Punish Servers for Hacking

[Ronin.4501]

Sounds like a terrible idea, right? It's because it is. But 1) it always seems to be the same servers OVER and OVER and OVER using the hacks, so maybe it's time to start punishing that community as a whole for their bad seeds. 2) The current way that Anet deals with hackers and exploiters is really quite pathetic. What good is it to delete someone's account when a majority of the WvW population have 2-10 accounts nowadays? Furthermore, Anet always seems to wait weeks and months before ever addressing this issue (if it does at all), to the point that the community has ZERO faith in Anet to do anything about it.

I suggest after the first offense (server-wide), the next week that server can no longer upgrade any objectives past T1. Second offense, every player on the offending server is hit with a "hacker" buff, which reduces all armor/damage/boons by 50% for a week. Third offense carries the same penalties as the second offense but the server's population cap for each WvW map is reduced by 50% on all borderlands and 100% on EBG.

Seriously Anet, DO SOMETHING. Give us a reason to keep playing this game. All those server transfers over the past 8 years have paid more than their share into the game's coffers (even if Anet only gets 25% of the gem store revenue). You owe the WvW community big-time after giving us nothing since the addition of Desert Borderland, unless you consider the HORRIFIC job of balancing classes that you've done since you started adding specializations. DO SOMETHING. And don't give us another lame post about how you're going to do something. We've seen dozens of those posts over the years with nary a result to follow. DO SOMETHING.

 

 

[Yuffi.2430]

You are right - this is a bad idea.

Punishing a group for the actions of an individual never works.

[V Winter.5371]

So in other words, all I have to do to completely wreck an enemy server is transfer and then hack? Sounds good.

[Ronin.4501]

> @"Yuffi.2430" said:

> You are right - this is a bad idea.

> Punishing a group for the actions of an individual never works.

 

But here's the thing. Currently the entirety of the servers playing against the hacker's server ARE being punished as a result of Anet's allowing the hackers to continue on unpunished. Anet seemed to take these issues at least somewhat seriously in the first year or two of the game. Now they simply allow it to continue (And if they are doing something, why does it keep happening OVER and OVER and OVER?). Anet needs to DO SOMETHING. My idea is a harsh response, but it seems like anything less just results in more of the same. And again, it seems to be players from the same communities each time. Anet, DO SOMETHING.

[Ronin.4501]

> @"V Winter.5371" said:

> So in other words, all I have to do to completely wreck an enemy server is transfer and then hack? Sounds good.

 

Sadly, that's what it's come to, yes. At least until most of us quit the game when something better comes along (and the future is starting to look like something better will be coming along sooner than later).

[Strider Pj.2193]

So.., When Anet gives the ‘server’ the ability to take some form of ‘action’ towards said hackers then sure.

 

Of course, that’s an even WORSE idea as people that aren’t liked by a server will be ‘voted off the island’

 

Now, if alliances were somewhat of a thing, then an alliance could require their guilds to kick a member that was shown to be hacking.

 

How about...., Instead of punishing servers, (which would be an admission of Anet that hackers exist on the server) they just ban them? You know, like they are supposed to?

[LetoII.3782]

When last I checked some 5 years ago, the hack I know of had over 10k downloads.

 

It's not just one or two servers

[Ronin.4501]

 

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> So.., When Anet gives the ‘server’ the ability to take some form of ‘action’ towards said hackers then sure.

>

> Of course, that’s an even WORSE idea as people that aren’t liked by a server will be ‘voted off the island’

>

> Now, if alliances were somewhat of a thing, then an alliance could require their guilds to kick a member that was shown to be hacking.

>

> How about...., Instead of punishing servers, (which would be an admission of Anet that hackers exist on the server) they just ban them? You know, like they are supposed to?

 

First, Alliances are never going to happen. Alliances = Servers 2.0 ie. same bad population balance as currently exists. Second, Anet banning hackers would be GREAT, but you're more likely to catch the Toothfairy than you are to see Anet do something productive at this point.

 

And I find it rather hilarious that so far all the responses seem to take my OP seriously. But clearly what Anet is (or isn't) doing now isn't working, because it's STILL an issue 8 years later (along with a myriad of other issues that have been present since the game's beginning that have never been addressed). So instead of complaining, does anyone out there actually have a USEFUL suggestion for how to address this issue?

 

Maybe this is why Anet doesn't take these forum posts seriously? Because everyone complains, but very few offer any kind of solution.

 

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> When last I checked some 5 years ago, the hack I know of had over 10k downloads.

>

> It's not just one or two servers

 

But yeah, it kinda is. I'm on a NA server that routinely goes from T4 to T1 and back every time we get a new link. And it's almost exclusively an issue up in T1. Why is that?

 

 

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"V Winter.5371" said:

> So in other words, all I have to do to completely wreck an enemy server is transfer and then hack? Sounds good.

 

Thats the 1st i tough as well..

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Ronin.4501" said:

>

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > So.., When Anet gives the ‘server’ the ability to take some form of ‘action’ towards said hackers then sure.

> >

> > Of course, that’s an even WORSE idea as people that aren’t liked by a server will be ‘voted off the island’

> >

> > Now, if alliances were somewhat of a thing, then an alliance could require their guilds to kick a member that was shown to be hacking.

> >

> > How about...., Instead of punishing servers, (which would be an admission of Anet that hackers exist on the server) they just ban them? You know, like they are supposed to?

>

>

> But yeah, it kinda is. I'm on a NA server that routinely goes from T4 to T1 and back every time we get a new link. And it's almost exclusively an issue up in T1. Why is that?

>

>

 

Because they tend to be the most visible matchups. Theoretically because of the larger populations.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Ronin.4501" said:

 

> I'm on a NA server that routinely goes from T4 to T1 and back every time we get a new link. And it's almost exclusively an issue up in T1. Why is that?

>

 

Because in less populated matches there's less of _everything_

 

 

[Ronin.4501]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

>

> Because they tend to be the most visible matchups. Theoretically because of the larger populations.

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

>

> Because in less populated matches there's less of _everything_

>

There is a population disparity between T1 and T4, but not so much between T1 and T2, if at all. And although there have no doubt been complaints about every server hacking at some point over the last 8 years, probably 85% of those complaints have been centered around 1 server in general for the past few years. At least on the North American servers. I honestly know nothing about the situation on the EU servers outside of player complaints over which language should be spoken on which server.

 

[subversiontwo.7501]

It is much easier to just lock the pvp modes for unverified or unpaid accounts.

 

I mentioned it on Reddit before: I see no point in having either sPvP or WvW open to F2P accounts when core specs are rarely competetive anyway and they do next to nothing else to manage the entry and exit of players to- and from the modes. It doesn't do anything tangible on its own and they probably lose more players both on entry and exit due to servers being full than they get anything positive out of F2P.

 

If they are very weary about keeping an illusion of "free" while they milk the modes to death in other ways they could at least require any accounts that want to enter to be verified and phone-protected so they can ban associated phone numbers.

 

Those are easy and effective ways to get to the bottom of the problem. As with everything else WvW and sPvP they simply do not care enough to do something about it. There are simple solutions for anyone with their head above their shoulders.

[Dawdler.8521]

So what exactly would stop people on servers to simply create new f2p accounts on the enemy servers they meet and then hack both of them just to trigger the server punishment? And what are those servers going to do? Well they have to send their own hackers to counter-hack the server that hacked so the matchup isnt unfair.

 

Eventually, its just going to easier for Anet to add the hacks to the minor traitlines so everyone hack whether they want it or not. Like ranger natural vigor now recovering 100% endurance on dodge (no icd). Or warrior thick skin, reduces damage by 100% while above 75% hp.

 

Thats balance after all.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Ronin.4501" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> >

> > Because they tend to be the most visible matchups. Theoretically because of the larger populations.

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> >

> > Because in less populated matches there's less of _everything_

> >

> There is a population disparity between T1 and T4, but not so much between T1 and T2, if at all. And although there have no doubt been complaints about every server hacking at some point over the last 8 years, probably 85% of those complaints have been centered around 1 server in general for the past few years.

 

 

Jade Quarry? Been a lot of threads about those 2 revs lately...

 

 

 

> At least on the North American servers. I honestly know nothing about the situation on the EU servers outside of player complaints over which language should be spoken on which server.

>

 

Ohhh, you're an NA scene expert.

T1 and T2 you say, the big leagues

[mindcircus.1506]

> @"Ronin.4501" said:

> Sounds like a terrible idea, right? It's because it is. But 1) it always seems to be the same servers OVER and OVER and OVER using the hacks, so maybe it's time to start punishing that community as a whole for their bad seeds. 2) The current way that Anet deals with hackers and exploiters is really quite pathetic. What good is it to delete someone's account when a majority of the WvW population have 2-10 accounts nowadays?

Server 1 wants to beat server 2

Server 1 has a group of people on throwaway accounts join Server 2

New Server 2 players now use hacks and get reported on purpose.

Server 2 gets actioned and is now at a competitive disadvantage despite having done nothing wrong.

 

Armchair MMO devs make the best french fries.

 

[Leo.3428]

> @"Ronin.4501" said:

> (...) does anyone out there actually have a USEFUL suggestion for how to address this issue?

 

Make the server program robust, so the client side cannot dictate illegal moves to the server?

 

[Ronin.4501]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> So what exactly would stop people on servers to simply create new f2p accounts on the enemy servers they meet and then hack both of them just to trigger the server >punishment? And what are those servers going to do? Well they have to send their own hackers to counter-hack the server that hacked so the matchup isnt unfair.

 

See Subversiontwo's response. Sounds like a pretty damn good idea tbh.

 

@"LetoII.3782" said:

@"mindcircus.1506" said:

 

Seems as though reading through the 8-10 comments made prior to their witty remarks was too difficult, as I've already mentioned at least once the OP was sarcasm. Get back to me when you're able to read more than a few paragraphs without getting confused.

 

 

[asterix.9614]

I remember something like this being done by a private school teacher when I was a kid. We all told our parents and after so many parents complained to the headteacher the hard faced bitch who punished us all was fired. 'Twas fun to see her waddle away forever.

[adammantium.8031]

I get the sentiment, but it's a horrid idea.

I play quite regularly from 9pm to 11pm each night. There could be people hacking at any other time of day on my server and I'd have no idea. I imagine there are many, many players like me.

Yet your idea punishes me for the actions of people I never interact with, aren't in my guild, who I don't know, and have no influence over.

 

The only realistic solution is for Anet to invest resources in preventing hacks.

We don't seem to be at a tipping point to prompt that yet, and doubt we ever will, unless the hack in question impacts more game modes.

 

Alliances could help a bit, where guilds could exert influence on their members. But bad apples will find a way to rot somewhere.

[Voltekka.2375]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> It is much easier to just lock the pvp modes for unverified or unpaid accounts.

>

> I mentioned it on Reddit before: I see no point in having either sPvP or WvW open to F2P accounts when core specs are rarely competetive anyway and they do next to nothing else to manage the entry and exit of players to- and from the modes. It doesn't do anything tangible on its own and they probably lose more players both on entry and exit due to servers being full than they get anything positive out of F2P.

>

> If they are very weary about keeping an illusion of "free" while they milk the modes to death in other ways they could at least require any accounts that want to enter to be verified and phone-protected so they can ban associated phone numbers.

>

> Those are easy and effective ways to get to the bottom of the problem. As with everything else WvW and sPvP they simply do not care enough to do something about it. There are simple solutions for anyone with their head above their shoulders.

 

For what it's worth, i had made a topic some time ago... And there you can read some arguments

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/74007/please-make-f2p-accounts-unable-to-play-in-competitive-modes#latest

 

 

[Balthazzarr.1349]

The hackers don’t care. Do what you want to the servers.. it won’t stop the hackers. smh

[Ronin.4501]

Good Grief!!! There was a time when you could make a tongue-in-cheek post and at least some of the commenters would realize it. Does anyone really think Anet is going to punish servers for the actions of a few players for hacking, or anything for that matter? But I think the fact that there are multiple threads being posted within days of one another shows that the issue is starting to get out of hand again (the hacking was pretty bad in the first year of the game too).

 

I thought @"subversiontwo.7501" had a pretty good suggestion, but as @"Voltekka.2375" showed, even then the community largely ripped the idea. It really makes me think that Anet has lost control (or the will) to deal with these issues at this point, which doesn't leave me with a lot of hope going forward that things in WvW are ever going to improve (and I can only imagine that when the next expansion comes along it will only get worse).

 

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Ronin.4501" said:

> the OP was sarcasm. Get back to me when you're able to read more than a few paragraphs without getting confused.

>

>

 

I'm of the opinion the OP was a salty post and now we're doing damage control.

[subversiontwo.7501]

> @"Ronin.4501" said:

It really makes me think that Anet has lost control (or the will) to deal with these issues at this point, which doesn't leave me with a lot of hope going forward that things in WvW are ever going to improve (and I can only imagine that when the next expansion comes along it will only get worse).

>

That is certainly the problem or even more amply put: They've never had that kind of control (or at least not since 2014) because they have never had insight or understood their own mode (after the initial WvW devs left and never got replaced by WvW-minded devs). It can be difficult to decide if you should listen to people who play- or do not play the mode, or, if you should listen to people who play the mode in contrast to people who play the mode on the backs of other players. If you have insight it is not difficult to define those things, to make informed decisions on which focus group is important for what changes or be iterative enough to follow up on the results of your choices.

 

After 2014 they have never really done those things and have been prone to listen to players who do not play the mode (errenously assuming they would play the mode and assume productive control of the mode if listened to) or they have listened to players who play on the back of other players (errenously assuming that majority is generally important and overlooking, for example, that many of those players just leave if there are no tags up, etc.).¨

 

If you have time to kill and want to get a bit nerdy about it, the devs at EVE wrote and spoke of this stuff publically alot around the time when GW2 had first released (2013-2015). The sort of underlying design principles for it from a developer standpoint and what would guide their direction forward from there. They also did some other pretty funny stuff around that same time that relates to GW2 like trying out "sagas" (using shorter cadence) and comming to the conclusion that expansions were better or talking about the importance of cross-mode development. All of the pitfalls GW2 fell into were already readily described by a fore-runner and competitor (with a special connection to WvW). There are devblogs still online and 90min TED-style talks still floating about Youtube on it etc.