Glad I never bought this game. After the initial 7 day trial, I knew better.
1. I never buy Asian Grinders. 2. Asian Grinders ALWAYS have blatant hackers that go unpunished. 3. I'm not the type of person that says "I told you so."
But Black Desert takes the cake for hackability, it's in a category all its own
In most games cheaters look for a few things that are client side in Black Desert it's harder to find things that are not client side.
"Kind of".....right. By this time after Archeages release there was a mass exodus due to the ridiculous hacks, bots, and cash grabbing cash shop changes.
Just be objective dude and people will stop remembering you as the guy that defends everything Archeage. One of the biggest ripoffs in gaming ever. A game that made people boycott anything Trion will ever put out again.
Ahhh ArcheAge some people mentionned it.. LOVED this game, but Trion and Hackers destroyed it sadly. I never had problems with lands we had more than what we could handle but there was some hackers and it was easy to find them, If players could notice hackers so easily.. then why there was no staff online to stop them.. ? These's MMORPG's need staff ONLINE that monitor everything and take action against those hackers/bots. I remember Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot.. There was alots of staff online working to make things better.
This is EXACTLY why you CAN NOT have OWPVP in an MMO!!!!!!!!
This is exactly why you shouldn't have a keyboard.
People staying cheating and swindling in MMORPGs in general. It's a given this will happen. The problem is developer ineptitude on the matter not OWPVP.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
ArcheAge had bots (still does), teleport/speed hacks, house plot snipe, ah snipe.
People left because of cash shop, failed Auroria launch, thunderstruck sapling in cash shop etc...
The severity of hacks in Archeage was never on the scale of what it is in Black Desert which is the most hackable AAA game in history
Eh, I personally left because of rampant exploiting that were punished with a slap on the wrist (ironically I do remember you posting an exploit you discovered and encouraged everyone to hurry and do it before it was patched- I remember because I called you an exploiter for it and was given a warning for it on the forums).
Not sure what kind of exploiting is going on in BDO. The boss "exploitation" wasn't really an exploit, and hardly compared to people making as much Apex as they wanted for free in Archeage.
You're right though that the hacks in BDO are worse than hacking in AA. It's unclear how many people will leave, but the longer they are ineffective in combating it, the more likely people will leave.
Tragic. There is no excuse for this. If you don't have the technology to control hacking,or controlling it would make your servers melt and the game unplayable,don't build a open PvP game.
Don't support inferior products with your money. You can cry all day,as long as they keep making money out of selling shit they will keep selling shit.
This is quite sad and a bit funny, but mostly sad. Players who hack have no ethics anymore. Not saying I hack but if I did I would never kill everyone and steal all the loot. Just a shame in my opinion.
I see some of the classic white knights are starting to convert. Made my day.
Oh don't worry we will be on the other side when your beloved linear quest hub themepark implodes. It's a shame, finally a game offers a bit of freedom and it is hack city.
I see some of the classic white knights are starting to convert. Made my day.
Oh don't worry we will be on the other side when your beloved linear quest hub themepark implodes. It's a shame, finally a game offers a bit of freedom and it is hack city.
I don't suppose the "freedom" you are talking about includes outdated and easily hackable server/client set ups.It would be a shame!
I'm very largely disappointed at the game because I really wanted to like it, and I did for awhile. I made 5 level 50 and above characters to make sure I didn't miss anything combat wise. It's just when someone can pay 20 bucks and get a hack that laughs in the face of all those honestly playing the game, then not only have a temp ban when they are caught they keep all the ill gotten loot/exp, I can't play that game any longer. Won't matter if I never see one, I still know they are there, and they are laughing at each and every one of the honest players.
I'm very largely disappointed at the game because I really wanted to like it, and I did for awhile. I made 5 level 50 and above characters to make sure I didn't miss anything combat wise. It's just when someone can pay 20 bucks and get a hack that laughs in the face of all those honestly playing the game, then not only have a temp ban when they are caught they keep all the ill gotten loot/exp, I can't play that game any longer. Won't matter if I never see one, I still know they are there, and they are laughing at each and every one of the honest players.
It's actually $50, not that it matters since most guild leaders of the top guilds are offering it for free to their older and trusted members.
I am just wondering if they can though because if it is all client side how well could they stop the hacking.
they cant do anything they would need to remake whole game
This is so wrong - remake the whole game? Not even close.
What they need to do is add server code that validates client cooldowns, HP, WP and stamina.
Obviously this introduces overhead so they have to code it in a way to where it doesnt introduce extreme latency.
Either way other games with fast action combat have done it - Blade and Soul, heck Planetside 1 with 500+ play battles (even faster damage as it was a shooter) managed to keep server side validation for each client.
This wouldn't even require 2% of code change, so this remake the whole game business is just way off.
Honestly what they should do is create a server-side AI that simply tracks a reasonable operating range for player stats and actions, and if a character falls outside that range they are flagged. If it flags a character multiple times it suspends the character with a log that lists the incidents should a service report get filed.
Doesn't have to affect the client in any way, so yes people will still be able to hack, but those that do would be traceable, accountable, and dealing with them could be done efficiently.
There is margin of error to account for in latency issues, but that is why there is both the use of a reasonable operating range to account for as well as the generation of incident logs so that if it's brought up, one can see any discrepancy between latency, actions taken, etc to remove as much doubt as possible.
Point being, I agree that implementing something actually wouldn't/shouldn't be hard.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I am just wondering if they can though because if it is all client side how well could they stop the hacking.
they cant do anything they would need to remake whole game
This is so wrong - remake the whole game? Not even close.
What they need to do is add server code that validates client cooldowns, HP, WP and stamina.
Obviously this introduces overhead so they have to code it in a way to where it doesnt introduce extreme latency.
Either way other games with fast action combat have done it - Blade and Soul, heck Planetside 1 with 500+ play battles (even faster damage as it was a shooter) managed to keep server side validation for each client.
This wouldn't even require 2% of code change, so this remake the whole game business is just way off.
Honestly what they should do is create a server-side AI that simply tracks a reasonable operating range for player stats and actions, and if a character falls outside that range they are flagged. If it flags a character multiple times it suspends the character with a log that lists the incidents should a service report get filed.
Doesn't have to affect the client in any way, so yes people will still be able to hack, but those that do would be traceable, accountable, and dealing with them could be done efficiently.
There is margin of error to account for in latency issues, but that is why there is both the use of a reasonable operating range to account for as well as the generation of incident logs so that if it's brought up, one can see any discrepancy between latency, actions taken, etc to remove as much doubt as possible.
Point being, I agree that implementing something actually wouldn't/shouldn't be hard.
Yeah it seems like something like this should be doable. Or just have xigncode3 flag your account if your hp maxes out quickly without a heal or pot.
Seems like between a program server side and the one we currently have running client side, something could be done.
I'm no programmer, but I think the reason we have so many client-side checks is to prevent server lag during seiges. So they may be hesitant to change that if it would cause performance problems in larger scale pvp.
But your suggestion doesn't require them to do that. It honestly seems rather simple, but maybe it's not? I have no idea.
I am just wondering if they can though because if it is all client side how well could they stop the hacking.
they cant do anything they would need to remake whole game
This is so wrong - remake the whole game? Not even close.
What they need to do is add server code that validates client cooldowns, HP, WP and stamina.
Obviously this introduces overhead so they have to code it in a way to where it doesnt introduce extreme latency.
Either way other games with fast action combat have done it - Blade and Soul, heck Planetside 1 with 500+ play battles (even faster damage as it was a shooter) managed to keep server side validation for each client.
This wouldn't even require 2% of code change, so this remake the whole game business is just way off.
Honestly what they should do is create a server-side AI that simply tracks a reasonable operating range for player stats and actions, and if a character falls outside that range they are flagged. If it flags a character multiple times it suspends the character with a log that lists the incidents should a service report get filed.
Doesn't have to affect the client in any way, so yes people will still be able to hack, but those that do would be traceable, accountable, and dealing with them could be done efficiently.
There is margin of error to account for in latency issues, but that is why there is both the use of a reasonable operating range to account for as well as the generation of incident logs so that if it's brought up, one can see any discrepancy between latency, actions taken, etc to remove as much doubt as possible.
Point being, I agree that implementing something actually wouldn't/shouldn't be hard.
Yeah it seems like something like this should be doable. Or just have xigncode3 flag your account if your hp maxes out quickly without a heal or pot.
Seems like between a program server side and the one we currently have running client side, something could be done.
I'm no programmer, but I think the reason we have so many client-side checks is to prevent server lag during seiges. So they may be hesitant to change that if it would cause performance problems in larger scale pvp.
But your suggestion doesn't require them to do that. It honestly seems rather simple, but maybe it's not? I have no idea.
Yeah, they could actually use my suggestion in a deferred fashion even if they didn't want it to impact real-time server performance by having it run on a small server of it's own reading event reports from the game server after they have happened.
Even if it's a "simple" solution, it's also still a cost for them though and time they may simply not be willing to step back and take to implement in favor of trying to get what does exist to work (even if it'll never work).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I am just wondering if they can though because if it is all client side how well could they stop the hacking.
they cant do anything they would need to remake whole game
This is so wrong - remake the whole game? Not even close.
What they need to do is add server code that validates client cooldowns, HP, WP and stamina.
Obviously this introduces overhead so they have to code it in a way to where it doesnt introduce extreme latency.
Either way other games with fast action combat have done it - Blade and Soul, heck Planetside 1 with 500+ play battles (even faster damage as it was a shooter) managed to keep server side validation for each client.
This wouldn't even require 2% of code change, so this remake the whole game business is just way off.
Honestly what they should do is create a server-side AI that simply tracks a reasonable operating range for player stats and actions, and if a character falls outside that range they are flagged. If it flags a character multiple times it suspends the character with a log that lists the incidents should a service report get filed.
Doesn't have to affect the client in any way, so yes people will still be able to hack, but those that do would be traceable, accountable, and dealing with them could be done efficiently.
There is margin of error to account for in latency issues, but that is why there is both the use of a reasonable operating range to account for as well as the generation of incident logs so that if it's brought up, one can see any discrepancy between latency, actions taken, etc to remove as much doubt as possible.
Point being, I agree that implementing something actually wouldn't/shouldn't be hard.
Yeah it seems like something like this should be doable. Or just have xigncode3 flag your account if your hp maxes out quickly without a heal or pot.
Seems like between a program server side and the one we currently have running client side, something could be done.
I'm no programmer, but I think the reason we have so many client-side checks is to prevent server lag during seiges. So they may be hesitant to change that if it would cause performance problems in larger scale pvp.
But your suggestion doesn't require them to do that. It honestly seems rather simple, but maybe it's not? I have no idea.
Yeah, they could actually use my suggestion in a deferred fashion even if they didn't want it to impact real-time server performance by having it run on a small server of it's own reading event reports from the game server after they have happened.
Even if it's a "simple" solution, it's also still a cost for them though and time they may simply not be willing to step back and take to implement in favor of trying to get what does exist to work (even if it'll never work).
Anything they can do with automation would surely be more cost-efficient than paying people to literally watch videos of proof or GMs to go scouring the countryside looking for hackers.
One possible reason they might not want to go the automation route is they might fear hackers would quickly find a workaround so all the work they put into it would go to waste.
It's really unclear though because they haven't been really forthcoming with what they're actually doing.
Anyway, they hinted some improvements may come with the Valencia update this week, so hopefully we'll see something then.
Comments
1. I never buy Asian Grinders.
2. Asian Grinders ALWAYS have blatant hackers that go unpunished.
3. I'm not the type of person that says "I told you so."
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
Just be objective dude and people will stop remembering you as the guy that defends everything Archeage. One of the biggest ripoffs in gaming ever. A game that made people boycott anything Trion will ever put out again.
I never had problems with lands we had more than what we could handle but there was some hackers and it was easy to find them, If players could notice hackers so easily.. then why there was no staff online to stop them.. ?
These's MMORPG's need staff ONLINE that monitor everything and take action against those hackers/bots.
I remember Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot.. There was alots of staff online working to make things better.
http://forum.blackdesertonline.com/index.php?/topic/91350-hacker-kills-everyone-at-mudster-boss-gets-all-the-loot/
They get a slap on the wrist and come back.
People staying cheating and swindling in MMORPGs in general. It's a given this will happen. The problem is developer ineptitude on the matter not OWPVP.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not sure what kind of exploiting is going on in BDO. The boss "exploitation" wasn't really an exploit, and hardly compared to people making as much Apex as they wanted for free in Archeage.
You're right though that the hacks in BDO are worse than hacking in AA. It's unclear how many people will leave, but the longer they are ineffective in combating it, the more likely people will leave.
There is no excuse for this.
If you don't have the technology to control hacking,or controlling it would make your servers melt and the game unplayable,don't build a open PvP game.
Don't support inferior products with your money.
You can cry all day,as long as they keep making money out of selling shit they will keep selling shit.
Won't matter if I never see one, I still know they are there, and they are laughing at each and every one of the honest players.
"The hate is strong"
Doesn't have to affect the client in any way, so yes people will still be able to hack, but those that do would be traceable, accountable, and dealing with them could be done efficiently.
There is margin of error to account for in latency issues, but that is why there is both the use of a reasonable operating range to account for as well as the generation of incident logs so that if it's brought up, one can see any discrepancy between latency, actions taken, etc to remove as much doubt as possible.
Point being, I agree that implementing something actually wouldn't/shouldn't be hard.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Seems like between a program server side and the one we currently have running client side, something could be done.
I'm no programmer, but I think the reason we have so many client-side checks is to prevent server lag during seiges. So they may be hesitant to change that if it would cause performance problems in larger scale pvp.
But your suggestion doesn't require them to do that. It honestly seems rather simple, but maybe it's not? I have no idea.
Even if it's a "simple" solution, it's also still a cost for them though and time they may simply not be willing to step back and take to implement in favor of trying to get what does exist to work (even if it'll never work).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
One possible reason they might not want to go the automation route is they might fear hackers would quickly find a workaround so all the work they put into it would go to waste.
It's really unclear though because they haven't been really forthcoming with what they're actually doing.
Anyway, they hinted some improvements may come with the Valencia update this week, so hopefully we'll see something then.