New pumping issues

colorfusion · 2013-07-28 14:30:30

One thing that might be a problem is that to defeat combo/magic houses that pretty much require brute forcing, you'd need to beat them twice in a row to stop them earning money.

jere · 2013-07-28 15:12:28

Biggest problem with the game if you ask me? Not enough houses. I'd actually like to see houses stay on the list indefinitely and continue earning money, limiting each robber to one successful robbery per house update, and resetting houses every time. That way when you submit content to the player base, you're not just letting 1 or 2 people solve it, but potentially everyone playing the game could solve it (given enough time).

If magic dances are the problem, I say deal with that directly. Jason has said that he didn't really want to get rid of magic dances though and that the infinite backpack allowed for incremental discovery of a magic dance house.

Hmm.. I may be on the losing side of this one. I'll quit yakking about it now.

colorfusion · 2013-07-28 15:40:27

Jason doesn't really seem to want a puzzle game where you submit puzzles for others to solve, he wants a game about defence and exploitation. I think having some houses that take a few tools to beat is a good part of that, and being able to deal damage that others will see is an interesting mechanic IMO.

Your idea would solve the purposefully one time robbable houses, but maybe at the expense of other elements of the game.

bey bey · 2013-07-28 15:44:05

I also agree that the possibility of broken houses is core to the inherent design concepts of the game. It makes for very boring houses but that's not really that big a problem I'd say.

Also, from the list I take it that my name should be Castro. Sweet.

dalleck · 2013-07-29 00:45:54

I agree with the delay to display a new house, and 10 minutes seems like a fair starting point.

I think as the player base grows the problem of pumping will become more and more contentious. Imagine a dozen people doing it all at once, sure they will be stealing each others cash, but someone will end up with a snowball of dollars. It could potentially make the game very unstable for all players and ruin the server.

Placing this simple delay could alleviate the whole issue, while also giving beginner houses a brief period of grace.

Ludicrosity · 2013-07-29 19:51:50

Agreed.

jasonrohrer · 2013-08-12 10:51:35

This issue of hypothetical two-account pumping has been suggested many times over the years.

In fact, the anonymity in the game (not even knowing your own name) was designed as a way of partially thwarting it, so I've been worried about this issue for a long time.

I believe that this will become harder and harder to do as the player base increases (scrolling down a long account list, looking for the other "fake" house that you set up, before someone else gets to it).

My approach has been this: there is no way to prevent such behavior entirely (Turing). As long as we rule out quick, painless methods of doing this, we've pretty much solved the problem. Yes, a few will slip through, but it won't become the thing that everyone is doing, so it won't swamp the rest of the game.

If you're talking about someone actually *building* a fake house that only they know how to solve.... well... that will consume most of the money, and is also really slow. If they really want to do that, well.... I'm not too worried about it.

Anyway, what I'm still looking for is proof that this has actually happened in the wild. The last time this came up, I investigated and found that no dual-accounts were involved! There was a different explanation.

So...

Next time you see this happen on one of your tapes, EMAIL me immediately with the name of the robber. That way, I can check it out in the server logs and figure out what actually happened. I'll be able to figure out how that robber got enough money for 30 ladders or whatever. jasonrohrer@fastmail.fm

dalleck · 2013-08-13 02:33:13

I think the argument here is not necessarily that dual accounts are the problem, just the possibility of the actual exploit of one player handing $2000 chunks out in succession.

The fact this exploit exists at all means that soon enough, it will be exploited and spoil lots of hard work. It has already occurred quite a few times where many large houses were brute forced this way, myself being one of the perpetrators (thanks Ludi!).

jasonrohrer · 2013-08-13 08:20:36

Oh, so you did this yourself.... but not with a second account?

Did you have Ludi actively cooperate with you?

dalleck · 2013-08-13 09:11:04

jasonrohrer wrote:

Oh, so you did this yourself.... but not with a second account?
Did you have Ludi actively cooperate with you?

It was a few versions ago.. Ludicrosity was down on his luck and decided to just pop out $2000 houses. I happened to be online at the time with a safe-ish house, so I continued to nab the cash, driving up to about $30k or so pretty quickly. Which was when he wrote stuff like 'Rob Taber' or whatever it was. I ended up blasting through some top level houses and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I can't quite find the forum post right now.

ukuko · 2013-08-13 09:49:23

'Rob Black', if I remember correctly!

That incident ended up being rather amusing, but it highlighted the fact that two (or more) players can easily cooperate to quickly take out a top house. I imagine that a larger, more active player base would only make this more apparent.

As suggested elsewhere, a short delay (1-5 minutes) on the listing of a fresh house would go some way to mitigating cooperative pumping.

In this context a fresh house could be defined as any house submitted within 5 minutes of the player starting a new life.

jasonrohrer · 2013-08-13 09:59:15

Hmm... but then cooperating players would just wait 5 minutes (or whatever) before transferring the money. Yes, the longer you make it, the more it slows them down. But also, the more in shrinks the house pool!

jere · 2013-08-13 10:01:03

Anyway, what I'm still looking for is proof that this has actually happened in the wild. The last time this came up, I investigated and found that no dual-accounts were involved! There was a different explanation.

I'm not sure which event you're referring to, but did you ever figure out what happened here: http://thecastledoctrine.net/forums/vie … 3206#p3206

Call it lack of imagination, but I'm not seeing how it would have happened without an exploit (the only way would be 5+ huge hits from scratch in the course of at most a few hours).

jasonrohrer · 2013-08-13 11:00:42

Right... my investigation centered around the fact that the final, successful robbery was by a different, unrelated account. Sadly, the tapes have been flushed at this point, so I can't go back and look to see how "Aaron Jesse Waters" got 61 ladders---I recall looking at that at the time, but I don't recall what the explanation was. Next time it comes up, please email me right away, and I'll investigate more deeply.

ukuko · 2013-08-13 12:54:14

jasonrohrer wrote:

Hmm... but then cooperating players would just wait 5 minutes (or whatever) before transferring the money. Yes, the longer you make it, the more it slows them down. But also, the more in shrinks the house pool!

I think 5 minutes is long enough to make the process uneconomical (30 minutes for 20 ladders..zzz), while getting the house into play fairly quickly. In fact, if the 5 minutes was based on the time elapsed since the 'Fresh start' button was clicked it would only remove houses from play that had sub 5 minute build times — likely empty houses anyway.

Of course, everyone likes a free $2k so maybe it would be an unpopular solution anyhow.

Ludicrosity · 2013-08-13 18:17:26

I haven't seen anything fishy in a while now, but I do think that the 5 minute wait time for new houses before they appear on the list is a good idea.

jasonrohrer · 2013-08-14 09:19:07

Yeah! Especially if the timer started when you started editing the new house. So, it really only affects people who "build nothing." Also nicely deals with the throw-away houses created by people who respawn and rob right away.

Great thinking. I'll add this behavior soon.

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#26 2013-07-28 14:30:30

Re: New pumping issues

#27 2013-07-28 15:12:28

Re: New pumping issues

#28 2013-07-28 15:40:27

Re: New pumping issues

#29 2013-07-28 15:44:05

Re: New pumping issues

#30 2013-07-29 00:45:54

Re: New pumping issues

#31 2013-07-29 19:51:50

Re: New pumping issues

#32 2013-08-12 10:51:35

Re: New pumping issues

#33 2013-08-13 02:33:13

Re: New pumping issues

#34 2013-08-13 08:20:36

Re: New pumping issues

#35 2013-08-13 09:11:04

Re: New pumping issues

#36 2013-08-13 09:49:23

Re: New pumping issues

#37 2013-08-13 09:59:15

Re: New pumping issues

#38 2013-08-13 10:01:03

Re: New pumping issues

#39 2013-08-13 11:00:42

Re: New pumping issues

#40 2013-08-13 12:54:14

Re: New pumping issues

#41 2013-08-13 18:17:26

Re: New pumping issues

#42 2013-08-14 09:19:07

Re: New pumping issues

Board footer