The Castle Doctrine Forums

Discuss the massively-multiplayer home defense game.

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Main Forum » Cheaters » 2014-04-19 09:28:41

If you checked quickly then the chances are that they was still building their house, otherwise somebody else might have just robbed them. Don't know how many other people tried and failed to your house or how hard your house is, but no tool runs aren't too uncommon and usually "hesitating" (by which I assume you mean just walking back and forth a bit) in a magic dance house isn't the best idea.

People seem to be calling anyone who solves their house a cheater at this point, without any actual evidence. The game is designed so that every house is vulnerable, it should never be a surprise when you get robbed.

They could be a cheater, but I don't see anything to really indicate that they are.

#2 Re: Main Forum » Backpack autosell..? » 2014-04-17 01:50:23

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.

#3 Re: Main Forum » House criticism » 2014-04-15 10:04:36

The two side bits at the start may be mistaken for the trap where you see a pitbull and it cuts you off from the exit. Could be good if you just want to scare people off, but bad if you want a bounty.

You can get to your wife fairly easily, although you'd only make a marginal profit.

For the upper trap cat I'd recommend putting a few more windows between it and the robber. It's an effective trap, but two bricks could get you out.

The end trap is a pretty neat idea, especially since you've already got them stuck in there. The steel around one door only might give away that it has the vault though.

Overall it would likely be good enough to kill suicide runners, and low enough in value to avoid any serious robbers.

#4 Re: Main Forum » This game is unplayable because of cheater! » 2014-04-15 09:46:30

uncastlebar wrote:

Please read:


So after one wrong try your dead!

And nobody ever gets to the second 3 digit code!

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.

#5 Re: Main Forum » This game is unplayable because of cheater! » 2014-04-15 09:45:15

uncastlebar wrote:

Yes, thats what I mean.

Solving a 6 digit with 64 tries and after a 3 digit with 8 tries means not only 72 tries (64 plus 8)

Or am I wrong?

You've calculated the chance wrong, and not taken into account that you can try multiple combinations on each run.

#6 Re: Main Forum » This game is unplayable because of cheater! » 2014-04-15 09:41:48

uncastlebar wrote:

Yes your right and combinating with 6 and 3 digit is?

BTW wunderfull large post smile


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.

#7 Re: Main Forum » This game is unplayable because of cheater! » 2014-04-15 09:31:16

uncastlebar wrote:
colorfusion wrote:

...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.

At this point I stopped reading- A 6 switch combination has how many tries!? Come on ask your teacher, come back and write the answer. Then I will read the rest.



Find me a combination of 6 on's and off's that isn't on that list.

#8 Re: Main Forum » This game is unplayable because of cheater! » 2014-04-15 05:56:39

uncastlebar wrote:

Sorry but I cant read this "he was extreme lucky" anymore.

This is a very logical game. And the most of as know about plausibilities.
And I read a bit in this forum about the sourcecode and cheating posibilities.

I just want to write it down for an advise to other player.

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.

#9 Re: Main Forum » Kills per entry record? » 2014-04-12 15:23:40

Are you counting entries as the white number (includes immediately exiting) or just tapes?

#10 Re: Main Forum » List of Bannable Offenses. » 2014-04-07 16:27:09

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".

#11 Re: Main Forum » List of Bannable Offenses. » 2014-04-07 16:16:22

cullman wrote:

How are these questionable.  Jason has stated in another thread that he believes that dual account use is cheating.

He said that he "do[esn't] WANT anyone to use dual accounts", not that it was a bannable offence.

There's no real reliable way to ban or detect dual accounts, and even if there was it's more likely that there would be a system put in place to have them force-ignore eachother, not ban them.

#12 Re: Main Forum » Why are there so many vault slots? » 2014-04-07 14:55:32

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.

#13 Re: Main Forum » List of Bannable Offenses. » 2014-04-07 14:09:45

Other than obvious hacking/exploiting (robbing all the top houses in one day) I don't think Jason will ban for any of these.

#14 Re: Main Forum » Server that does not tolerate cheating » 2014-04-07 13:45:14

cullman wrote:

If Jason views me as a destroyer, so be it.  I have offered up my ideas as an attempt to help save a game that is doomed in my opinion.  I don't think there are any houses in the top 20 that aren't dual account cheaters.  The reality is, you cannot compete at this game without 2 accounts very well.  I don't even have an issue with buying a second account, but I don't have time to dump money to myself all day to stay competitive.

To be clear, my server would allow dual accounts, from the same IP, same email, whatever.  I would implement something like this idea, that I posted in the other thread :

"Anytime tools are bought the user's license key is stored along with that particular tool.  Anytime, bounty is generated it is too associated with the original license key.  So for simplicity sake let's say I have 2 accounts that I am using to cheat, with simplified license keys 1, and 2. Account 1 builds a house, and spends all $2000 doing it.  Account #2 goes and robs User 1s house perfectly, pumping it's bounty.  In the meantime an unrelated user (call it account 3) goes into Account #1s house and dies leaving a bounty, a second unrelated account (account 4) goes in with a  single meat and dies as well also leaving a bounty.  Now account 2 goes and buys 5 saws and goes in to account #1 house and dies.  Here would be the data representation of the money and tools associated with Account #1's house/account :
In aggregate and to the end user it would look like he has $1300 in cash, 5 saws, and 1 dog meat, or in total value $2400
Under the hood it would look like this :
$1100 - originating from account #2
$100 - originating from account #3
$100 - originating from account #4
5 saws/$1000 - originating from account #2
1 dog meat originating form account #4
Now the server does a check.  This house is worth $2400, $2100 or 87% of it coming from account #2.  Now all the server does is this analysis and does a bidirectional force ignore between the two accounts of something like 4-6 hours for every 10% of wealth represented by the second account.  In this case the 2 accounts would not be able to do it again for 2 days.  I think this would not impact honest players at all.  Additionally, the "license key tag" on tools and cash stay for some number of days, and would track with the cash and tools even if they were dumped in a third party house.
I should point out that the dual accounter that wants to occasionally bail himself out is still good in this model, but it would stop the rampant pumping of accounts that is happening now."

Obviously, this model would need some tuning and testing to get right.

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?

cullman wrote:
crazyace wrote:

Have you ever even had a house sit at 30K or above? You might go 12 Hours with 0 robbery attempts on a normal day. Id be happy if a couple dual accounts came to scout my house. Didn't you see blip stole 95k from me toolless few nights ago. Congrats Blip.

Cullman: You are such a salty person over a $200 theft you still rag on it for days.

Imagine how boring your homemade server will be. Wake up. If you don't have time to play Castle Doctrine like you said to keep up. Then how would you maintain all the complainers that follow you?

I have had a few houses at $30k and above, and I think they don't get attacked much because there are less and less players due to the cheating. The game was much better 4-5 weeks ago, I literally couldn't get into my house at times because it was being robbed non-stop by the larger user base.  Here is a big counter to all your arguments that alts improve the game because of more robbing :  PEOPLE WITH ALTS CAN ONLY ROB ONE HOUSE AT A TIME.  In an alt cheating game world that has 100 people playing 5 accounts at once, while you have 500 accounts, really you only have a 100 people at the keyboard at one time. Versus a game world where there is less or no cheating that attracts 400 people with 1 account and 50 people 2 with accounts, both worlds have 500 accounts, but the latter has the ability for 450 people to be playing at the same time.  No one can argue with the validity of that statement.  No one can argue that the number of people and robberies are going down as alt abuse goes up.  You guys can say its because we are talking about it in the forum, but that is not true.  He has sold over 15,000 castle robbery accounts since he has started there are less than 700 registered on this board.  I think people are quitting because it's too hard (which again was Jason's intention, but perhaps not great for the long term health of the game), and even people who eventually understand the game start quitting because of the cheating.  For those of you who say you are going to quit the game because you are tired of the complaints on the board, I say to you, quit the board instead.

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.

cullman wrote:
MMaster wrote:

Please stop this alienating talks crazyace.
I'm happy that cullman has made such initiative. I'm really interested to see how the steps he has shown above will stop me from using 10 accounts to boost single house or scout AMWhys house with 9 accounts and rob him with 10th during single night.
Cullman now that I see your background I'm really really interested how will you solve this.

EDIT: also I'm sorry cullman, but I'm under several NDAs so I can't talk about my work, but I can tell you that you should never assume anything because maybe the person you are talking to is actually from the company that bought your company.

My plan for that, MMaster, is to offer a free account to the first 50-100 people that post on this thread.  After that accounts will be $10-20 on my server.  If someone wants to invest $100-$300 and then spend a bunch of time dumping cash to themselves so be it.  However, if someone reports them as being suspicious and I investigate them and if they are suspicious I will suspend accounts or permanently ban accounts.  Additionally, with my asset tracking model, I could see that all your income is derived from 10 accounts.  I could see that a user is getting all his income from 10 accounts when the server average is 50 accounts - that will make you an outlier and I will discover you.

The reality is, if I take the initiative to do this, I doubt I will stop at a no cheating server.  I suspect I will make and iOS and Android port as well, which is another way to stop dual account cheating or at least slow it down.  I will probably add some other features to make it easier on newbies, and a few other things to smooth out the learning curve in order to attract new players.  I think Jason has come upon a brilliant game mechanic, and when it's working I have played no better or more interesting game and it could really have mass appeal and a great future with some tuning.  These things don't seem to be a priority for Jason, which I respect.  I am grateful that he has made this game and the source code copyright free and has no restrictions with what can be done with it.  That is what makes this potential project possible for me.

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).

#15 Re: Main Forum » Server that does not tolerate cheating » 2014-04-07 09:02:21

I'll join. I'm interested in how you plan to prevent dual account abuse. If it works, then it could be great to do something similar on the main server.

#16 Re: Main Forum » Dual Accounts AND The Forum » 2014-04-07 04:57:23

cullman wrote:

What AMWhy is saying makes perfect sense.  The only reason you guys are ridiculing him is because you guys like to cheat and are trying to justify your position. It's very simple.  The main way people cheat is with dual accounts.  Are all dual accounters cheaters?  No.  Are there ways to cheat without a dual account? Yes.  Is the majority of the cheating problem with this game people using dual accounts to cheat?  Yes.  When he is talking about "cheating with dual accounts" this is what he means, and I understood it this way.  The weakness of your guy's argument is proven by the fact that you have devolved into dissecting his words, and mixing them up, where anyone with a basic understanding of English or this game would have to understand what he was saying.  You guys can say it's not cheating all you want.  I think I have demonstrated that Jason did not intend for dual accounts to be used in this way, yet you guys claim it is not cheating because it's how you like to play.  As he has discussed ways to stop and has implemented some measures, just they aren't entirely effective. Just agree that you want to cheat, it's how you like to play and I think this argument would be over.

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.

#17 Re: Main Forum » Dual Accounts AND The Forum » 2014-04-06 10:45:07

AMWhy wrote:

@colorfusion you were added to the list due to pro dual account comments on a different thread.

@colourfusion @super_maicon there's no doubt about the player who robbed me way back being a player with two accounts.  That is not up for debate and it's not the issue at all.  For a random player to rob me, they'd need to be 1 in 1024 lucky.  The player who robbed me brought the exact tools needed by the previous player who failed and died in my house near the vault.  The odds of solving the puzzle by chance is 1 in 1024. The odds of bringing the exact tools, no more and no less, to bypass/ get around the puzzles, and choosing the correct route, not to mention passing multiple commit gates with a 35k account are astronomical.

I'd like a link to those comments. I'm pretty sure I've never said I like, support, endorse, condone, encourage, or advocate dual-account usage. I do think that it is a problem, just not a huge one.

You're ruling things out as "not up for debate" that your point very clearly relies upon, and which you're using as an anecdote to try to prove that a real problem exists. I could just as easily say "nobody has more than one account, and that's not up for debate" to support my point, but if I have no proof then that means nothing.

If it's a 1 in 1024 chance to solve the house properly, then bringing tools does not decrease your chance of solving it. If the player picked the "correct route" then they wouldn't need to use 2 water and 2 wire cutters, so clearly they didn't pick the right route. By the sound of it they used the tools to bypass two guessing traps, which could bring the chance right down to 1/256 or even lower. The chance of partially picking the right route, and then having the right tools to reach the vault, isn't too unrealistic if you've had a lot of people robbing you.

Passing multiple commit gates doesn't reduce the chance of a robbery being successful, it just reduces the amount of people that will try to rob you.

Narrowing it down to a certain person doing something will make the chances "astronomical". The chance of somebody robbing you may be 1/10, but the chance of specifically "Gary Garland Gardener" robbing you at 11:15PM on Saturday the 5th of April 2014 will be miniscule. That doesn't mean that Gary's cheating though because he overcame such tiny chances.

Even if it was a dual account, your house doesn't sound very safe if somebody with no tools got within 4 weak tiles of the vault. The potential dual-accounter didn't get too much of an advantage, and there's a good chance that your house wouldn't have survived too longer any way, but it was just enough to be able to push for the vault.

AMWhy wrote:

What is the issue is dual account count abuse and forum members condoning that abuse.
While true, having two accounts alone is not cheating, the option is there and most, if not all, two account players do/have cheated.

You asked for a solution to the problem.  I gave three.  The third, ban all multiple account holders, is starting to sound more appealing all the time!  The minimum that we should do is stop the pro-dual account talk.  If you have two accounts, keep it quiet and use them sensibly.  Perhaps then, other players will join and enjoy the game.

Banning all multiple account holders would be horrible, and near impossible to detect. How do you go about detecting somebody who uses a different email and switches their IP? If Jason goes around banning people just from suspicion then there'd be a massive outcry from legitimate users who get banned, who don't have an alt account to fall back on like dual-account users would.

Again, I haven't supported dual account use, I just don't think it happens as often as people think, and I don't think it gives a game breaking advantage as most people think. I do think it gives an advantage, and I do think it should be stopped if possible.

I legitimately hope that someone comes up with a great solution to help solve the problem, but I just don't think things like banning everyone who you suspect of using dual accounts is going to work well.

#18 Re: Main Forum » Dual Accounts AND The Forum » 2014-04-06 09:27:28

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.

AMWhy wrote:

@MMaster, you are really not getting this.  My house COULDN'T be robbed within the time by any player short of spending a fortune on tools or being 1 in 1024 lucky. The difference to me is that instead of being safe knowing my house would survive the night, it was robbed in a way I couldn't imagine by a cheater.  The difference to me is time and money.  But that's not even the most of it!

The biggest problem with dual account cheaters is that they are killing the playerbase and hence killing the game.

Users who condone dual account cheating are also helping to kill the game.  It's sad as apart from this one major issue, the game and the community here are great.

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.

#19 Re: Main Forum » Feature request: Automap » 2014-03-29 10:07:45

I kind of like the idea, but I think I prefer manual mapping. It leaves room for carelessness and thus houses that rely on that, as Blip said. If it was all automatically mapped out for you then there'd be no "Did I just leave that on?" or "Wait, did I already see the dog behind here?" moments. Applies especially to self tests.

If we eliminate any chance for human error then the game wouldn't work at all, even if it was "more accessible for new users".

#20 Re: Main Forum » This game is Broked. » 2014-03-24 11:39:03

CircleOfSorrow wrote:

In fact I'm calling you out as a way does somebody that needs my 5 steps broken down further for them to understand the exploit properly have the intelligence to post a coherent message online.

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.

#21 Re: Main Forum » This game is Broked. » 2014-03-24 11:25:17

CircleOfSorrow wrote:

Guy, are you trolling? It is as if I am arguing that the sky is blue or that the earth is round and you are straight-faced denying's moronic. I'm not being rude. Just honest if blunt.  Are you a child?

No, I agree that it is a problem and would prefer it to be somehow not a problem, but I just think that it's not as game breaking as you think.

Finding a house that you can get through with no tools and no risk yet can temporarily hold over $1200 doesn't really sound easy. It seems to me that the effort gone into finding such a house would be better spent in robbing legitimately or refining your traps. I'm willing to be proven wrong though if you can show many such houses.

#22 Re: Main Forum » John Lewis Noonan -- Hacker, Bot, Top House, Game Killer? ? ? ? » 2014-03-24 11:16:21

Phillip Fritz wrote:

Color -- He is not an active player, because, and I said this already, Why oh why would the $100,000.00 house spend time refreshing the WHOLE player base and not only look at $0 houses, but decide to enter them.. then decide to rob the worthless vault?

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.

Phillip Fritz wrote:

Color -- Would you say it is a bit much?  I took the time to state why I thought he was killing the game -- most new players and certainly new new players really get a huge boost from robbing a vanilla $2k house and in many cases keeps them playing the game if they can get a decent house up($4k is MUCH more then $2k).   When I started playing, I lived off those things.. especially once i had a house worth over 5k, I didn't want to blind rob someone and die!! haha

come on brotha, you need to remember when you started playing this game before you became superpro, ya know?   Some ppl have been around a while so it does get a bit harder to sympathize with the fresh bloods.  But we gotta think about the good of the game.. any new player who might have been interested.. would quickly quit if they can't get into any $2k houses. 

Don't you agree?  or do you think that fresh new players should be able to run into a $3k house and rob it and have a good time w/out practice(which you really get by building your own house after dying to other ppls traps and getting ideas for your home).

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.

#23 Re: Main Forum » John Lewis Noonan -- Hacker, Bot, Top House, Game Killer? ? ? ? » 2014-03-24 10:54:01

Does sound a bit strange, and it is likely possible to have a bot that steals fresh $2k's if it can see that the map is the starter map. He could just be an active player, and robbing low down houses to raise his bounty.

I think saying that he's single handedly killing the game is a bit much though.

#24 Re: Main Forum » This game is Broked. » 2014-03-24 10:39:25

CircleOfSorrow wrote:

You guys honestly don't get it? neutral


Steps to exploiting The Castle Doctrine;

1. Get two accounts
2. Scout lowest ranking houses for a weak house
3. Purchase 2k worth of tools with Acc 2 and die in weak house
4. Use Acc 1 to collect tools and cash from weak house
5. Repeat until desired cash/tool levels are attained

I watched two ladders and a blowtorch being used to steal 380 bucks from my safe. Tell me what I can learn from that event and all of the brute force jobs before it...


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.

#25 Re: Main Forum » This game is Broked. » 2014-03-24 09:11:45

CircleOfSorrow wrote:
PsyBlade wrote:
CircleOfSorrow wrote:

this guy will never get another dollar from me.

What exactly would you have him do differently? And how?

Disclose that the game is pay-to-win and that unlimited credits are available to those with two accounts, but not to those with one. If I had of read this statement, I would never have purchased this game.

If I read that the exploit is fixed, I might come back for a second look.

Jason is doing pretty much everything he can to stop dual account exploits. If you have any ideas for how he could further limit it without hindering normal play, then you should suggest them.

The only big "exploit" left that I'm aware of is the fact that you can be more careless on a second account and use information from it to advantage your first account. This applies to pretty much everything you can own; get two vases and you can drop one vase and still have a vase to display, and learn not to do that with the second vase. That doesn't really make the vase pay-to-win.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB 1.5.8