Discussion Minimum time for interactions

[DEADP00L]

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

And if Inno does not want/can act against automatic bots, there is also the solution of offering it to everyone.
Then we would all be equal again.
But I don't think the game is getting any less boring.

 

[crabbyoldman]

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.

Bots can't click 6 times a second. I don't doubt some people use them but I don't believe it's as prevalent as some would have us believe, nor is it this huge problem that we need to take drastic measures to prevent it. If you know anything about gaming at all then you know the last thing people want is to slow the game down to the speed of the slowest players

 

[CrashBoom]

Bots can't click 6 times a second. I don't doubt some people use them but I don't believe it's as prevalent as some would have us believe, nor is it this huge problem that we need to take drastic measures to prevent it. If you know anything about gaming at all then you know the last thing people want is to slow the game down to the speed of the slowest players

but you can write an browser addon that automatically send interactions

for example there was / is a forbidden one out there which checks all cities for things to plunder or GB to snipe

or I have seen a youtube video auto negotiate (not auto click but automatically communicate with the server)

so what bots can't do other tools can

and btw:
in the message you quoted there is no words about bots
it says "3rd party exploits"

so you are a funny guy
you don't even know how cheaters work but you defend them

 

[xivarmy]

Bots can't click 6 times a second. I don't doubt some people use them but I don't believe it's as prevalent as some would have us believe, nor is it this huge problem that we need to take drastic measures to prevent it. If you know anything about gaming at all then you know the last thing people want is to slow the game down to the speed of the slowest players

They're not click bots - they directly send requests to the server.

Noone's saying to slow it down to the slowest player - they're just suggesting that if the fastest legit player can't go beyond say 2 seconds per autobattle since doing it legit involves autobattle-close fight result-open fight window-autobattle, then that could be the limit that the server doesn't accept beyond. This would then at least slow down those who have a script that send a battle command repeatedly without any clicking.

 

[crabbyoldman]

but you can write an browser addon that automatically send interactions

for example there was / is a forbidden one out there which checks all cities for things to plunder or GB to snipe

or I have seen a youtube video auto negotiate (not auto click but automatically communicate with the server)

so what bots can't do other tools can

and btw:
in the message you quoted there is no words about bots
it says "3rd party exploits"

so you are a funny guy
you don't even know how cheaters work but you defend them

I'm sorry, Inno would not allow a script to inter react with their server in the manner you describe. The bot has to send the same input to the server that you would, via keyboard and mouse

 

[xivarmy]

I'm sorry, Inno would not allow a script to inter react with their server in the manner you describe. The bot has to send the same input to the server that you would, via keyboard and mouse

Particularly with the game being html-based now, it's pretty hard to obfuscate the communication needed to the server to replicate actions without human-ui input.

They *should* be screening for abusive uses of such scripts - and this thread is largely suggesting that seeing as that seems to have in many cases been ineffective, perhaps they should also limit the extent to which such actions are processed on server side.

The original post contained evidence of someone doing 6 fights in 1 second (now-deleted because it was personally identifying who the alleged player was).

 

[crabbyoldman]

Particularly with the game being html-based now, it's pretty hard to obfuscate the communication needed to the server to replicate actions without human-ui input.

They *should* be screening for abusive uses of such scripts - and this thread is largely suggesting that seeing as that seems to have in many cases been ineffective, perhaps they should also limit the extent to which such actions are processed on server side.

The original post contained evidence of someone doing 6 fights in 1 second (now-deleted because it was personally identifying who the alleged player was).

I'm sorry, 6 battles in one second? Not happening my friend

 

[CrashBoom]

I'm sorry, 6 battles in one second? Not happening my friend

not happining without cheating tool

why are you defending the cheaters?
are you one of them ?

yesterday I saw a guild taking a sector in 20 seconds: was amazing
was wondering if they were all active at the same time or just a few cheaters

 

[Pericles the Lion]

not happining without cheating tool

why are you defending the cheaters?
are you one of them ?

yesterday I saw a guild taking a sector in 20 seconds: was amazing
was wondering if they were all active at the same time or just a few cheaters

160 encounters can easily be done by 15 hitters (maybe even as few as 10) in 20 seconds without cheating. No big deal.

 

[ArklurBeta]

160 encounters can easily be done by 15 hitters (maybe even as few as 10) in 20 seconds without cheating. No big deal.

I wouldn't say easily. I think 2s/fight is definitely in the top range, doubt many guild can pull that many players who can fight at this level, or even faster (no need to share videos, I saw some, I know it's doable), so under 20 seconds, it's more likely a player can do close to 10 battles. So with 15 hitters...theoretically possible, but my guess is that either it was more players on, or cheating was going on.

Again, my assumption is that it's very unlikely that many powerhouses are together in a single guild, and can be on even at the same time. It simply doesn't seem realistic. But of course there are often exceptions .

 

[Energy]

I'm sorry, 6 battles in one second? Not happening my friend

There are people who do much more than 6 per second.
It's not funny, it doesn't make sense, it takes away the desire to play. But you can do it.

The worst is the feeling of impotence for not having a solution to this. I'm not saying that Inno doesn't want to fix it, but that there is no real solution for these scenarios.

And sooner or later, you get tired of reporting these players and you end up with 2 options. You stop playing or do the same as the rest

 

[Pericles the Lion]

There are people who do much more than 6 per second.
It's not funny, it doesn't make sense, it takes away the desire to play. But you can do it.

The worst is the feeling of impotence for not having a solution to this. I'm not saying that Inno doesn't want to fix it, but that there is no real solution for these scenarios.

And sooner or later, you get tired of reporting these players and you end up with 2 options. You stop playing or do the same as the rest

There is a third option. Choose to ignore it.

 

[Energy]

There is a third option. Choose to ignore it.

That is option 1 .
You ignore it, and you stop competing in GB and GvG and towers and personal ranking and global ranking. And when you realized you are no longer playing.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

That is option 1 .
You ignore it, and you stop competing in GB and GvG and towers and personal ranking and global ranking. And when you realized you are no longer playing.

No. If, in response to perceived cheating, you change your behavior to the point where you are no longer playing then you have not ignored the perceived cheaters. You have responded to it. Ignoring cheaters is just that, let them go their merry way while you continue to participate in GBG, GvG, etc. Cheating, to the extent that it exists, does not bother me because I choose to not allow it to.

 

[xivarmy]

No. If, in response to perceived cheating, you change your behavior to the point where you are no longer playing then you have not ignored the perceived cheaters. You have responded to it. Ignoring cheaters is just that, let them go their merry way while you continue to participate in GBG, GvG, etc. Cheating, to the extent that it exists, does not bother me because I choose to not allow it to.

The impact of "the extent it exists" will vary from player to player and server to server. For a serious GvG guild facing even 1 cheater that fights faster than 10 top players combined is pretty hard to ignore.

It's good that it doesn't really impact you. It doesn't really impact me either. But I have sympathy for those it does impact.

 

[Thunderdome]

There is a third option. Choose to ignore it.

I had to agree with you on this one. I would just play the game and just ignore the other things because I hardly have the time for such. Inno has fallen back from many years that if they were to implement something to combat against cheating, it would either get those riled up that are using such 3rd party stuff or tick off those who are not using such due to breaking something else in the process. or even the whole game.