Curse

Smoke Nightvogue · Jun 11, 2015, 08:34 PM // 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

If the issue you allude to is that the resign limitation is detrimental, the solution should be self-evident - just remove it. It barely inconveniences the demographic it's targeted at, anyway. If it's the core problem of syncing, Anet's certainly been aware of it, since people who did it on obs mode back in 2010-2011 actually got banned for it sometimes. If there weren't any system changes involved in addressing it back then, why would we expect any now? And even if there were one, the last one caused more problems than it ever solved - why should we have faith that the next one won't just cause more damage?

Griping isn't likely to get the job done any quicker, but it has a higher chance of success than doing nothing, and it certainly feels good.

What I exactly meant is the issue of 16 vs 8 at the last map of Heroes' Ascent, my last reply wasn't anyhow linked to the initial post & the suggestion proposed at it.

makosi · Jun 11, 2015, 09:05 PM // 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

What I exactly meant is the issue of 16 vs 8 at the last map of Heroes' Ascent, my last reply wasn't anyhow linked to the initial post & the suggestion proposed at it.

You're saying you have knowledge that Anet are planning on doing something about it?

Smoke Nightvogue · Jun 11, 2015, 09:34 PM // 21:34

I cannot supply you with a guaranteed assurance on it, though this is the thing which has been extensively discussed with a programmer of the Guild Wars Live Team. In other words, they're aware of the issue and understand that the current structure of the last HA map is broken & requires a fix. As to when, that's not something anyone outside of the company could know, and since I'm not a part of their crew, naming a certain date or month would be absolutely out of clue.

*lemming* · Jun 11, 2015, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

I cannot supply you with a guaranteed assurance on it, though this is the thing which has been extensively discussed with a programmer of the Guild Wars Live Team. In other words, they're aware of the issue and understand that the current structure of the last HA map is broken & requires a fix. As to when, that's not something anyone outside of the company could know, and since I'm not a part of their crew, naming a certain date or month would be absolutely out of clue.

So, you don't know anything besides what anyone can read on Joe Kimmes' talk page.

But we should be optimistic anyway because...

Smoke Nightvogue · Jun 11, 2015, 09:53 PM // 21:53

If someone is really interested about how exactly it goes, they could ask Mr. Lo Presti via Support Ticket, for example, though I'm not sure why would someone be so curious, since the problem has been already reported.

makosi · Jun 11, 2015, 10:16 PM // 22:16

I've just read Joe Kimmes' feedback page for the first time. Much of the community's complaints about this echo mine - it's a relief to know I'm not the only one pissed off.

I don't think mechanics changes are the solution (which Joe said is logistically unreasonable anyway) to the 16v8 HoH cheating but, instead, allocating a member of staff or two to fishing out the alt accounts and those exploiting would bring it to an end. There isn't a huge number of people doing it so allocating staff for a day or two to cherry-pick and send in Dhuum would not be a huge resource drain, or would it?

The latest perma-banning debacle was only January. It makes little sense for people to have the 'GW1 is a dead free-for-all wasteland' attitude whilst recent action was taken presumably to maintain the game's integrity.

It seems to be the same people who have this 'dead game, who cares?' attitude who are still enthusiastic enough to log on and farm fame for hours. We humans can be very good at fooling ourselves so as to justify gains at the expense of others. Too good.

Smoke Nightvogue · Jun 11, 2015, 10:22 PM // 22:22

I could write a lot in response to your reasoning, though I'll simply limit it to the statement that non-design decisions hardly produce any significant effect on the remaining cheaters. As to why, that would be a different story linked to the mentioned banwave & how it ended up for the most of hardcore ones (that is, unbanned). Therefore - no, I don't believe in "typically block them" approach when it comes to resolving such issues.

makosi · Jun 12, 2015, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

I could write a lot in response to your reasoning, though I'll simply limit it to the statement that non-design decisions hardly produce any significant effect on the remaining cheaters.

I am grateful for being spared the effort of your laborious rebuttal even though it smacked of condescension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

As to why, that would be a different story linked to the mentioned banwave & how it ended up for the most of hardcore ones (that is, unbanned). Therefore - no, I don't believe in "typically block them" approach when it comes to resolving such issues.

We aren't to know Anet's full reasoning behind the unbannings in the recent ban wave but it doesn't negate the effects of properly evidenced account for cheaters as a concept.

Smoke Nightvogue · Jun 12, 2015, 05:57 PM // 17:57

Try to look at it from commercial standpoint and ask yourself a question: can permanently-banned customers extend your company's income? The reason becomes more than clear upon the answer. And what's no less important: you can't be absolutely sure that you actually banned a severe cheater if you automate the whole process.

*lemming* · Jun 13, 2015, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

If someone is really interested about how exactly it goes, they could ask Mr. Lo Presti via Support Ticket, for example, though I'm not sure why would someone be so curious, since the problem has been already reported.

This can't be a serious suggestion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

I could write a lot in response to your reasoning, though I'll simply limit it to the statement that non-design decisions hardly produce any significant effect on the remaining cheaters. As to why, that would be a different story linked to the mentioned banwave & how it ended up for the most of hardcore ones (that is, unbanned). Therefore - no, I don't believe in "typically block them" approach when it comes to resolving such issues.

There are only two reasons to sync HA or GvG - for the title or for the boxes (and chest drops in HA). The former is definitely more important in HA, and while the latter probably goes on undercover in GvG, the synced ladder matches that show up on obs mode are on champ range guilds for a reason. Actual punishment would eliminate that half of the incentive in a hurry.

This is all beyond the scope of the thread topic anyway. Joe has already stated that there won't be any mechanic changes to the Hall of Heroes, so outside of a change to that situation, I don't know what kind of fix your purported insider access says is under consideration.

Smoke Nightvogue · Jun 13, 2015, 06:14 PM // 18:14

I suppose you misunderstood him a bit, as alteration of HoH's mechanics would mean you're significantly redacting the map's environment, the existing sequence of where the matches are played or introduce new victory conditions.

Removing one of the 3 teams is not something difficult for them to employ, the question is how accurate it'll actually be done (you can read my concerns on the wiki from which it is quite clear that disabling the yellow's spawning point is not the best option for competitions involving only 2 teams, as the blue one could bodyblock the red's base the way the red team will never get the chance to).

makosi · Jun 14, 2015, 10:47 AM // 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

I suppose you misunderstood him a bit, as alteration of HoH's mechanics would mean you're significantly redacting the map's environment, the existing sequence of where the matches are played or introduce new victory conditions.

Removing one of the 3 teams is not something difficult for them to employ, the question is how accurate it'll actually be done (you can read my concerns on the wiki from which it is quite clear that disabling the yellow's spawning point is not the best option for competitions involving only 2 teams, as the blue one could bodyblock the red's base the way the red team will never get the chance to).

The number of people doing this is not great but they are hogging halls round the clock. I understand Anet don't have the resources to be changing map mechanics a I've been through all the concern-raising routes provided: customer support and using /report (neither of which are acted upon). This is why my OP suggestion is about the /resign feature and how it ought simply be removed - it's a simple change. In 16v8 why make the red team wait 7 mins or so to resign when the chances of winning are close to 0%?

So they want to restrict the /resign feature to stop people cheating their way to maxing titles? A noble cause, yes. So why permit the HA synchers to cheat their way to max titles by another means? Hypocrisy and Orwellian doublethink. The grief and frustration potential of knowingly permitting this is a marked gesture of disrespect and downright rudeness from a commercial business.

Coast · Jun 15, 2015, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

Removing one of the 3 teams is not something difficult for them to employ, the question is how accurate it'll actually be done (you can read my concerns on the wiki from which it is quite clear that disabling the yellow's spawning point is not the best option for competitions involving only 2 teams, as the blue one could bodyblock the red's base the way the red team will never get the chance to).

It doesn't take a genious that the correct solution would be to make the yellow spawning point the blue spawning point and blue spawning point yellow and then remove the old blue spawning point, that would be the yellow spawning point.
chat spam Kappa