Discussion Minimum time for interactions

[DEADP00L]

@Energy :
Can you explain in detail how you get this data?
Because if many players on different worlds and servers are making tickets with this kind of data, maybe this will encourage Innogames to check and possibly punish some cheaters.
Also, I think cheaters feel unpunished because only Inno "verifies", whereas if potentially a multitude of players do these checks, it will encourage more cheaters not to risk losing their city.

 

[Energy]

Sure. But I know that everyone I tried to explain didn't get it. I have almost 10 years of experience working with WS-based communication in both web and mobile applications. That's why I know.

It's something like this

1: Open the developer tool for the browser you use. There is a lot of info on the internet on how to do it.
2: enter the game. It is important to first open the developer tool because otherwise it will not show you the connection.
3: Go to the "network" and check WS.
4: Select the row that says "socket/". And on the right it opens the information.
5: You select messages
6: Ready, you are already seeing the communication in real time. You can filter with regular expressions.

Keywords for internet searches:
inspect websocket communication chrome
inspect websocket communication mozilla firefox
etc.

 

[DEADP00L]

Thank you very much, it works perfectly but I see information there that I should not see.
In GbG, I see "who" deleted a camp on a sector that we were taking, while it is in an opposing guild on the map.
I don't find it normal for Innogames to show such information.

 

[Energy]

Thank you very much, it works perfectly but I see information there that I should not see.
In GbG, I see "who" deleted a camp on a sector that we were taking, while it is in an opposing guild on the map.
I don't find it normal for Innogames to show such information.

Just because the UI doesn't show it to you doesn't mean you shouldn't read it. You are authenticated over the websocket, and it is a secure communication sent to you.
You could report it to inno, I didn't pay attention to it. But how did they implement communication as a broadcast. The result is what you see.

 

[Sibel]

What I see from the data above is, that a guild is proceeding with conquering a province (battles 114-122/160). The guild can be identified by participantId":13454 which is set up new for each season GbG. This is not identical to the guildID.

What I cannot see from this data is the player ID (which can be figured out e.g. by the data base ScoreDB). Thus it will not count as proof (at least from my point of view).

Nevertheless, this ID must be available somehow because the Helper knows/shows who fought (but not where). Thus matching these data would make it possible to reconstruct who fought where (if not exactly at the same moment at two different spots).

By the way, data recorded like this shows the name of a player intruding the first time a blocked province.

 

[ArklurBeta]

Nevertheless, this ID must be available somehow because the Helper knows/shows who fought (but not where).

I assume you are referring to the "green rows", showing who has higher numbers compared to the last time you've opened the GBG Leaderboard. If yes, then...there is no magic here. FoE-Helper doesn't do anything extreme here, when you open up the leaderboard, they make a snapshot of the numbers and next time you open it again, they just compare the last snapshot with the current numbers. Not 100% sure, but like 99.99 .

 

[Emberguard]

aren’t provided codes and stats sufficient enough, though?

It still needs to be done through the proper channels if you want the evidence looked at and acted upon. Another server isn't going to know it needs looking at if you go through Beta, and if it's a Beta player then Beta would need a ticket to properly attend to the problem.

 

[kawada]

It still needs to be done through the proper channels if you want the evidence looked at and acted upon. Another server isn't going to know it needs looking at if you go through Beta, and if it's a Beta player then Beta would need a ticket to properly attend to the problem.

Well, we saw a lot of cases when either “channel” didn’t work. On the forum, those topics either shut down or told to be addressed via “proper channels”, via tickets (which are considered to be a “proper channel”) - you just receive the standard “thank-you-we-will-take-a-look“ response.

Meanwhile, the problem still exists across all the servers.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

That seems fine to me.
I don't know if this counts as evidence. But I'm going to leave it here. I know you're going to be tempted to say there were 9 players making a single attack. But it was not like that.
Explanation:
1 only player, with very bad connection and a very slow computer.
GB: 1 click -> 9 attacks in 5.4s

[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":114,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:33.982
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":115,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:34.664
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":116,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:35.350
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":117,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:35.894
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":118,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:36.595
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":119,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:37.126
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":120,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:38.327
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":121,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:38.858
[{"responseData":[{"id":52,"victoryPoints":37,"conquestProgress":[{"participantId":13454,"progress":122,"maxProgress":160,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundConquestProgress"}],"totalBuildingSlots":1,"__class__":"GuildBattlegroundProvince"}],"requestClass":"GuildBattlegroundService","requestMethod":"getProvinces","__class__":"ServerResponse"}]    340 
08:48:39.392

PS: I was talking to the "player" when he did this...

Edit:
participantId is not player_id or guild_id.
It is a value autogenerated by inno when registering a guild on the GB

In fact
you cant see it its one player. Cuz participant ID is guild, ID: i have seen in my guild 10 ppl hitting sector and ID was the same

 

[Nessie]

Evidence of cheats was presented very many times by our guild - so many times that juber didn't bother to respond.

 

[Nessie]

I don't think InnoGames is seriously interested in a way to stop cheaters.

 

[Emberguard]

Well, we saw a lot of cases when either “channel” didn’t work. On the forum, those topics either shut down or told to be addressed via “proper channels”, via tickets (which are considered to be a “proper channel”) - you just receive the standard “thank-you-we-will-take-a-look“ response.

Meanwhile, the problem still exists across all the servers.

Well yes, there is every possibility that Inno comes to a different conclusion from what you wish them to come to. But that doesn’t change which channels have access to the resources required to investigate cheating.

 

[ArklurBeta]

I get banned by Juber for my opinion, so bye bye

Juber is one of the nicest and most active mod in the FoE community, who helps a lot. If he banned you, it wasn't because of your opinion, it was because the way you said it "likely". If you can't write down your opinion about a topic without breaking the rules, being unnecessarily/overly offensive, then you deserve the ban. Bye.

I also hate cheaters and often mention that I feel like Inno doesn't put enough effort into stopping them, yet, what a miracle, I hasn't been banned..."yet".

 

[Energy]

It still needs to be done through the proper channels if you want the evidence looked at and acted upon. Another server isn't going to know it needs looking at if you go through Beta, and if it's a Beta player then Beta would need a ticket to properly attend to the problem.

Sorry, but my intention is not to sanction someone here. My intention is that we are all more even, and for that they asked me for evidence that this was happening in GB.

If these players did, do or continue to do it, it will be someone else's problem.
But if in a guild there are 5 players hitting a sector and a guild of 2 players does 160 in 96s/48s (~0.6 attacks/s) that guild has no chance. But if the other guild takes 128s (~0.8s), at least it has a small chance.

 

[crabbyoldman]

the best way to banish cheaters would be to remove auto fights, it would even solve problems in GbG.

And make the activities so slow and boring no one would want to play

 

[crabbyoldman]

I do wonder why they don't already have some sort of such reasonable limit already.

As a correction, your example has 1 player_id doing 6 attacks and two others doing 1 each. So only 1 player demonstrably exploiting.

Using auto is not exploiting nor cheating. Too may times people post ideas here that only serve to bring all the players to the lowest level of play so we are all "equal". fortunately inno hasn't fallen into that trap yet.

 

[xivarmy]

Using auto is not exploiting nor cheating. Too may times people post ideas here that only serve to bring all the players to the lowest level of play so we are all "equal". fortunately inno hasn't fallen into that trap yet.

They're not talking about the regular in-game auto in this thread. They're talking about 3rd party exploits that go faster than you ever could with auto (because auto still has response times to wait for). No one is clicking autobattle 6 times a second.

 

[CrashBoom]

we are all "equal".

except the cheaters
they are more equal

 

[CrashBoom]

other sites are using captchas when they are thinking you are a bot because you are too fast

 

[DEADP00L]

I know a game that when an action is done too repetitively, a very random position window appears and if you don't click correctly in the right place, your account is blocked for 1 hour.