White Hat Weapons

"
Dracule wrote:
"
Omnivore61 wrote:
Attack of the lag monster - artificially induced lag, all server communications with the offending account are given a randomized delay of 250 milliseconds over normal processing time.


OH NOOOO!!!! I always have 250ms..... Has this already happened to me!?

Im aussie btw. Sucks to be me :(


Ouch! Perhaps I should've used a larger number!
Yeah... :(

Wish Aussie/Nz Hosting didnt cost so much. I have to play of the Sg server.

Makes hardcore....challenging.
IGN - Bootloops
"
Omnivore61 wrote:
Lately we've heard quite a lot from the Black Hat camp.


No, there has a been a multi-boxing thread,whcih is not black hat, and there has been a thread discussing rewarding people who find exploits.

And I know that in the multi-boxing thread all you did was make a terrible argument, then quote somebody who made valid points and said "nope, all lies" and then you was disproven, with no counter argument from you afterwards.

Then there was the thread discussing rewarding people for finding exploits, which turned in to yet another retarded circle jerk by ignorant kids that have no understanding of the subject.

There is no "black hat camp" and this thread is a waste of time. Your ideas are absolutely terrible. In no way are those things a punishment.

Last edited by oBLACKIECHANo#6895 on Jan 7, 2013, 12:33:17 AM
"
oBLACKIECHANo wrote:


No, there has a been a multi-boxing thread,whcih is not black hat, and there has been a thread discussing rewarding people who find exploits.



Interesting that you feel it necessary to defend multi-boxing as not Black Hat.

"
There is no "black hat camp" and this thread is a waste of time. Your ideas are absolutely terrible. In no way are those things a punishment.


I'm sure numerous game companies including GGG will be relieved to find out no one has been hacking any games.

As far as punishment, you are the second person who has assumed the response I advocated was for punishment rather than simply one of reducing the profit margins of a certain type of exploiter to whom warnings and bans are meaningless or worse, helpful.

As far as the multi-boxing thread, I felt it pointless to pursue further argument, following the old adage, "Never argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."


"
Omnivore61 wrote:
"
oBLACKIECHANo wrote:


No, there has a been a multi-boxing thread,whcih is not black hat, and there has been a thread discussing rewarding people who find exploits.



Interesting that you feel it necessary to defend multi-boxing as not Black Hat.

"
There is no "black hat camp" and this thread is a waste of time. Your ideas are absolutely terrible. In no way are those things a punishment.


I'm sure numerous game companies including GGG will be relieved to find out no one has been hacking any games.

As far as punishment, you are the second person who has assumed the response I advocated was for punishment rather than simply one of reducing the profit margins of a certain type of exploiter to whom warnings and bans are meaningless or worse, helpful.

As far as the multi-boxing thread, I felt it pointless to pursue further argument, following the old adage, "Never argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."




Interesting that I say something that is not black hat, is not black hat? Just the fact that you think multi-boxing is black hat proves how ignorant you are and how little knowledge you have. Like I said, you used some ridiculous economic argument against it, which was dis-proven, then somebody made valid points are you just said they were lies, and again you was dis-proven.

And then you take what I said out of context to further your idiotic argument? When I said there is no black hat camp I was clearly referring to the "black hat camp" you have made up and believe exists on these forums.

You called them alternatives to bans, so how are those ideas not supposed to be punishment? "one of reducing the profit margins or a certain type of exploiter" What? That's what bans are there fore and they do that successfully, that's why your ideas are terrible, they are not even close to being effective, cost and time efficient, or "fun".

And then you use a generic quote about me being an idiot to make yourself seem intelligent and edgy. Yet you're being wilfully ignorant of facts and misunderstanding basic things.
"
oBLACKIECHANo wrote:

"one of reducing the profit margins or a certain type of exploiter" What? That's what bans are there fore and they do that successfully, that's why your ideas are terrible, they are not even close to being effective, cost and time efficient, or "fun".


Bans are completely ineffective against commercialized item farmers in games, especially when accounts are free. If you don't understand that, then you really need to do some research on the subject.

The only effective deterrence to commercialized item farmers is to cut into their bottom line, reducing their profits to the point where they go elsewhere. GGG has already decided to use a barter system and have no auction house, these two steps will help dissuade many. However, as others have pointed out, if there is a market, a demand, there will be attempts at least to provide a supply.

If bans are ineffective, we might then ask, "If we've identified an account that is part of a commercialized item farming scheme, what do we do if banning isn't effective?". I'm proposing the use of completely legal degradation of service counter attacks, randomized so they cannot easily be detected by the farmers, and sufficiently disruptive that they significantly reduce the efficiency of farming for the account in question. This costs the farmer money, he is paying for a bot that isn't working and given no clear indication as to what is wrong.



"
Omnivore61 wrote:
"
oBLACKIECHANo wrote:

"one of reducing the profit margins or a certain type of exploiter" What? That's what bans are there fore and they do that successfully, that's why your ideas are terrible, they are not even close to being effective, cost and time efficient, or "fun".


Bans are completely ineffective against commercialized item farmers in games, especially when accounts are free. If you don't understand that, then you really need to do some research on the subject.

The only effective deterrence to commercialized item farmers is to cut into their bottom line, reducing their profits to the point where they go elsewhere. GGG has already decided to use a barter system and have no auction house, these two steps will help dissuade many. However, as others have pointed out, if there is a market, a demand, there will be attempts at least to provide a supply.

If bans are ineffective, we might then ask, "If we've identified an account that is part of a commercialized item farming scheme, what do we do if banning isn't effective?". I'm proposing the use of completely legal degradation of service counter attacks, randomized so they cannot easily be detected by the farmers, and sufficiently disruptive that they significantly reduce the efficiency of farming for the account in question. This costs the farmer money, he is paying for a bot that isn't working and given no clear indication as to what is wrong.





I know that commercialized farmers are mostly unaffected by a ban, but this games economy does not work in the same as other games do. Games like D3 or WoW have RMT because of gold, without it the market would be dead, with a few sales of items every so often, but nothing worth doing on a large scale to try and make money. So bots commercialized botting won't be an issue.

Also, a bot could easily be made to detect any of those things occurring, close the game and boot up with a new account.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info