Curse

Kashrlyyk · Oct 11, 2008, 04:55 PM // 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

A loophole in programming isn't an exploit. An exploit is intentionally seeking out a loophole in programming and using it to gain a significant advantage by forcing code against itself. Since syncers are not altering code, packet sniffing, or using a convoluted method to do this, it cannot be considered an exploit. You can sync on accident, you cannot exploit on accident.

Really? Please call ANet to unban all the people that repeatedly killed the doppleganger earning 50k XP each time. They got permanently banned for EXPLOITING.
They didn´t alter code, sniff packets or used convoluted methods too! Still got banned for EXPLOITING.

Numa Pompilius · Oct 11, 2008, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle2000

In this example I gave a case where some syncing it guaranteed. If more players had entered the chances of sync would be lower but not entirly unlikley. True randomization can still still apear to be controlable in cases like this.

The effect of number of players is rather bigger than you imply. If there's 4 synchers and only a total of 8 players, the probability that you're alone in your team is just 15%, making synching viable even given effective randomization.
However, if there's 4 synchers and 100 players, the probability that you're the only syncher in the team is 96%, basically making synching impossible (exact numbers subject to saturday haziness, but they should be about right).

IF there was effective randomization of the player pools, that is.

The prevalence of synch-teams during the double-points weekend, when far more players than normal were playing, would suggest synching is not just a case of few people playing, but of inadequate/nonexistent randomization of the player pool.

Lest121 · Oct 11, 2008, 05:56 PM // 17:56

This is why I stop playing in RA too many sync groups.

w00t! · Oct 11, 2008, 06:16 PM // 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The effect of number of players is rather bigger than you imply. If there's 4 synchers and only a total of 8 players, the probability that you're alone in your team is just 15%, making synching viable even given effective randomization.
However, if there's 4 synchers and 100 players, the probability that you're the only syncher in the team is 96%, basically making synching impossible (exact numbers subject to saturday haziness, but they should be about right).

IF there was effective randomization of the player pools, that is.

The prevalence of synch-teams during the double-points weekend, when far more players than normal were playing, would suggest synching is not just a case of few people playing, but of inadequate/nonexistent randomization of the player pool.

First, correlation does not imply causation.

Second, there is no such thing as random when it comes to computers. There is only pseudo-random.

Third, unless we were to do some scientific analysis of the number of players joining teams each and every thirty seconds, there is no way to determine whether Anet's code is buggy and prone toward exploitation.

One thing we can certainly deduce is that having people sync will statistically improve their odds of being on the same team, under all circumstances.

The only real recourse is to /report players for leaving when they do no sync properly.

This is a player problem that coding will not fix. Sure, you could write some convoluted code that tracks all players and cross links them to all other players, but personally, given Anet's limited resources, I'd rather that they spend their time skill balancing and upgrading the HoM.

CE Devilman · Oct 11, 2008, 06:20 PM // 18:20

not long time ago I put it in Game Bugs ...all I got was a

in my face.

Arkantos · Oct 11, 2008, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by CE Devilman

not long time ago I put it in Game Bugs ...all I got was a

in my face.

That's because this isn't a bug.

zwei2stein · Oct 11, 2008, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

First, correlation does not imply causation.

Second, there is no such thing as random when it comes to computers. There is only pseudo-random.

Third, unless we were to do some scientific analysis of the number of players joining teams each and every thirty seconds, there is no way to determine whether Anet's code is buggy and prone toward exploitation.

One thing we can certainly deduce is that having people sync will statistically improve their odds of being on the same team, under all circumstances.

I am pretty sure that presudorandomness will not show-off by incredibly often putting people with same guild tags to same team.

You are not getting what pseudorandomness really means, or you are stuck in atari era. Nowadays generation of rnd generators will not produce human-recognizable pattern. You could spend your whole life trying to find one in generator output. Pseudorandomness does not mean that you will get funny kind of patterns either.

We know that syncing does not become harder with huge player pool (ra events), so it does not work by picking people randomply from pool of waiting players. So we can stop bringing "pseudorandon rng gen"

Most likely, there is queue and teams are formed by taking 4 players from top of queue.

(Unless you want to claim that rnd generator follows rules of narative probability where 1-in-million chances happen in 9 cases out of 10. having 100 people and 4 sycers ending same team is exactly that.)

w00t! · Oct 11, 2008, 08:10 PM // 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

I am pretty sure that presudorandomness will not show-off by incredibly often putting people with same guild tags to same team.

You are not getting what pseudorandomness really means, or you are stuck in atari era. Nowadays generation of rnd generators will not produce human-recognizable pattern. You could spend your whole life trying to find one in generator output. Pseudorandomness does not mean that you will get funny kind of patterns either.

Well, I have 10+ years experience with optimization, simulation, algorithms, heuristics, and GA's, so I'm pretty certain that I understand what pseudorandom means. Having said that, you're right, it won't show up in the type of discussions we're having here. It does show up when I run simulations covering several years using millions of data points. I just get annoyed when people use the term "random" incorrectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

We know that syncing does not become harder with huge player pool (ra events), so it does not work by picking people randomply from pool of waiting players. So we can stop bringing "pseudorandon rng gen"

Most likely, there is queue and teams are formed by taking 4 players from top of queue.

(Unless you want to claim that rnd generator follows rules of narative probability where 1-in-million chances happen in 9 cases out of 10. having 100 people and 4 sycers ending same team is exactly that.)

I would suggest that the issue is not with the random number generator, rather in the method of our observation. That is the subjective part of this entire discussion. We really have no idea how many people are joining in RA at any given 30 second period, so we can make no conclusions regarding the effectiveness of their code.

Having said that, your suggestion that they just grab the players from the top of the queue and use no random allocation at all may well be true. That makes all of our arguments moot.

Martin Alvito · Oct 11, 2008, 08:26 PM // 20:26

It boggles my mind every time I see large portions of the community turn out insisting on a rule change for something like this. The logic of these arguments always runs like this:

I do not like the present system. You should change the system to reflect MY preferences. You should do this because of 'X' moral/ethical principle.

In this case, the principle is that the designers did not intend for RA groups to be non-random.

Why can't you people simply adapt to circumstance? If you take RA so seriously that you can't deal with syncers, why don't you simply game the system the way other people are gaming it? Make some skilled friends and sync yourself if it bothers you that much.

If that doesn't work for you, organize an RA boycott. Make it clear to the devs that lots of people hate syncing with evidence! Don't just come to a forum and complain about it. Make your complaint impossible to ignore. In short, do something to solve the problem!

Is it so important that a game run exactly the way you think it should? You did not design it. Is your happiness so important that it outweighs the happiness of others enough to merit a change in the system?

If you expect the world around you to adapt itself to that which you believe to be "right" or "just", you're going to be sorely disappointed throughout your entire life. Take the world as it is and live in it. Adapt your own actions to your ethical principles and the systems you live in. If you want something, take an action that makes it more likely that you'll get what you want!

Taki · Oct 11, 2008, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Did you just try to call Build Wars an exploit?

Actually the developers called it an exploit, but how would they know, they just designed the game right? http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/ArenaNet

eveloper_updates#.5BDev_Update.5D_Guild_ Battles_-_25_September_2008

Quote:

some degenerate builds were developed to exploit how aggressiveness was calculated. Using six or seven Monks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Anyways, there's a difference between justifying syncing and saying it's not an exploit. We're discussing definitions here, not the righteousness of it. Drag your ad hominem crap elsewhere.

What? You yourself both justified and said it wasn't an exploit on page 2. I explained that it was soon after so it's good that you left that part out of my quote or you might have looked foolish. And if you read other posts its clear that people are discussing both aspects of it so in the words of our dear friend Master of Whispers, "Everyone needs a hobby. Let me guess... yours is failure?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Taki, if the mechanics, the rules, of the game allow a certain overpowering approach, the way to deal with it is not by yelling 'exploit' and leaving it at that, but by fixing those mechanics.

True enough but ANET and most people don't really give a hoot about RA. It's like an unpainted corner in a basement closet; sure it'd be nice to buy a can of paint and touch it up but is it worth the effort?

Numa Pompilius · Oct 11, 2008, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

It boggles my mind every time I see large portions of the community turn out insisting on a rule change for something like this. The logic of these arguments always runs like this:
I do not like the present system. You should change the system to reflect MY preferences. You should do this because of 'X' moral/ethical principle.

The concept of fairness and level playing field - they mean nothing to you?
Your argument simply boils down to that you've found a way to get an unfair advantage over other players, and like it.

Quote:

Why can't you people simply adapt to circumstance?

Who says I don't? I go to the "synching-districts", press enter, wait until the counter hits 3 seconds, click cancel, and re-enter. This to improve my chances of parasitizing on a synch-team.

Lyle2000 · Oct 11, 2008, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The effect of number of players is rather bigger than you imply. If there's 4 synchers and only a total of 8 players, the probability that you're alone in your team is just 15%, making synching viable even given effective randomization.
However, if there's 4 synchers and 100 players, the probability that you're the only syncher in the team is 96%, basically making synching impossible (exact numbers subject to saturday haziness, but they should be about right)........

Actually the chance of being alone is much higher than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

.......IF there was effective randomization of the player pools, that is.

The prevalence of synch-teams during the double-points weekend, when far more players than normal were playing, would suggest synching is not just a case of few people playing, but of inadequate/nonexistent randomization of the player pool.

I don't think the larger number of synch teams is proof of randomization. I believe that is more social. The double point weekends attract a certain type of player. *cough*RA farmer*cough* I would believe that most of the people playing are trying to sync.

I also don't think the numbers improve the drasticly during the double point weekends. I have been playing some RA on the double point weekends when the counter reset becuase there were no opponents.

Sort of off topic:
I think that most of the syncing would go away if there where no Gladiator points from RA. Although I think RA would be pretty empty if there where no Gladiator points. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Taki · Oct 11, 2008, 08:55 PM // 20:55

Martin,

It boggles my mind every time I see someone complaining about large portions of the community insisting on a rule change for something like this. Ignoring all the of legit points and sensible posts, that person will concentrate on those arguments where the logic always runs like this:

I do not like the present system. You should change the system to reflect MY preferences. You should do this because of 'X' moral/ethical principle.

In this case, the principle is that the designers did not intend for Random Arena groups to be non-random.

Why can't you simply adapt to circumstance? If you take people complaining about something so seriously that you can't deal with their posts, why don't you simply game the system the way other people are gaming it? Read the title and don't enter the topic if it bothers you that much.

If that doesn't work for you, organize a forum/topic boycott. Make it clear to the mods and community that lots of people hate others opinions with evidence! Don't just come to a forum and complain about it. Make your complaint impossible to ignore. In short, gtfo and do something to solve the problem!

Is it so important that a forum run exactly the way you think it should? You did not design it. Is your happiness so important that it outweighs the happiness of others enough to merit a change in the system?

If you expect the world around you to adapt itself to that which you believe to be "right" or "just", you're going to be sorely disappointed throughout your entire life. Take the world as it is and live in it. Adapt your own actions to your ethical principles and the systems you live in. If you want something, take an action that makes it more likely that you'll get what you want!

lul

DreamWind · Oct 11, 2008, 09:10 PM // 21:10

I don't really care if it is an exploit or not. In my opinion players SHOULD be using exploits until the company actually fixes the problem. To me exploits are simply a way to show the devs what to fix in the game. To me this isn't an exploit though.

Also LoL at people calling Build Wars an exploit. Both of these "exploits" have been in existence for years, and if the company doesn't fix them its their problem not ours.

Martin Alvito · Oct 11, 2008, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Taki:

The short version of what follows is this. I argued that players in favor of a change to syncing should stop moralizing about it and start doing something to make it clear to ANet that the community actually favors their position.

You argue that I should go away and keep my opinions to myself.

Who has the problem with whose post?

If you don't care about logic, you needn't bother to read further. It appears that you are attempting to use rhetoric rather than substance here to make your point. But if you care to read something that develops arguments and substantiates them, be my guest.

I hear that arguments trump rhetoric any day of the week. Except maybe in politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taki

Ignoring all the of legit points and sensible posts, that person will concentrate on those arguments where the logic always runs like this:

I do not like the present system. You should change the system to reflect MY preferences. You should do this because of 'X' moral/ethical principle.

You, sir, fail at logic. Strip away all the rhetoric and the logical argument requesting the change boils down precisely as I have stated it. There is no reason to eliminate "syncing" other than that it is "wrong".

Syncing does not create behavioral consequences that go beyond syncing.

It doesn't threaten to undo the efforts of players by undermining the economy.

It doesn't meaningfully change who runs around with high gladiator rank.

It doesn't limit the environment to the point where only an extremely limited number of character builds are viable.

In short, syncing creates no catastrophic externalities justifying its removal, which is the usual underlying reason for making a balance change in this game (whether ANet states this or not).

So, then, any "justice" argument rests on ANet's definition of "exploit". But I have argued elsewhere that ANet's "exploit" policy is written by its lawyers for legal reasons, and that policy is as follows:

"Anything that we define to be an exploit is an exploit."

This conclusion is the necessary one, since there has not been consistency in prior enforcement of "exploits" or any established definition of "exploit". In principle, users of anything that has been called an "exploit" by the devs is to be banned. But this doesn't consistently happen. Syncing is an excellent example. I can name numerous others if you want. HM Urgoz farming comes immediately to mind as an incident where users of an "exploit" went unpunished.

The boundary line between "exploit" and "intelligent application of existing rules" remains unclear. To paraphrase Gaile Gray, an "exploit" is anything where the devs feel that that players do something that they "obviously" should not be able to. The issue is that what the devs consider "obvious" may not be as such to players.

Now, I didn't go into this level of depth in the original post, because most people don't care to read something with this level of detail. But since responding to your critique requires supporting this point, I have done so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taki

Why can't you simply adapt to circumstance? If you take people complaining about something so seriously that you can't deal with their posts, why don't you simply game the system the way other people are gaming it? Read the title and don't enter the topic if it bothers you that much.

Ah, censorship! So if I don't agree with you, I should remain silent. But taking action in this situation requires that I explain to people the fallacies in their reasoning. I have done PRECISELY that. See, I took an action, which was to point out the faulty reasoning being used to justify these arguments. I also recommended an action - which was for the posters to organize and voice their opinion in a fashion that is impossible to ignore. I didn't tell them to be silent or gtfo; I told them to quit being lazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taki

If that doesn't work for you, organize a forum/topic boycott. Make it clear to the mods and community that lots of people hate others opinions with evidence! Don't just come to a forum and complain about it. Make your complaint impossible to ignore. In short, gtfo and do something to solve the problem!

It is evident from the content of this thread that there are people that favor syncing. I don't have a strong preference one way or the other. Ignoring the clear fact that there is a significant proportion of the community that prefers the system "as is", however, is ridiculous.

There is NO evidence one way or the other on how the community actually feels about syncing. The burden of proof necessarily rests on those that prefer a change. I have merely suggested that mere complaining is wrongheaded. ANet doesn't care about right and wrong; nor should they. They care about what makes them money. They have a responsibility to their owners to put that first.

Consequently, any argument that will persuade the developers to make a change must be rooted in the following grounds: "It will cost you more business to ignore this problem than to fix it." I have suggested how you go about doing that. Complaining on forums about the problem won't do it, unless the volume of complaints is so large that the problem becomes impossible to ignore. However, any rational actor should see that in such a case, one more complaint is meaningless and that one should simply free-ride, rather than expend effort complaining.

It is clear enough from the thread that there are people on both sides of the issue. So, if you want to fix the problem, demonstrate that opinion favors your side. This is a persistent issue, it's not clear where the community stands, and one more thread on the matter isn't going to change the situation.

Again, I didn't go into this level of detail originally, because it shouldn't be necessary. Since it appears that it is, I have developed this point further.

If you want to continue to conduct a war of words, I am happy to continue to expose the flaws in your reasoning.

I missed this post earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The concept of fairness and level playing field - they mean nothing to you?
Your argument simply boils down to that you've found a way to get an unfair advantage over other players, and like it.

If you want "fairness" and "level playing field", play minigames where everyone gets the same skills. I do so (WAY more than I ever venture down to RA) and I enjoy those environments.

These concepts are laughable in a standard GW PvP environment. In organized team play, networking > skill. In a random assignment format, luck of the draw on the skill level and bars of teammates' > one's own player skill. Players are merely acting to minimize the luck factor here, which is what you find objectionable.

Have you considered that some players don't necessarily prefer winning for its own sake or care about gladiator points? It's extremely satisfying to beat a sync team with three randoms. A good sync vs. sync RA battle can be much more satisfying and skill-based than a good TA fight, because the TA environment is usually dominated by one build or another and is therefore either Build Wars or mirror matches.

There are alternative explanations for not caring about syncing that you haven't considered. If I were arguing in favor, I would argue that:

1) on an occasional basis, it can be enjoyable (I haven't played RA in weeks, and haven't synced since the spring)
2) it sometimes creates interesting matchups that do not otherwise occur in GW.

romeus petrus · Oct 11, 2008, 11:18 PM // 23:18

On topic: it is clearly an exploit that gives the players syncing an unfair advantage. I've been in round where all 3 other players had the same name tag and were clearly on some sort of a voice chat program. Although that particular run gave me 17 consec wins.

So think about it as bad weather, until its gone you might as well enjoy it.

w00t! · Oct 12, 2008, 12:01 AM // 00:01

The basic argument against syncing can be summed up fairly simply:

1) Random Arenas are intended to create random collections of players for PvP combat.

2) Team arenas are intended to create small teams to combat each other in PvP.

If you agree with the above, then it should follow that Random Arenas are intended to be just that, random, and that syncing is against the spirit of RA. That said, it is really a player problem rather than a system problem. They may decide to address it, but there are other ways to do that. A simple change to the EULA would solve this.

Dr.Jones · Oct 12, 2008, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Personally i have stopped RAing until it gets changed.

Master Ketsu · Oct 12, 2008, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

That's because this isn't a bug.

uhh...yes it is.

I'm not going to argue whether or not syncing actually matters, but trying to say it is not a bug is false. I work as a Senior QA tester at a major developer ( and have worked as a regular tester in publishing companies ) , and the definition of what is a bug and what's not a bug is very loose. By QA standards anything that goes against what the original designers intention of the games functionality is supposed to be reported as a bug. This standard is the same in almost every single gamedev company.

I think its pretty obvious that the intention of random arenas was unorganized teams. I wouldn't be surprised if syncing is already in Anet's bug database. Thing is, syncing is not 100% repeatable ( damn close, but not ) and is in a nonsense arena anyways...meaning that its going to be classed as a C rank bug ( low priority B at best ) and ignored until they have nothing better to do.

IMO a better fix would be to just leave syncing as it is and Remove the glad title from RA. Once teams win 10 in RA and move on to TA then they can start earning glad points.

pumpkin pie · Oct 12, 2008, 01:50 AM // 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xunlai Guru Agent

Proof ?

when people present you with facts you look it up, i am sure you are using a computer to type that word Proof? And must have a web browser and can visit a website call http://www.google.com/ which is a search engine

but if you like spoon feeding: it is called Ludology

Chocobo1 - who sync.

Let me ask you this:
What do you do when you do not get to into a group with the people that you wanted to sync with?

be honest, which one do you do?
1) leave
2) leave after finishing the first game even if your group has won leaving them with 3 players and most players get frustrated after that and leave?
3) /resign
4) charges into the opponent and die when the group won't die fast so you can leave?