Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

joshwithguitar · 2014-02-04 20:45:32

Well, currently don't have a name as I just died (I really need to watch out for dogs whilst cutting through wooden walls...). I will soon make a name for myself though...

DethBringa · 2014-02-04 20:58:27

Just did a quick calc... I was rolled with over 135k of tools (buy value).

GoogleFrog · 2014-02-04 22:28:37

I was rolled over with $200K in tools, for only an $80K house.

A problem with fuel is that people could accidentally buy too many tools and then lack the money to transport them. Some sort of running cost estimate for transporting your entire vault would be required,

joshwithguitar · 2014-02-04 23:31:02

Well, you could always undo your buys or sell the tools again. But, yes, as you load your backpack it should always say how much fuel it will cost.

DethBringa · 2014-02-05 12:29:40

My value was about 86k - no tools in vault. I did have 3 paintings tho.

protox13 · 2014-02-05 12:38:58

DethBringa wrote:

My value was about 86k - no tools in vault. I did have 3 paintings tho.

Man, that sucks. I feel your pain: http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

jere · 2014-02-06 06:00:02

So I believe this more than ever. I've been working on making a tutorial video, in which I wanted to start from nothing and climb to the top to show it can be done. Well, I did. I think I had the top house for about a day.

I knew brute forcing was going to a problem, so I built what I thought was pretty much the hardest to brute force house I could imagine. I discouraged tool use with clocks, I had stretches of wired wooden wall that led nowhere, I had looping and winding, and I tried to make the paths as long as I could. Still, Price came in with 100 saws. I was pretty proud to have fended off most of that, but 79 saws did the trick. Let me reiterate. My house was easily brute forced with $16k of saws. I dunno, maybe I rely too much on tightly connected traps, but it seems like something is broken here.

Anyway, I was glad to accomplish what I set out to do. Kudos Price. I can't be too upset at you, because I was planning to do the same thing when I had some more time.

Btw, I'm kind of wondering if Price was largestherb. I think I got hit with a dual account (40 saws) right before the main.

Last edited by jere (2014-02-06 06:10:03)

RevealingGekco · 2014-02-06 06:24:00

jere wrote:

So I believe this more than ever. I've been working on making a tutorial video, in which I wanted to start from nothing and climb to the top to show it can be done. Well, I did. I think I had the top house for about a day.

This would be fun to watch - when is it going up?

jere · 2014-02-06 06:29:18

I'd like to get it up this weekend or next. We'll see. Haven't edited anything in a long time.

Hippasus · 2014-02-06 06:37:49

You would have to be careful having separate fuel prices for each tool slot. All this would do is encourage monoculture houses that force the use of one particular tool in abundance. Dull houses in that vein could become prohibitively expensive to rob while house designs that encourage the robber to bring a variety of tools (in less bulk) would be punished. If a fuel system is implemented I think a system like JWG's (which surcharges based on total cost) is more sensible.

joshwithguitar · 2014-02-06 07:07:32

Jere: Price isn't herb, it's me. And no, whoever came in with 40 saws is someone different. I knew as soon as I saw it was a clock house that all I needed to do was bring a ton of saws and then follow the wired walls to the vault. So, overall it wasn't a particularly effective design. There seems to be two rules to making a house that can survive:

1. make sure your house cannot be smashed with a just a large number of saws, they are far too abundant.
2. hide your vault - the less obvious it is to find, the better. If you create a large arrow saying "vault here" then there is no way you house can survive 50k of tools.

I'd like to see you try Price's house with only 16k sale value worth of tools. We'll see how long I can stay on top...

jere · 2014-02-06 07:38:20

Ouch. Well, you're probably right. I've been tied to magic dances for a long time. And I really wanted to build a big clock house. It's not necessarily true that the clock signal would have led to the vault, but because of something particular I was doing (to make the direct route more difficult) it was true in this case.

I'd like to see you try Price's house with only 16k sale value worth of tools.

I wish I had gone for a brute force attempt, but I thought I would be safe for a day or two more. Nope. I'm sure you could withstand $16k, but I doubt $100k.

Last edited by jere (2014-02-06 07:38:34)

eppfel · 2014-02-06 08:12:50

Hey Jason and Veterans,
I want to support the fuel proposal and not because I just lost my first 'advanced' house to the first 'advanced' player visiting. It is because, how it went down. The house was worth 40k, the tools were worth 25k-used. From jeres formula it would have been 47k and therefore not worth to rob the house. It was fairly easy for him, because he was not tricked by my decoy routes and I did not rise my defenses for a while, because I wanted to actually see my traps in action. Because at least 95% of the time robbers fell for the traps, I created right at the beginning. And the intruder did not even care for any traps. He even misused a lot of tools, just because he could spare them (Wire cutters, instead of just water).
I don't vote for invincible rich houses, but brute force kills creativity and that's what this game is about. So far, I learned the most about building traps not by playing, but by reading these forums.

largestherb · 2014-02-06 09:43:20

rule one of the castle doctrine, your house WILL be destroyed. i am quite fine with that.

'oh no someone brought 1000 saws and sawed to my vault' review your house design. you can do some clever things without wired walls that lead straight to the vault.

of course, no matter what house you make, it will be crushed. eventually.

i already have a plan for pricey

Last edited by largestherb (2014-02-06 09:44:16)

jere · 2014-02-06 09:46:35

i already have a plan for pricey

Please stream that for us.

of course, no matter what house you make, it will be crushed. eventually.

Of course. I just don't think it should be so risk free and so easy.

Maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe josh carefully scouted and planned out all of his dozen or so robberies last night and I'm the only sucker. I dunno.

Last edited by jere (2014-02-06 09:51:32)

protox13 · 2014-02-06 09:51:17

jere wrote:

i already have a plan for pricey
Please stream that for us.

Yes, please!

largestherb · 2014-02-06 10:01:00

hahaha. i'll record it for sure! but who knows when it will happen~!~~!~!~!~~~~~~

protox13 · 2014-02-06 12:21:15

largestherb wrote:

rule one of the castle doctrine, your house WILL be destroyed. i am quite fine with that.
'oh no someone brought 1000 saws and sawed to my vault' review your house design. you can do some clever things without wired walls that lead straight to the vault.
of course, no matter what house you make, it will be crushed. eventually.

i already have a plan for pricey

My contribution: http://thecastledoctrine.net/forums/vie … php?id=832

Nothing personal, jwg- its just that I'm near the top and we're running out of paintings, so you would have come after me eventually.

Last edited by protox13 (2014-02-06 12:23:48)

Grim · 2014-02-06 18:33:15

I haven't been able to get enough of this game since it came out on Steam but I noticed that it seems like any robber who's rich enough can bring a house down with virtually no risks.

Here's a thought: When the game used to allow robbers only 8 tools, people would just put up 9-thick walls, right? But building space is limited, and even if your vault were placed in one of the far right corners, it would take at most 44 steps (unless I miscounted) to walk straight there from the (un)welcome mat. If there were a solid wall 44 steps in one direction between the robber and the vault, it would need to be 45 spaces thick to prevent brute force, which is 50% wider than what space the builder has.

With that in mind let's say a robber could only carry a maximum of 50 tools altogether per trip. They would need to have a pretty accurate idea of where your vault is and how many of each tool they'd need to bring in order to carve a path straight to it, but they could always reach it without knowing a code of some kind. Then there's the possibility of, say, a few well-placed pit bulls that make it impossible to escape if the robber's loadout was enough to get anywhere near the vault in the first place.

Since the damages are undone after every trip, this would put a much greater emphasis on scouting and being resourceful as a robber. You may up using bombs/ladders/crowbars in the same places multiple times, only to find out you were going the wrong way all along. A clever homeowner might bait a robber into using up all of a certain tool thinking they'll make it, only to have them not make it and end up needing that tool to get back out.

Most importantly, a robber wouldn't be able to just barge in with 100+ bombs/ladders and 50+ guns/cutters and safely take the whole house apart in one trip, no matter how much money they have.

sebastian · 2014-02-06 18:44:49

Agree. There should be a limitation of number of Tools.

Or a easy fix would be to add "Wired Concrete Wall", same as Wired Wooden Wall but needs explosives to be taken care of. Cost could be 3 times normal Concrete like cost for Wooden Wired Wall is 3 times normal Wooden Wall.

Then it would be prohibilitively expensive to bruteforce a house since you would need 100s of explosives to succeed. You would instead need to figure out a good bruteforce, for example just bruteforcing through a closed door or something like that.

Last edited by sebastian (2014-02-06 18:45:54)

joshwithguitar · 2014-02-06 19:41:47

jere wrote:

I wish I had gone for a brute force attempt, but I thought I would be safe for a day or two more. Nope. I'm sure you could withstand $16k, but I doubt $100k.

Mr George Brett Miller came into my house with around $120k buy value of tools and I survived . So it is possible to survive that kind of thing.

jere wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe josh carefully scouted and planned out all of his dozen or so robberies last night and I'm the only sucker. I dunno.

I certainly didn't just fill my backpack to the point of guaranteeing success. I had quick looks, made educated guesses and ended up robbing many places with only 10 saws, a couple of explosives and some cheap tools in my backpack. It is surprising the kind of houses that make it into the top 8.

It was kind of easy, but that is a reflection of the houses, not the game.

Preacher · 2014-02-07 08:16:33

Hey,

First off, this is my first post so I would like to say that I am really addicted to this game. I just can't stop playing, the house building part is fantastic !

So I was reading this thread and I came with a bunch of ideas. To me, there are two main reasons why bruteforcing is problematic :

1. Money is not a problem when you own a top house,
2. There is no challenge in bruteforcing, each trap can be dismissed with the proper tool.

Combine the two together and you can basically eliminate the competition, even at a loss. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact you can eliminate the second in the list with the avantage of your money (and tools) but it shouldn't be effortless. The risk should be higher. It shouldn't only be a matter of selecting the right tools and digging a way in the house, you should plan your robbery, be aware of traps. Be SCARED of traps.

The main reason you are not scared of traps is because destroying is harmless for the robber, IF he has a lot of tools (I think bruteforcing is fine for low/mid-houses, correct me if I am wrong but people seem to agree with this). So why not offer new house objects which react to destruction ? Why not punish bruteforcing with new traps ?

Let me give some examples. Keep in mind these are just examples, to show you the idea behind it :

- An alarm: could be triggered by cutting/sawing a wire. Family members start to move, pets move the same turn the player is visible to them.

- Security window : Generate a single pulse when broken. Does not need a generator to function. It only works for one turn when the robber throws his brick.

- Electrified wall : Does not conduct current to the adjacent tiles but fries the robber if he tries to destroy it (could be a bit overpowered though). It looks like a normal (steel?) wall, except it has to be connected to a generator to work. You could introduce a new tool to test the current, to help the robber recognize potential deadly walls.

- ...

These are just ideas to demonstrate how bruteforcing could be more challenging. I personnaly like the fact people have to use theirs brains to rob a house. Sawing a wired wall could cost more than just 400$ !

My two cents

Last edited by Preacher (2014-02-07 08:21:25)

colorfusion · 2014-02-07 09:53:22

Preacher wrote:

Hey,
First off, this is my first post so I would like to say that I am really addicted to this game. I just can't stop playing, the house building part is fantastic !
So I was reading this thread and I came with a bunch of ideas. To me, there are two main reasons why bruteforcing is problematic :
1. Money is not a problem when you own a top house,
2. There is no challenge in bruteforcing, each trap can be dismissed with the proper tool.
Combine the two together and you can basically eliminate the competition, even at a loss. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact you can eliminate the second in the list with the avantage of your money (and tools) but it shouldn't be effortless. The risk should be higher. It shouldn't only be a matter of selecting the right tools and digging a way in the house, you should plan your robbery, be aware of traps. Be SCARED of traps.
The main reason you are not scared of traps is because destroying is harmless for the robber, IF he has a lot of tools (I think bruteforcing is fine for low/mid-houses, correct me if I am wrong but people seem to agree with this). So why not offer new house objects which react to destruction ? Why not punish bruteforcing with new traps ?
Let me give some examples. Keep in mind these are just examples, to show you the idea behind it :
- An alarm: could be triggered by cutting/sawing a wire. Family members start to move, pets move the same turn the player is visible to them.
- Security window : Generate a single pulse when broken. Does not need a generator to function. It only works for one turn when the robber throws his brick.
- Electrified wall : Does not conduct current to the adjacent tiles but fries the robber if he tries to destroy it (could be a bit overpowered though). It looks like a normal (steel?) wall, except it has to be connected to a generator to work. You could introduce a new tool to test the current, to help the robber recognize potential deadly walls.
- ...
These are just ideas to demonstrate how bruteforcing could be more challenging. I personnaly like the fact people have to use theirs brains to rob a house. Sawing a wired wall could cost more than just 400$ !
My two cents

You have to be really careful with undestructable tiles, because they can lead to practically impossible houses. And if they are destructible, then they can be brute forced which doesn't really solve the problem.

There are ways to have things activate when things are broken, even nonconductive things if you use pets cleverly. Again though it won't stop complete brute forcing.

The current house at the top of the list (That I can see ATM, I think Price is being robbed) has 50k, which is enough for 27 ladders. If they wanted to completely throw away all of their cash then they could get over 27 pits. That might sound like quite a lot, but:

That's not enough to get across the length of the house
You don't know how much of each tool you need, a single wooden wall could stop you if you just bring ladders, so you have to bring excess of a lot of tools and spend many times more than what you need
Dogs can mean you have to use guns as well as powering through the walls
You need a lot more tools to make sure that you're taking absolutely no risk

So there's a large chance that you just spent all your cash for nothing, and there's also the fact that you're taking a risk with a rich character with a rich house.

Last edited by colorfusion (2014-02-07 09:56:18)

jere · 2014-02-08 11:55:52

Amatiel · 2014-02-08 12:12:15

Ok i should have properly read through this thread before posting my thread, but i seriously think you guys are way over complicating solutions here and are missing the point. The problem is extreme/excessive player wealth.

Only a player with more than 100-150k can continuously brute force houses like whats being described here.

So we need to cap wealth some way. A vault total value limit of 100k (or whatever figure is best) would go A long way in addressing this. If you want to hold more value, then you need to have additional vaults which can only be placed a minimum of x tiles away from your first vault.

Protecting more and more vaults which must be kept seperate makes a player more and more vulnerable as that player decides to hold more value.

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#51 2014-02-04 20:45:32

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#52 2014-02-04 20:58:27

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#53 2014-02-04 22:28:37

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#54 2014-02-04 23:31:02

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#55 2014-02-05 12:29:40

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#56 2014-02-05 12:38:58

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#57 2014-02-06 06:00:02

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#58 2014-02-06 06:24:00

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#59 2014-02-06 06:29:18

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#60 2014-02-06 06:37:49

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#61 2014-02-06 07:07:32

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#62 2014-02-06 07:38:20

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#63 2014-02-06 08:12:50

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#64 2014-02-06 09:43:20

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#65 2014-02-06 09:46:35

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#66 2014-02-06 09:51:17

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#67 2014-02-06 10:01:00

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#68 2014-02-06 12:21:15

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#69 2014-02-06 18:33:15

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#70 2014-02-06 18:44:49

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#71 2014-02-06 19:41:47

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#72 2014-02-07 08:16:33

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#73 2014-02-07 09:53:22

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#74 2014-02-08 11:55:52

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#75 2014-02-08 12:12:15

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

Board footer