The Castle Doctrine Forums

Did you buy a painting?

Backpack changes aren't saved until you click "Done" on your house, but paintings are bought instantly. There was a bug where you could sell tools (but not press done), buy a painting, then exit the game. You would have negative money, a painting, and all of your tools back. To fix this, the game now autosells tools from your vault if you reach negative money.

Ah, I didn't realise the "second leap of face" was connected to the combo lock. I'd like to see a map of your house though if possible so I can see how you've done it. Perhaps also a recording of the tape.

If you've implemented the leaps correctly, then with 100 people trying about ~2 would get through the first trap. Then, there's about a 1/4 chance that one of those gets to your vault. Not too unlikely still.

000
001
010
011
100
101
110
111

Eight possible combos. With one saw you can try five of them in one run I think, so the chance is over half. With no tools you can only try 4 combos, so the chance is exactly half.

If 100 people threw themselves at your house with no tools, about 10 people would get through the initial 6 bit combo. Then, 5 would go on to rob your vault. If you consider tools, then the chances increase dramatically. It is not surprising that you have been robbed.

With 100 people, you'd have to be pretty lucky to not have someone get through your house. A 6 bit combo lock has 64 possibilities, and up to 6 combinations (assuming no tools) can be tested before you've pressed all the buttons.

If he had to use a bunch of tools to bypass the parts after that, then he didn't know "exactly" your house. AND if "No robber was exaiming my hause just near a bit" then this has nothing to do with dual account users. You seem to have just been robbed from overestimating your defences.

Jason has confirmed that barely any of the reported "hackers" have actually done any hacking. People are just looking to blame something other than themselves for people getting through their house.

Yeah, unless someone just goes through and clearly hacks on all the top houses, I don't think many people are going to get banned. Even exploits are more likely to be fixed. We could have a "List of Deeply Frowned Upon Offences".

Tools have always stacked in your vault, so it was always pointless (AFAIK).

I kind of like how it looks though, makes the vault seem more spacious, and having just 12 spots would look strange.

This is a nice idea, but there are a few problems to work out:

1. Since there is a 24+ hour chill anyway, you could still get around 50% of your value from another account and there'd be no penalty.

2. When will this be calculated? If it's constant then the first $200 bounty into your house would always get 60 hours of force ignore. Put it too high and there's still room for exploitation.

3. Have three or more accounts and you can get around this completely.

4. You could still use a third unrelated house to move the money about (I'm assuming that money wouldn't always keep it's origin tag, would be way too complicated with tools buying and being split)

5. For a decent house, $1100 is pretty much nothing. The slow pumping isn't really the most concerning dual account exploit.

6. How would the tags work if you bought tools, split the money with your wife, got partially robbed, changed your house, etc?

You're right that people with alts can only rob one house at a time, but people will rob a whole lot more if they have an alt that they don't care about rather than risking their fortress. Your point would be valid if people were playing 24/7, but usually the 5 minutes it takes rush into a house with starter kit is not the limiting factor.

You're making a whole lot of assumptions, and yes I can argue against your points.

I don't think dual account usage is the reason why people are quitting. I just don't think it's as big of a problem as you do, and neither of us can really prove that.

Personally, I think that in a game like this people will just look for something to put the blame on. Jason designed it so there was no randomness and nothing you could really blame the game itself for, so instead the miniscule problem of hackers and dual accounters is blown out of proportion.

So your plan to stop many account usage is just to hope people aren't willing to pay, and leave it as a "so be it"? May work fine for a small server, but that's not something that will scale up to a game; that barrier is already there on Jason's server. Also there's no way I'd be willing to pay $20 for a server with a small alteration, slightly hindering am already small problem.

I am happy to see that people plan to continue on the game as servers. The game still has a lot of potential, and things like this could extend its lifetime. Paying $10-$20 to join seems a bit over the top, that's more than Jason's server (which I am almost certain will still remain the most popular server, especially if you charge that much).

Both people were using "dual accounts" and "dual account usage" interchangeably:
"Dual accounts need to be stopped."
"problem of dual accounts"
"dual account cheaters"
"dual account cheating"
"Using 2 accounts is just cheating."
"Dual account cheating is a fact."

On top of that, AMWhy says that everyone on the list advocates cheating; I have never said I support abuse of two accounts, although I have said that simply having them is fine. AMWhy even says he/she is targeting "pro dual account comments".

However, it was pretty clear of both of their intentions; they were arguing for and against using dual accounts for an advantage. No reasonable person would say that simply owning, and never using two accounts, is cheating. And nobody was trying to argue that "it's not cheating because you might not use it". That simply was not what the debate was about.

Blip continued to argue that "Dual accounts is not cheating", then out of the blue AMWhy claims that he had never said it was, to counter Blip's entire argument.

This seemed pretty unreasonable and strange, since the whole argument had been about this. Blip and L0H point out that in practically every post he has been calling dual account usage cheating, but then AMWhy points out that he never technically called "Dual accounts" cheating, he had just called "Dual account cheating" cheating.

AMWhy was just picking at the semantics of what Blip said, despite the fact both of them had been using "Dual accounts" and "Dual account usage" interchangeably as I previously said, and were both still actually talking about using the accounts to an advantage. It was completely unrelated to the debate, and did nothing to actually counter Blip's point.

I think the overuse of images and examples was a bit overkill and spammy for its purpose, but I also think it's somewhat childish for AM to claim that if people are against his view, then they are probably cheaters and are ruining the game. Even more so to personally name a bunch of people as "the rot of cheating".

We should move on from arguing over semantics, and just take what Blip said, "Dual accounts are not cheating", to be "Using dual accounts is not cheating". It doesn't really make any difference to Blip's argument, and it's pretty clear that Blip is talking both about the owning and use of the accounts.

You've put me on the list: I have only bought one account, and I DO think that dual-accounting is a problem. I just don't think that it's completely gamebreaking as some people say, and I want a well-thought out solution that would work without harming normal users. I am against it; in fact, I believe I was the one who originally suggested the 5 minute timer on new houses to help prevent dual-account abuse.

However, I don't think that two separate people collaborating is "cheating" at all like you say. Having a group of robbers does have an advantage over a single robber, and I think that's the way that it should be. Only one person gets the loot though, and you have to find someone who won't betray you. It's not possible for everyone to have the same chance as a single person, because everyone is made up of multiple single people.

A "2K safe house" normally means one that can't be easily brute forced through for 2K worth of tools, usually following the most obvious path. Granted that's pretty subjective. If you have such a house, then chances are you will be robbed, and it does not mean that someone dual-accounted you.

One account per IP address causes massive problems for schools, family, and public internet connections. Anyone who wants to abuse two accounts can still easily sidestep it.

People can already report what they suspect to be dual-account usage if they want, I really don't think people should be banned for it though, especially considering there's no completely reliable way to test for it (could just be two people collaborating, which I am personally fine with).

If someone has a solution that would actually be effective at combating dual account usage, and not affect normal one account users, then I would be happy to support it. I just haven't seen such a solution as of yet, that doesn't mean I am pro dual-accounts or that I immediately must own one.

If I'm understanding this right, the person still had to be 1 in 1024 lucky, they just had the advantage of then being able to bring tools and rob you on their alt.

I'd really like to have it pointed out where you think I went wrong or misunderstood. As boop said, you're doing nothing to actually back up or enforce your point.

Step 4, "Use Acc 1 to collect tools and cash from weak house", requires you to actually get through the house on Acc 1. To make the full profit you need to do this with no tools. If you actually took huge risks with your main account then this exploit would be even worse. Because of both of these, you need to have scouted out and be sure to have found the correct route through the house on Acc 2 for this to be an effective exploit; because if you're taking risks and only getting a $300 profit on the robbery then I don't think this is at all a problem.

To raise his bounty, get some money, and help eliminate future threats to his house whilst taking no risks. Potentially even just to anger people. I agree though that, if what you said was true, botting is a pretty likely possibility. Stealing $0 houses also seems a bit of a strange thing to do, bot or person.

I haven't depended on $2k houses for ages, and I didn't when I started the game either (although, to be fair, there were a ton of broken ~$300 houses back then). I really don't think "get[ting] a huge boost" from $2k houses being the only way to live is what Jason intended at all, considering he's being trying to get rid of that boost.

Personally I don't think someone snatching up a lot of the $2k houses really ruins the game all on their own. There are still plenty of ways to live and play. I agree to some extent that it can make it harder for newbies, but not that it would cause people to quit en masse.

Scouting for an easy house that you can be sure to solve on your main account isn't as easy as you make it sound. At the end you get a very maximum of $1200 more for killing one account, risking your main account, and spending a whole lot of time and effort scouting out houses that you can reach the vault of without using any tools. There are much better ways to make money.

Also, this doesn't really scale with how much money you put in. Even if you spent millions you'd only have some advantage over other players.

Someone spending excessively has nothing to do with dual accounts as far as I can see. If what you say is completely true then perhaps it was somebody on a revenge mission from when you stole from them. It kind of sucks, but death and being robbed is part of the game.

It would be nice to remove all advantages for dual accounts, but so far nobody has really given any suggestions that would help without hindering normal play. From what I see you only get a tiny advantage as it is, but in a game like this it's natural to try to blame things on unfair or cheating behaviour of other players.