Feedback for the GvG shutdown and the Guild Raids

[Mor-Rioghain]

What "survey" are you talking about? The 5% number didn't come from a "survey", it came from Inno's data on game play. And it was the live servers, not Beta that the numbers were from.

I remember when it happened. It was a poll - survey - same difference. It was based on player response as to whether or not they played GvG. I'd hardly call that an accurate count of the actual number of people under any circumstances.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

You're testing CPS which is not really relevant because, in FoE battling, movement of the cursor is required (except during 2-wave battles). Taking into consideration the need to move the cursor, a fast player can probably complete a battle in 1 to 1.5 seconds.

I did consider that. I also considered what we called "lining up a sector" in GvG. There was little/no need to move the cursor. I've seen the results of the people who left me in their dust and they were clicking at rates higher than what I just found on my click test. They weren't cheating, i.e., using scripts. Some of them were using programmable devices using auto-click macros.

Again - this is another version of the "it can't be possible because it's not probable" argument.

People have been proving for years that it can - and has been done. I know that I can't do it but I've seen people I trust implicitly who can.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I remember when it happened. It was a poll - survey - same difference. It was based on player response as to whether or not they played GvG. I'd hardly call that an accurate count of the actual number of people under any circumstances.

I also remember when Inno shared the 5% number and it was not from a survey/poll, it was from their data. They stated that 5% of active players participated in GvG. I don't know where you got the idea that it was a survey/poll, but that is not what it was. You are the first person in the multiple discussions of that number that has ever thought it came from a player survey/poll.

 

[jaymoney23456]

Okay, you got me but it made be go back and test myself. I misread the text on the test screen, not realizing that it was testing in 10 second groups. I ammended that and tested at 12 clicks per second, much faster than I'd expected. Not shabby for an "Octopus." "Cheetah's" typically click 13-15 clicks per second and that's not really very much lower than your assertion that "20 clicks is not humanly possible." So much for substantive evidence.

In all of your arguments to date, you also completely ignore the fact that there are programmable mice/mousepad/joysticks that enable the user to set up an auto-clicking macro at "X" clicks per second. Does that equal cheating? It's generally accepted that a game "cheat" is breaking into the coding and an "exploit" is finding a loophole in the programming (code) enabling the person using it to augment or increase an action, such as rapid mouse clicks. It's also generally accepted that exploits are available to anyone so it levels the playing field, meaning all of those using the software, i.e., game, could do it if they wanted to.

So, yes, based on those generally accepted guidelines, a mouse/mousepad/joystick that was programmed with such a macro constitutes more of a cheat than an exploit BUT isn't the real question whether or not the developers think so as well? What if they've investigated a purported 'cheater' and found no evidence to support that assertion? IF a human could do, then it's not a cheat by pretty much any definition in the industry.

I personally wouldn't risk my gaming account on such an "if" but many do and who's to say they're wrong? (Yes, I know you do....but you don't seem to define cheating by any standard I've encountered as legitimate in the industry). At the end of the day it's about providing the developers - Inno - with proof they can actually do something with. Yes, counting mouse clicks, per se, is a fine start but I'm afraid you're going to have to offer more than "it was fast" and "it's not humanly possible" to get their attention.

I'm slow as molasses in the winter time and I came pretty darned close to top-end on the click test. Imagine what I could do with a little more practice.

an autoclicking macro is against the rules of the game as posted by Inno.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

Does anyone even actually know what a bot is much less what it's able to do anymore????

Software that emulates human actions.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

You keep saying this but never bring any evidence of it but "people say" or "most" when in reality most means the 4 people you asked or "People say" means the 1 or 2 people saying the exact same trope as you are. You continually reference all those videos of it existing but if you search they aren't there.

I went back and looked again and found it simple as can be to view videos, purchase various bot offerings, and a number of tutorials. Any cursory web search will turn them up and there are a lot of them.

I think its amazing that players who know better still deny that bots are a major problem in foes GBG venue. Now you might want to ask why Inno hasn't addressed the problem as a lot of players are want to do when playing down the issue... And I would say really? In all the things that Inno goofs up on, we go back to "If Inno hasn't fixed it then it's not a problem/not happening"?

IMO - I don't think Inno likes it at all but hasn't figured out a way to address the problem. If they had there would not be so many third party bots that offer things like:

• autofilling and autofighting in guild battlegrounds (GBG) now much faster! Enjoy doing 100 of battles while reading your favorite book
• Auto-Snipe (Friends-, Clan members-, Neighborhood)
• Collecting Culture Outpost / Create default goods (or specific based on building name)
• Collecting of goods / money / random / supplies
• Collecting of hidden rewards
• Create default goods / supplies (or specific based on building name)
• Polivate buildings (Friends-, Clan members-, Neighborhood

IMO - I also think that Inno doesn't like talking about it for legal reasons, in that acknowledging a broken product while profiting from its sale, assumes liability.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

Does that equal cheating? It's generally accepted that a game "cheat" is breaking into the coding and an "exploit" is finding a loophole in the programming (code) enabling the person using it to augment or increase an action, such as rapid mouse clicks. It's also generally accepted that exploits are available to anyone so it levels the playing field, meaning all of those using the software, i.e., game, could do it if they wanted to.

Interesting that bit. I never met a coder that thought the use of an unreported exploit was anything BUT cheating.

I did consider that. I also considered what we called "lining up a sector" in GvG. There was little/no need to move the cursor. I've seen the results of the people who left me in their dust and they were clicking at rates higher than what I just found on my click test. They weren't cheating, i.e., using scripts. Some of them were using programmable devices using auto-click macros.

This bit I found more hilarious than human beings actually testing the number of mouse clicks they can get per second. Way too funny! Thank you!

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I went back and looked again and found it simple as can be to view videos, purchase various bot offerings, and a number of tutorials. Any cursory web search will turn them up and there are a lot of them.

I think its amazing that players who know better still deny that bots are a major problem in foes GBG venue. Now you might want to ask why Inno hasn't addressed the problem as a lot of players are want to do when playing down the issue... And I would say really? In all the things that Inno goofs up on, we go back to "If Inno hasn't fixed it then it's not a problem/not happening"?

IMO - I don't think Inno likes it at all but hasn't figured out a way to address the problem. If they had there would not be so many third party bots that offer things like:

• autofilling and autofighting in guild battlegrounds (GBG) now much faster! Enjoy doing 100 of battles while reading your favorite book
• Auto-Snipe (Friends-, Clan members-, Neighborhood)
• Collecting Culture Outpost / Create default goods (or specific based on building name)
• Collecting of goods / money / random / supplies
• Collecting of hidden rewards
• Create default goods / supplies (or specific based on building name)
• Polivate buildings (Friends-, Clan members-, Neighborhood

IMO - I also think that Inno doesn't like talking about it for legal reasons, in that acknowledging a broken product while profiting from its sale, assumes liability.

I'm very skeptical of claims about bot use in GBG for two reasons. First, a bot user in that theater would be stealing battles from their guildmate and this would not be tolerated. Second, no matter what, attrition is the great equalizer. Using a bot, or not, doesn't change the attrition math (a bot user would just get there faster).

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

First, a bot user in that theater would be stealing battles from their guildmate and this would not be tolerated.

Of course it would be tolerated. Guilds are not made up of altruistic leaders and obedient followers, as you imply. And especially if the bot user is a guild leader it would definitely be tolerated. Not to mention that in some guilds bot use is undoubtedly encouraged and taught. None of us are naive enough to believe your little tidbit of baloney.

Second, no matter what, attrition is the great equalizer. Using a bot, or not, doesn't change the attrition math (a bot user would just get there faster).

And if two guilds are racing to take a sector, speed would be the great un-equalizer, now wouldn't it?

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

You keep saying this but never bring any evidence of it but "people say" or "most" when in reality most means the 4 people you asked or "People say" means the 1 or 2 people saying the exact same trope as you are. You continually reference all those videos of it existing but if you search they aren't there.

Dude. Just google Forge of Empires bot. They're there.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Of course it would be tolerated. Guilds are not made up of altruistic leaders and obedient followers, as you imply. And especially if the bot user is a guild leader it would definitely be tolerated. Not to mention that in some guilds bot use is undoubtedly encouraged and taught. None of us are naive enough to believe your little tidbit of baloney.

I did not "imply" anything and on what do you base this opinion? For a very long time, and on more than one occasion, you have stated that you belong to no guilds. You have no way of knowing what would, or would not, be tolerated. I am in guilds on all of my worlds. The one thing that all of the top members comment about is the lack of fights. No way would they sit by idly and allow a member to get more than their fair share through the use of bots.

And if two guilds are racing to take a sector, speed would be the great un-equalizer, now wouldn't it?

Duh. In any race speed is of the essence. In GBG, speed is achieved by sheer numbers of fighters, not bots.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

One of the big (multi billion points) players who had been rumored to use bots is currently banned in one of my Worlds. The question is how long. They have been banned before for a time (believed for using multiple accounts and or bots?) . This time is going on two weeks.. The question floating around is will they be allowed to return at all?
So I hope that helps the endless quandary of does Inno do anything???
No I will not name him. This post is about banning bot users, not fueling gossip)

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I did not "imply" anything and on what do you base this opinion? For a very long time, and on more than one occasion, you have stated that you belong to no guilds. You have no way of knowing what would, or would not, be tolerated. I am in guilds on all of my worlds. The one thing that all of the top members comment about is the lack of fights. No way would they sit by idly and allow a member to get more than their fair share through the use of bots.

Just because I don't belong to multi-member guilds now does not mean I never have been. I have been a member of all different kinds of guilds over the years, unlike yourself. You apparently only belong to a certain type of guild, and assume that all multi-member guilds are just like yours. I know different...from experience. I do know that some guilds will tolerate certain behaviors that other guilds won't...and vice versa. You should get out more.

Duh. In any race speed is of the essence. In GBG, speed is achieved by sheer numbers of fighters, not bots.

LOL. How naive do you think we are? Sure, without bots it's sheer number of fighters, but bots would throw that equation out the window. But go ahead, keep your head in the sand. Enjoy your imaginary paradise where everyone behaves the same and they never cheat and Inno only does what's good for the game and the players.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Just because I don't belong to multi-member guilds now does not mean I never have been. I have been a member of all different kinds of guilds over the years, unlike yourself. You apparently only belong to a certain type of guild, and assume that all multi-member guilds are just like yours. I know different...from experience. I do know that some guilds will tolerate certain behaviors that other guilds won't...and vice versa. You should get out more.

LOL. How naive do you think we are? Sure, without bots it's sheer number of fighters, but bots would throw that equation out the window. But go ahead, keep your head in the sand. Enjoy your imaginary paradise where everyone behaves the same and they never cheat and Inno only does what's good for the game and the players.

You have been in low level solo guilds for at least as long as I have been playing (3.5 years). Any first hand knowledge that you possess relative to multi-player guild behavior anecdotal, at best, and stale.

 

[WillyTwoShoes]

I'm very skeptical of claims about bot use in GBG for two reasons. First, a bot user in that theater would be stealing battles from their guildmate and this would not be tolerated. Second, no matter what, attrition is the great equalizer. Using a bot, or not, doesn't change the attrition math (a bot user would just get there faster).

I'd like to say that I don't belabor a point for the sake of argument and I do try to keep it civil. But I see all kinds of ways the use of bots would throw off some of the things you think wouldn't matter. Please allow me to point out that getting there first is kinda what the GBG venue is about.

I'll allow that the way Inno changed the attrition mechanics could (should?) be the best decider - and to heck with it let bot users waste their money on a useless product. But as it is now the rate of conquest by cheaters followed by timed lockdowns prevent honest players from getting a foot in the door never mind keeping it open for a couple of minutes. Hell, I'd pay diamonds to OPEN zones!

I'm obviously no rocket scientist but in the last GBG championship our guild was matched with others against thee top GBG in my world twice. Both times I watched the entire Waterfall map get gobbled up by that "Top Fighting Guild" in under 11 minutes and that's only because once they had everyone locked out they took their time finishing the center zones. With one or two exceptions that were able to acquire one zone, they strung simultaneous fights along the entire perimeter locking everyone to their home base then gobbled up the center at their leisure. I literally watched multiple zones fall in under a minute.

Putting aside what it takes to get enough guilders to show up at the same time, executing that many attacks manually, then keeping enough of them around to come back every 4 hours and lock up any openings over an 11 day season stretches my imagination. Sure its possible, not probable though.

For the sake of the game however lets say that in those real life examples it was all on the up and up and along with all the other guilds mine just couldn't cut the mustard and we were wholly outclassed - beaten fair and square. What does that say about how GBG match ups occur?

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

This morning well over fifty players (including me) in one Guild (that bothered to count) for GbG opening. yeah we cleared most of the map.
Another we did same idea clearing we left a bunch in the center for later.
It is hard for me to play three Worlds GbG at opening. I struggle to jump around as best I can to help some in each one.
Most players in my Guilds are very strong players. Like 40 to 50 players over a billion points,. Boosts in the 5K to 8K range. Players who can get to attrition 200 (oddly some of those are in low Eras. Which in the new GbG have an advantage.)
We have no need to cheat to kick xxx

 

[Pericles the Lion]

We had 57 on for the opening. Normal for us.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

We had 57 on for the opening. Normal for us.

We had 51 on a race 30 minutes ago and it closed a 418 in 17 seconds , no bots were used. A mass of 50 folks with low attrition and high boosts can chew through even a 418 in seconds. I am sure bots exist but our guild forbids them. It would really make "winning" hollow and take away the fun of the whole thing. Botters can bot but for me no thanks , if you are botting you are missing the whole point of the game.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

You have been in low level solo guilds for at least as long as I have been playing (3.5 years). Any first hand knowledge that you possess relative to multi-player guild behavior anecdotal, at best, and stale.

Fortunately for me, your assessment of my knowledge is not even anecdotal. It's tremendously biased and based on ignorance rather than insight. But, once again, thanks for playing.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Fortunately for me, your assessment of my knowledge is not even anecdotal. It's tremendously biased and based on ignorance rather than insight. But, once again, thanks for playing.

Even if this were true it doesn't mean that my assessment is inaccurate.