none of this would kick in, because it is only your account that you are logging into.
Edit: ahh right, so two different people from same IP both play on multiple IP's, and that would make my idea kick in whenever they played at home. OK, bed it is.
Thats not as effective as just stopping the interaction. ISP locations tend to be diverse even on the same range.
It is certainly not as effective, but it would allow people to ambush, which is something that is predicated on events completely outside the power to plan. As noted before, I think there is a certain good, and certain level of fairness brought to the game, if people living together are at least able to ambush chain targets.
You are just OKing them if they want to xlog and ambush for each other during a war if they get chained. The bad outweighs the good.
How about dropping the block once a certain level of GBP is reached to give chain victims a better chance of being able to hit somebody and survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Pretty much the same thing as i just responded to Landro.
I can pretty much follow and support everything you say in this thread Bishop, but since ambush is purely defensive (can't do it unless attacked and only on the one that targeted you) I think the weight here tips a little to the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Benefit to cheaters in this case < the discomfort of the 'couples'. imo
perhaps scavenger - we can put it to the developers if people feel it is necessary.
In case peeps are interested, we've seen a massive reduction in cheat reports from players since the system went live on Friday. As of today only 3% accounts are affected in any way, down from 4% only 2 days ago, and continuing to drop. What we're seeing is the cheaters abandoning their farms and multi accounts as they realize they can now longer operate them effectively. They devs say they will post more stats as the numbers settle down.
Cool (on both)
As I read this thread, I am absolutely shocked by the way that the official voices for the devs are behaving. Rather than give actual answers, there's a whole lot of condescension and the general response is, "Oh well, we don't care about you or your concerns. This is how it is and there is no chance that we'll change."
If in a 30-some page thread, there is only a few people saying the change is a GOOD idea, how does this not strike you guys as being something that's very, very bad for your player base and maybe something you should announce that you are re-considering and going to work on... maybe with community involvement. Also, someone else had a good point. Why was Mehul able to maintain the whitelist when the game was much more active, but now it's too much to ask?
Mehul didn't maintain a whitelist - he arbitrarily allowed people to play together with no quality control.Quote:
Originally Posted by warfrogs
Sometimes the right decision is not popular with a vocal minority.
Not to be a spoilsport, but I recently found out that browser footprints are pretty much unique for everyone. Perhaps something to look at?
If you're interested in finding out how unique your personal setup is check the following site: panopticlick.eff.org
Simple..I just checked my setup and sure enough, I'm unique.
Thanks you for placing this big fat PERIOD to this topic. There is no discussion, decision has been made and people just have to suck it up. A b s o l u t e l y no point in discussing this any further when someone in charge places comments like this. I bet you think the European Commission is a vocal minority as well? Not everyone voices their opinion but they read and agree with what others have to say.Quote:
Sometimes the right decision is not popular with a vocal minority.
This change is a super good idea. Remember how it seemed like 99% of all people wanted fog back, but then remember this poll? http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...Poll-Version-2
Could we get some figures on roughly how many were whitelisted before the whitelist was discontinued? How small a minority are we talking that you are willing to risk allienating with the new policy as is?
Even those of us directly affected don't disagree with the new approach, some of us actually welcome it with reservations on how it affects many who did play by the rules, but just got caught up in the attempt to control cheating. It not only affects the family members/university students and others who share an isp, it affects the other members of their kd if they are less effective in waging war as a result. Surely some modifications can be made to not thow the baby out with the bathwater.
In western justice systems it has been expressed that better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished. The way this system was rolled out and the impression I am getting from the mods posting here is frankly you really dont care how many innocent players are punished so long as some cheaters get caught.
Being able to play with family from one IP is a privilege, not a punishment.
I completely get that DHarn even before you pointed it out again. Most jurisdictions point out the same thing with driving, that it is a privilege, not a right and often revoke the privilege if you abuse it (drunk driving for example). Don't recall a lot of cases where they revoke the privilege because someone else drives drunk. Pardon me if I am nor happy to have a privilege I appreciated, and enjoyed revoked because some other idiot(s) chose to abuse that privelege. Pretty sure if you had your license yanked because your neighbor decided to have a few drinks before taking to the highways you wouldn't be real happy either.
Are you for real? Having 2 bank accounts is also a privilege, does that mean the bank can decide from which account they take the money when you want to make a payment? Can they say: hell no, we are not sending this money to XYZ because you recently did business with XYZ through the other account...Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Stupid analogy perhaps.... point is that moderators should refrain from responses like the one I quoted.
That is an awful analogy. You don't get any benefit from having two legitimate bank accounts. The only time you might get some kind of benefit is when you're doing fraud-like activity, at which point the bank absolutely has the right to step in and stop actions on your account.
In my state nobody can drive with cell phones in their hand because some idiots crashed their cars while talking on their phones. There are a million analogies that can argue both sides, but none of them apply because none of them are about cheaters in an online game.Quote:
Originally Posted by watchman
Funny you bring that up, I work at a bank, so I can educate you a little. There are hundreds of regulations in place that prevent people from making standard transactions in an attempt to prevent fraud. Did you know in the US you can only make 6 transfers per month from a savings account using online banking or an ATM? Try to make 7 and it doesn't allow it, gives you something very similar to 'Access Denied' :P Regardless, these analogies are ridiculous, this is an online game, not driving laws and not banking regs.Quote:
Originally Posted by faegan
no i have 2 accounts. and i has my purposes for having 2.
Just because you have 2 accounts doesn't mean the bank will allow you to kite checks. I can tell you guys right now I will own you with banking analogies because I deal with fraud every day, pick another topic if you want to argue :PQuote:
Originally Posted by E_Boko
There are 337 accounts on the whitelist that signed in during the last 30 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by watchman
2 bank accounts gives you advantage of 2 credit facilities. That can be an advantage. There also people who have a Swiss bank account in addition to their regular one(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Utopia is not a bank - stop nitpicking and using analogies :/
Since you brought up banking, it's not uncommon for two memebers of the same household to share a bank account (isp). My wife and I found that quite useful when I worked as an over the road truck driver for a few years. I could deposit cash into her account to pay bills when I was away and unable to do it. Had the bank failed to honor the deposit and she been unable to pay the bills because we shared the account, we likely would have taken our funds elsewhere.
So now you see 2 players who happen to share the same isp not only equivalent to multi's, x-loggers, farmers and other cheaters, at least in the way you seem to feel we should be treated, but now we apparently are as undesirable as frauds, check kiters and other criminals. Gives me a real warm and fuzzy to know how highly you regard the apparently small minority I happen to be a part of.
Watchman, you know when i say - "get back on topic", and then the very next post is off topic?
Banks would never allow a system that would let one person access another person's account without verifying their identity and confirming they had access to that account on every single transaction. Such a system is certainly not plausible in gaming either. Your analogy isn't even correct, it would be more suited for 2 players logging one province at one location, which would never trigger cheat detection. These analogies are unrelated, there is no point continuing them to be honest. Like Bishop says, back on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by watchman
You posted that while I was typing a response. Didn't see your post until mine was allready submitted.
Close the topic already, there is no point in discussing this issue. May as well be talking to a brick wall.
We always listen to input - we have already got some tweaks in mind based on player feedback. Some items are will not be changing though.
Good, changes my opinion a bit :D Apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop