Maybe.....to save future arguments and finger pointing (as no one has definite proof but graphs), DB should put Skirmishes on the shelf and work on some changes. Because ever since Skirmishes came out, accusations have run rampant and this is not healthy for the game or the players. Every Skirmish event we have posts calling out cheating. And I would seriously hope that 'trekkies' would not want to cheat. They may be somewhat nerdy (not me of course ) but they are usually better people that non Trekkie's. There is a better class of people here than other games.
Trista
I disagree about shelving Skirmishes (as much as I find them tedious)
Regardless of my ranking (I ranked 1315 and I really stopped playing 12 hours before event end) I find the farming of Honor, Credits, and Components far more valuable than a high ranking for parts of a Legendary character which is going to just take space on my shelf.
(Only to try to rank in the top again next event)
Meh, I'd rather build my existing crew, and fleet who need building more than me!
I understand the competitive nature to be #1 on the board, but remember, us humble fledgling captains looking to score some easy gains for the game mechanics.
I've been online longer than there has been an internet. [yeah, I'm that old], and the internet is NEVER fair. They key is to have fun in its wake.
Maybe.....to save future arguments and finger pointing (as no one has definite proof but graphs), DB should put Skirmishes on the shelf and work on some changes. Because ever since Skirmishes came out, accusations have run rampant and this is not healthy for the game or the players. Every Skirmish event we have posts calling out cheating. And I would seriously hope that 'trekkies' would not want to cheat. They may be somewhat nerdy (not me of course ) but they are usually better people that non Trekkie's. There is a better class of people here than other games.
Trista
I disagree about shelving Skirmishes (as much as I find them tedious)
Regardless of my ranking (I ranked 1315 and I really stopped playing 12 hours before event end) I find the farming of Honor, Credits, and Components far more valuable than a high ranking for parts of a Legendary character which is going to just take space on my shelf.
(Only to try to rank in the top again next event)
Meh, I'd rather build my existing crew, and fleet who need building more than me!
I understand the competitive nature to be #1 on the board, but remember, us humble fledgling captains looking to score some easy gains for the game mechanics.
I've been online longer than there has been an internet. [yeah, I'm that old], and the internet is NEVER fair. They key is to have fun in its wake.
Yes, this. Skirmishes might have serious macro problems at the really high ranks, but for the rest of us they are a Cthulhu-send...something incredibly fun to do that provides tangible and significant benefit for participation. They are without question the best event structure for a majority of players, at least in my opinion.
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
I haven’t seen anyone answer this
I'm the big dog in my fleet, its why the founder made me Admiral.
So if someone runs in front of me because of cheating, there will be an issue.
Granted, there is someone who is giving 100% and keeping pace with me, even though I'm 10+ levels ahead of him. [He's also leading the best squadron in my fleet] (so Good for him!)
Well ultimately what I was getting at was if the player is kicked out of the fleet but not turned it, you’re telling him what he’s doing is ok. That player MUST be turned in.
I would agree with that.
But mathematically, I think the population you are looking to "turn in" is so small, that Admiral level policing is not at all effective.
I'm a data scientist in real life, and one who analyzes human error of tens of thousands of individuals. Systematic outliers like cheaters are easy to identify and eject at the macro level.
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
I haven’t seen anyone answer this
I'm the big dog in my fleet, its why the founder made me Admiral.
So if someone runs in front of me because of cheating, there will be an issue.
Granted, there is someone who is giving 100% and keeping pace with me, even though I'm 10+ levels ahead of him. [He's also leading the best squadron in my fleet] (so Good for him!)
Well ultimately what I was getting at was if the player is kicked out of the fleet but not turned it, you’re telling him what he’s doing is ok. That player MUST be turned in.
I would agree with that.
But mathematically, I think the population you are looking to "turn in" is so small, that Admiral level policing is not at all effective.
I'm a data scientist in real life, and one who analyzes human error of tens of thousands of individuals. Systematic outliers like cheaters are easy to identify and eject at the macro level.
Well you would certainly know more than I who was doing it and who wasn’t. My statement was for say someone who admitted to their fleet they were doing it. Kinda like the guy who commits a crime and gets caught cuz he just can’t keep his mouth shut about it
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
I haven’t seen anyone answer this
I'm the big dog in my fleet, its why the founder made me Admiral.
So if someone runs in front of me because of cheating, there will be an issue.
Granted, there is someone who is giving 100% and keeping pace with me, even though I'm 10+ levels ahead of him. [He's also leading the best squadron in my fleet] (so Good for him!)
Well ultimately what I was getting at was if the player is kicked out of the fleet but not turned it, you’re telling him what he’s doing is ok. That player MUST be turned in.
I would agree with that.
But mathematically, I think the population you are looking to "turn in" is so small, that Admiral level policing is not at all effective.
I'm a data scientist in real life, and one who analyzes human error of tens of thousands of individuals. Systematic outliers like cheaters are easy to identify and eject at the macro level.
Well you would certainly know more than I who was doing it and who wasn’t. My statement was for say someone who admitted to their fleet they were doing it. Kinda like the guy who commits a crime and gets caught cuz he just can’t keep his mouth shut about it
I *hope* there is some data science happening at DB, to identify such outliers. (I'm in the business of terminating such outliers from my company of employ, after collecting enough tangible evidence). Given the EULA, its not hard to ban a user with enough data.
(No, I'm not looking for a job, I'm actually being headhunted already at the moment, and I'm probably going to decline - ed.)
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
I haven’t seen anyone answer this
I'm the big dog in my fleet, its why the founder made me Admiral.
So if someone runs in front of me because of cheating, there will be an issue.
Granted, there is someone who is giving 100% and keeping pace with me, even though I'm 10+ levels ahead of him. [He's also leading the best squadron in my fleet] (so Good for him!)
Well ultimately what I was getting at was if the player is kicked out of the fleet but not turned it, you’re telling him what he’s doing is ok. That player MUST be turned in.
I would agree with that.
But mathematically, I think the population you are looking to "turn in" is so small, that Admiral level policing is not at all effective.
I'm a data scientist in real life, and one who analyzes human error of tens of thousands of individuals. Systematic outliers like cheaters are easy to identify and eject at the macro level.
Well you would certainly know more than I who was doing it and who wasn’t. My statement was for say someone who admitted to their fleet they were doing it. Kinda like the guy who commits a crime and gets caught cuz he just can’t keep his mouth shut about it
I *hope* there is some data science happening at DB, to identify such outliers. (I'm in the business of terminating such outliers from my company of employ, after collecting enough tangible evidence). Given the EULA, its not hard to ban a user with enough data.
(No, I'm not looking for a job, I'm actually being headhunted already at the moment, and I'm probably going to decline - ed.)
Ha! I wasn’t thinking you were looking for work. Perhaps a side job for a few bucks? Try this one. You prolly saw somewhere here what I do for a living. So my wife wants me to look for another job cuz it’s dangerous here. Indeed has my resume so I got hit up to be a truck loader at a Dollar Tree warehouse. I had no contact with them at all but I guess I was supposed to start today. I didn’t make it in.
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
Not only is "that person" apparently using a macro, but the fleet name would appear to be an anagram of "Macro" missing a single letter. As if they created the fleet for only players using macros.
The paranoia is strong with this one. If you mean MACO then you need to look up what it stands for. It stands for Military Assault Command Operations and it is quite an old and established fleet.
Fleet ORCA Captain M(e) which is indeed not just an anagram but MACRO written backwards.
Orca is a type of whale. So it might just be a fleet for big spenders
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
Not only is "that person" apparently using a macro, but the fleet name would appear to be an anagram of "Macro" missing a single letter. As if they created the fleet for only players using macros.
The paranoia is strong with this one. If you mean MACO then you need to look up what it stands for. It stands for Military Assault Command Operations and it is quite an old and established fleet.
Fleet ORCA Captain M(e) which is indeed not just an anagram but MACRO written backwards.
Orca is a type of whale. So it might just be a fleet for big spenders
Not just any old whale, but a KILLER WHALE!
Though it's actually a dolphin, I believe.
Still, if we can both read something out of the ordinary in the name, does that say more about us or them?
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
Not only is "that person" apparently using a macro, but the fleet name would appear to be an anagram of "Macro" missing a single letter. As if they created the fleet for only players using macros.
The paranoia is strong with this one. If you mean MACO then you need to look up what it stands for. It stands for Military Assault Command Operations and it is quite an old and established fleet.
Fleet ORCA Captain M(e) which is indeed not just an anagram but MACRO written backwards.
Orca is a type of whale. So it might just be a fleet for big spenders
Not just any old whale, but a KILLER WHALE!
Though it's actually a dolphin, I believe.
Still, if we can both read something out of the ordinary in the name, does that say more about us or them?
There is certainly something about a fleet that would boast about being whales!
Although given the option of reading what is literally there and squinting at an angle to see what we want to see, the first option seems more likely!
The interesting thing is that the name is simply Me after the default name. So essentially the bare minimum to get the trophy. Such a player doesnt seem like the obvious choice for a power gamer
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
Not only is "that person" apparently using a macro, but the fleet name would appear to be an anagram of "Macro" missing a single letter. As if they created the fleet for only players using macros.
The paranoia is strong with this one. If you mean MACO then you need to look up what it stands for. It stands for Military Assault Command Operations and it is quite an old and established fleet.
Fleet ORCA Captain M(e) which is indeed not just an anagram but MACRO written backwards.
Orca is a type of whale. So it might just be a fleet for big spenders
Not just any old whale, but a KILLER WHALE!
Though it's actually a dolphin, I believe.
Still, if we can both read something out of the ordinary in the name, does that say more about us or them?
There is certainly something about a fleet that would boast about being whales!
Although given the option of reading what is literally there and squinting at an angle to see what we want to see, the first option seems more likely!
The interesting thing is that the name is simply Me after the default name. So essentially the bare minimum to get the trophy. Such a player doesnt seem like the obvious choice for a power gamer
That is a great point. I would say the account was created just to do this but the dude was level 71
I'm not saying whether anyone cheated or not but I don't think you can read too much into the fleet name - ORCAS is an established fleet and @Captian Me [O] is already on the forum.
Come join our fleet! We're a great social group that helps each other. You play the way you want to, participate as much as you want and if you want to be competitive, you can be! Check out our fleet ad:
Those who are saying your fleet would kick that person out if it was discovered someone was using a macro. Would you also turn them in to DB?
Not only is "that person" apparently using a macro, but the fleet name would appear to be an anagram of "Macro" missing a single letter. As if they created the fleet for only players using macros.
The paranoia is strong with this one. If you mean MACO then you need to look up what it stands for. It stands for Military Assault Command Operations and it is quite an old and established fleet.
Fleet ORCA Captain M(e) which is indeed not just an anagram but MACRO written backwards.
So the fact they essentially publicly announced they were a Macro user in addition to the data gathered by some fellow players proves one hundred percent this person cheated. DB better do something and do something fast because this will cause the biggest loss of profits and player base that makes any other incident in the past that angered users enough to close wallets and/or just leave look like nothing ever happened then.
They need to analyze it certainly and punish the player if they prove that he/she was using macros. But even with all of the evidence, it could be that the user is innocent even if the likelihood is quite small at this point but it is possible. I remember that people (falsely) accused Arachnia as well after a skirmish event and she didn't cheat. People made graphs then as well apparently "proving" without any doubt that she was cheating. Same thing happened the previous skirmish event. Will every single skirmish winner be accused for cheating?
When the top player is building more points than even the second and third place players, both of which had been playing their tails off, and increasing the VP gap even when all of those players are online at the same time, something seems off. There will always be people pointing fingers, but when literally every angle is pointing to only one reason and even those hard core players who know a human's limit to what can be done because they themselves have done it are saying someone definitely cheated, then there is no getting around that fact.
That theory isn't really holding any water. I don't know how exactly these macros would work but you can't be much faster than a human and I would probably bet that any macro would be slower than a human or the same speed. If both rank 2 and 3 were online and playing hard like you said and the VP gap was still increasing, I would probably assume that the #1 player was using better crew that allowed him/her to complete battles just a couple of seconds faster. That would make more sense to me. Or alternatively, the #1 player could be spending a lot of dil on the event to purchase the bonus rewards. I don't know if it is worth it but I can imagine that from a VP point, it would be worth it since it takes a lot less time than doing a full battle.
You are right, Macros are definitely slower than a human that is basic common sense, since a macro has to compensate for multiple scenarios, and a human can just react in real time.
That being said, I think accusing people with graphs and theory is counter productive, and people keep throwing the word proof around, and almost 99% of what has been discussed is all speculation and assumptions.
I got the afk message at least 10 times during the event, not sure if its just cause play a lot or dumb luck.
The best thing DB can do is to try and prevent macro use with counter measures, instead of trying to blame or point fingers, whether they are willing to do that, or do it more effectively remains to be seen.
Either way, I still think Skirmishes are great addition, certainly a bit repetitive, but very productive, no matter what rank you end up at.
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
So, not trying to be "that guy" but -
your math is wrong.
I have every crew in the game, I have every ship in the game. So does Sisko, so does SilverRose. With the best crew possible, on the best ship possible, it's still 2 mins and change to get from Skirm 1 to "2000VP" screen.
It is completely impossible to do it faster than that.
Wait, did you bury the lead here Frank?!?! Have you acquired the elusive Trelane?????
I enjoy skirmishes even though to register a top 1000 finish, you have to invest at least 12 hours solid play. However, the sheer number of honor points and Chrons dropped do feel like solid reward for your graft.
I do echo the sentiments with the OP and many of the other posters; it was really irritating to only reach 160 in the rankings when there are bots/macros helping the idle players grab an unfair share of the prizes.
Question for Shran/Admin: Will rankings be adjusted if there’s an audit of the recent skirmish event and bots are found to have affected the results?
I enjoy skirmishes even though to register a top 1000 finish, you have to invest at least 12 hours solid play.
Ur math is off. Top 1000 this event was around 800k. With a good set up you can gain around 150k an hour, so for 800k and Top 1000 you only need around 5.5 hours. Even if u only do 100k/hour, it only would require 8hs of gameplay.
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
But since macros would like you said just use 8 seconds, it wouldn't solve anything. We would still be here discussing macro users even afterwards because even if they use 8 seconds, it would still be a hell of a lot more efficient than sleeping for example or otherwise not playing. So did you fix the issue? No.
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
But since macros would like you said just use 8 seconds, it wouldn't solve anything. We would still be here discussing macro users even afterwards because even if they use 8 seconds, it would still be a hell of a lot more efficient than sleeping for example or otherwise not playing. So did you fix the issue? No.
Every little bit helps in reducing the number of hours a human would play per hour a macro would need.
If you don’t want to go for marginal improvements like that to give humans playing a bunch of small advantages, the alternative is something players won’t like much.
A guaranteed solution is to remove chrons from the drop boxes and make intel cost scale further so it only takes 12-18 hours of play to burn through 100k chrons but I don’t think that would go over well.
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
But since macros would like you said just use 8 seconds, it wouldn't solve anything. We would still be here discussing macro users even afterwards because even if they use 8 seconds, it would still be a hell of a lot more efficient than sleeping for example or otherwise not playing. So did you fix the issue? No.
Every little bit helps in reducing the number of hours a human would play per hour a macro would need.
If you don’t want to go for marginal improvements like that to give humans playing a bunch of small advantages, the alternative is something players won’t like much.
A guaranteed solution is to remove chrons from the drop boxes and make intel cost scale further so it only takes 12-18 hours of play to burn through 100k chrons but I don’t think that would go over well.
Would it help? Maybe a little but it would not catch them, they would still cheat and we would still have this problem. No, we should actually see these pop-ups more often (during prolonged usage of the app and only during events so not like you played 30 minutes prove that you are a human) and have a timeout on them and if the player say doesn't click on it for say 5 seconds or so then just report it to DB and remove the pop-up and let the game continue so that the macro user would not be able to tell that he was busted. Also the pop-up would need to be in different places, no not necessarily all over the screen but some variation which would be enough for any macro to fail. And for added measures have randomized colors on the "confirm" button to prevent any color identification by the more advanced macros that I have read could exist as well. This would essentially solve the issue. Why? Because you wouldn't be able to run the macro when you are not actually playing and if you are stupid and do run the macro when you are actually playing then what is the point because you would be outclassed by human players anyways.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
But since macros would like you said just use 8 seconds, it wouldn't solve anything. We would still be here discussing macro users even afterwards because even if they use 8 seconds, it would still be a hell of a lot more efficient than sleeping for example or otherwise not playing. So did you fix the issue? No.
I think you underestimate how much damage the game ships can do if you don't press a button on the game for 14 or 15 seconds into a battle. A lot of ships in the game would likely not make it through 3 battles
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
I think you're underestimating macro writers. Any of these attempts to defeat macros can be beaten by a smart developer. Trying to outsmart a macro is an arms race that DB will lose. The only way to defeat macros is to make the event require thought instead of being a blind grind.
Since making just about everything in the game RNG-based is DB's specialty, why not just make the starting screen position of the skills bar in a ship battle random? Then we can move it to where we want it by dragging... Shouldn't be much harder to code than a basic scrolling section, should it?
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
I think you're underestimating macro writers. Any of these attempts to defeat macros can be beaten by a smart developer. Trying to outsmart a macro is an arms race that DB will lose. The only way to defeat macros is to make the event require thought instead of being a blind grind.
Or to make events resource limited instead of time limited again.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
But since macros would like you said just use 8 seconds, it wouldn't solve anything. We would still be here discussing macro users even afterwards because even if they use 8 seconds, it would still be a hell of a lot more efficient than sleeping for example or otherwise not playing. So did you fix the issue? No.
I think you underestimate how much damage the game ships can do if you don't press a button on the game for 14 or 15 seconds into a battle. A lot of ships in the game would likely not make it through 3 battles
No, I don't but I also know that this thing would not actually happen. What prevents a macro from pressing the button combination beginning at say 2+4 seconds and then do it 2 seconds later and another 2 seconds later? Nothing. It would probably just cause macro programmers to adapt to the new situation at hand.
Don't shelve skirmishes.
We've waited WAY too long for a third event type. I'd rather lose to a bot then lose the 3rd event type.
The solution is simple.
Every battle have the battle buttons and the health meters switch vertical position randomly.
If the health bar is in top spot battles 1,2,4 this Skirmish and 2,3,5 next one, only 1&5 the following, 123 the one after that and keep it changing randomly like that, add a quit button on one side of health, no macro will be able to overcome that.
Not until outright AI is controlling the macro anyways.
Don't shelve skirmishes.
We've waited WAY too long for a third event type. I'd rather lose to a bot then lose the 3rd event type.
The solution is simple.
Every battle have the battle buttons and the health meters switch vertical position randomly.
If the health bar is in top spot battles 1,2,4 this Skirmish and 2,3,5 next one, only 1&5 the following, 123 the one after that and keep it changing randomly like that, add a quit button on one side of health, no macro will be able to overcome that.
Not until outright AI is controlling the macro anyways.
All due respect, but massive UI changes like this are about the worst way possible I can think to address the matter.
1) Developing a UI takes a signficant amount of time/resources and is NOT an easy change
2) Adjusting to radically different UIs on the fly in a time-sensitive manner is not easy to do for a person and is a very jarring experience
Some random thoughts here, based on much of the ongoing discussion:
We, the players and community, can't "prove" anything.
DB, with all of their abilities, can't "prove" anything.
The only way to prove, without dispute or question, that a player was using a macro would be to show up at their home, and stand next to them as they sleep in the bed, while next to them is a computer with a macro running a skirmish and cashing in the VP.
Unless you physically can see and broadcast that sight to the masses, there will always be a disputer, a non-believer or a fence-rider. That's not the fault of anyone, that's just plain human nature.
Since none of us can nor should do that, all we have are numbers, math and assumptions. Yes, those can be dangerous things. Yes, people can be and have been falsely accused. Yes, people have macro'd and continue to macro events and general gameplay outside of events. Yes, events have been won by a player using a macro - and not just skirmishes. Yes, events have been won by a player sharing his account with other people inside the same house so that the human need to sleep is overcome by more humans. All of this is presented as "fact" or "proof" because the offending parties came forward and admitted as much.
What's left is for a playerbase to *responsibly* assess situations and work with DB to find examples of supposed wrongdoing. DB is a small operation and can't be everywhere all at once. The playerbase is large, smart, and for the most part, fed up with cheating or accusations of cheating.
If a graph is presented that shows minute by minute VP accumulation over the span of 96 hours, and the human element is not present in the graph, we can draw our own conclusions. No human will stay awake, without breaks, and play at a consistent non-stop pace for 96 hours. It's just not happening. If you contend it can, than I challenge you to prove it and I'll pay dang good money for you to do so. The human body cannot deliver those consistent skirmish results without rest. Paladin had the most optimal of conditions for his win, and he still had to sleep every 20-24 hours, even for small intervals.
DB isn't soliciting design advice from the community on how to combat this, so while those suggestions and threads are welcome in my book, I don't think it's a productive one. The best thing for us, as a playerbase and community to do is to unite on very simple fronts - agreeing that there is a small amount of players who violate the TOS during events and gameplay and impact the results and enjoyment of others. That statement, bold enough, will be a fine platform for the userbase and DB to work together, instead of a clouded mix of feelings, messages and doubt.
How about every hour a pop up using the current behold animation that asks how many lights. Answer incorrect and you get kicked out to the main screen?
Comments
I disagree about shelving Skirmishes (as much as I find them tedious)
Regardless of my ranking (I ranked 1315 and I really stopped playing 12 hours before event end) I find the farming of Honor, Credits, and Components far more valuable than a high ranking for parts of a Legendary character which is going to just take space on my shelf.
(Only to try to rank in the top again next event)
Meh, I'd rather build my existing crew, and fleet who need building more than me!
I understand the competitive nature to be #1 on the board, but remember, us humble fledgling captains looking to score some easy gains for the game mechanics.
I've been online longer than there has been an internet. [yeah, I'm that old], and the internet is NEVER fair. They key is to have fun in its wake.
Yes, this. Skirmishes might have serious macro problems at the really high ranks, but for the rest of us they are a Cthulhu-send...something incredibly fun to do that provides tangible and significant benefit for participation. They are without question the best event structure for a majority of players, at least in my opinion.
I would agree with that.
But mathematically, I think the population you are looking to "turn in" is so small, that Admiral level policing is not at all effective.
I'm a data scientist in real life, and one who analyzes human error of tens of thousands of individuals. Systematic outliers like cheaters are easy to identify and eject at the macro level.
Well you would certainly know more than I who was doing it and who wasn’t. My statement was for say someone who admitted to their fleet they were doing it. Kinda like the guy who commits a crime and gets caught cuz he just can’t keep his mouth shut about it
I *hope* there is some data science happening at DB, to identify such outliers. (I'm in the business of terminating such outliers from my company of employ, after collecting enough tangible evidence). Given the EULA, its not hard to ban a user with enough data.
(No, I'm not looking for a job, I'm actually being headhunted already at the moment, and I'm probably going to decline - ed.)
Ha! I wasn’t thinking you were looking for work. Perhaps a side job for a few bucks? Try this one. You prolly saw somewhere here what I do for a living. So my wife wants me to look for another job cuz it’s dangerous here. Indeed has my resume so I got hit up to be a truck loader at a Dollar Tree warehouse. I had no contact with them at all but I guess I was supposed to start today. I didn’t make it in.
Orca is a type of whale. So it might just be a fleet for big spenders
Not just any old whale, but a KILLER WHALE!
Though it's actually a dolphin, I believe.
Still, if we can both read something out of the ordinary in the name, does that say more about us or them?
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
There is certainly something about a fleet that would boast about being whales!
Although given the option of reading what is literally there and squinting at an angle to see what we want to see, the first option seems more likely!
The interesting thing is that the name is simply Me after the default name. So essentially the bare minimum to get the trophy. Such a player doesnt seem like the obvious choice for a power gamer
That is a great point. I would say the account was created just to do this but the dude was level 71
https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/5332/come-join-orcas-today-recruiting-captains-lvl-50#latest
https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/5023/qh-the-oldest-fleet-in-timelines-l91-starbase-daily-targets-met
You are right, Macros are definitely slower than a human that is basic common sense, since a macro has to compensate for multiple scenarios, and a human can just react in real time.
That being said, I think accusing people with graphs and theory is counter productive, and people keep throwing the word proof around, and almost 99% of what has been discussed is all speculation and assumptions.
I got the afk message at least 10 times during the event, not sure if its just cause play a lot or dumb luck.
The best thing DB can do is to try and prevent macro use with counter measures, instead of trying to blame or point fingers, whether they are willing to do that, or do it more effectively remains to be seen.
Either way, I still think Skirmishes are great addition, certainly a bit repetitive, but very productive, no matter what rank you end up at.
I still think the easiest approach is to vary the loading screen time for battles, randomize that length by by +/- 2 seconds and all the macros start getting pretty ugly.
Wait, did you bury the lead here Frank?!?! Have you acquired the elusive Trelane?????
I do echo the sentiments with the OP and many of the other posters; it was really irritating to only reach 160 in the rankings when there are bots/macros helping the idle players grab an unfair share of the prizes.
Question for Shran/Admin: Will rankings be adjusted if there’s an audit of the recent skirmish event and bots are found to have affected the results?
Ur math is off. Top 1000 this event was around 800k. With a good set up you can gain around 150k an hour, so for 800k and Top 1000 you only need around 5.5 hours. Even if u only do 100k/hour, it only would require 8hs of gameplay.
This seems like a terrible idea, in fact the loading screens are a major setback for this event. I mean, I am looking at the loading screen for almost half the time it takes to do a battle as is. It's wasted time as far as I am concerned. Also this would be a clear "solution" that would punish actual human players because of the probably 0.001% of players that may have used macros. And macro users would just move over to other event types like Galaxy or for example the mission ones so it wouldn't solve the core issues.
I actually think varying the battle loading screen animation is a great idea , sometimes it might be 2 seconds, sometimes 8 seconds. The macros would have to assume 8, which would give an added advantage to human players. It’s also long enough as is that maybe the solution can be to use the current length as the max length and to vary on the lower side.
But since macros would like you said just use 8 seconds, it wouldn't solve anything. We would still be here discussing macro users even afterwards because even if they use 8 seconds, it would still be a hell of a lot more efficient than sleeping for example or otherwise not playing. So did you fix the issue? No.
Every little bit helps in reducing the number of hours a human would play per hour a macro would need.
If you don’t want to go for marginal improvements like that to give humans playing a bunch of small advantages, the alternative is something players won’t like much.
A guaranteed solution is to remove chrons from the drop boxes and make intel cost scale further so it only takes 12-18 hours of play to burn through 100k chrons but I don’t think that would go over well.
Would it help? Maybe a little but it would not catch them, they would still cheat and we would still have this problem. No, we should actually see these pop-ups more often (during prolonged usage of the app and only during events so not like you played 30 minutes prove that you are a human) and have a timeout on them and if the player say doesn't click on it for say 5 seconds or so then just report it to DB and remove the pop-up and let the game continue so that the macro user would not be able to tell that he was busted. Also the pop-up would need to be in different places, no not necessarily all over the screen but some variation which would be enough for any macro to fail. And for added measures have randomized colors on the "confirm" button to prevent any color identification by the more advanced macros that I have read could exist as well. This would essentially solve the issue. Why? Because you wouldn't be able to run the macro when you are not actually playing and if you are stupid and do run the macro when you are actually playing then what is the point because you would be outclassed by human players anyways.
I think you underestimate how much damage the game ships can do if you don't press a button on the game for 14 or 15 seconds into a battle. A lot of ships in the game would likely not make it through 3 battles
I think you're underestimating macro writers. Any of these attempts to defeat macros can be beaten by a smart developer. Trying to outsmart a macro is an arms race that DB will lose. The only way to defeat macros is to make the event require thought instead of being a blind grind.
Or to make events resource limited instead of time limited again.
No, I don't but I also know that this thing would not actually happen. What prevents a macro from pressing the button combination beginning at say 2+4 seconds and then do it 2 seconds later and another 2 seconds later? Nothing. It would probably just cause macro programmers to adapt to the new situation at hand.
We've waited WAY too long for a third event type. I'd rather lose to a bot then lose the 3rd event type.
The solution is simple.
Every battle have the battle buttons and the health meters switch vertical position randomly.
If the health bar is in top spot battles 1,2,4 this Skirmish and 2,3,5 next one, only 1&5 the following, 123 the one after that and keep it changing randomly like that, add a quit button on one side of health, no macro will be able to overcome that.
Not until outright AI is controlling the macro anyways.
All due respect, but massive UI changes like this are about the worst way possible I can think to address the matter.
1) Developing a UI takes a signficant amount of time/resources and is NOT an easy change
2) Adjusting to radically different UIs on the fly in a time-sensitive manner is not easy to do for a person and is a very jarring experience
We, the players and community, can't "prove" anything.
DB, with all of their abilities, can't "prove" anything.
The only way to prove, without dispute or question, that a player was using a macro would be to show up at their home, and stand next to them as they sleep in the bed, while next to them is a computer with a macro running a skirmish and cashing in the VP.
Unless you physically can see and broadcast that sight to the masses, there will always be a disputer, a non-believer or a fence-rider. That's not the fault of anyone, that's just plain human nature.
Since none of us can nor should do that, all we have are numbers, math and assumptions. Yes, those can be dangerous things. Yes, people can be and have been falsely accused. Yes, people have macro'd and continue to macro events and general gameplay outside of events. Yes, events have been won by a player using a macro - and not just skirmishes. Yes, events have been won by a player sharing his account with other people inside the same house so that the human need to sleep is overcome by more humans. All of this is presented as "fact" or "proof" because the offending parties came forward and admitted as much.
What's left is for a playerbase to *responsibly* assess situations and work with DB to find examples of supposed wrongdoing. DB is a small operation and can't be everywhere all at once. The playerbase is large, smart, and for the most part, fed up with cheating or accusations of cheating.
If a graph is presented that shows minute by minute VP accumulation over the span of 96 hours, and the human element is not present in the graph, we can draw our own conclusions. No human will stay awake, without breaks, and play at a consistent non-stop pace for 96 hours. It's just not happening. If you contend it can, than I challenge you to prove it and I'll pay dang good money for you to do so. The human body cannot deliver those consistent skirmish results without rest. Paladin had the most optimal of conditions for his win, and he still had to sleep every 20-24 hours, even for small intervals.
DB isn't soliciting design advice from the community on how to combat this, so while those suggestions and threads are welcome in my book, I don't think it's a productive one. The best thing for us, as a playerbase and community to do is to unite on very simple fronts - agreeing that there is a small amount of players who violate the TOS during events and gameplay and impact the results and enjoyment of others. That statement, bold enough, will be a fine platform for the userbase and DB to work together, instead of a clouded mix of feelings, messages and doubt.