Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

colorfusion · 2014-02-08 12:19:17

Amatiel wrote:

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.

Having arbitrary limits and multiple vaults with special conditions honestly seems a lot more complicated than most of what is being suggested here, which would mainly just work in the background and be automatically done.

Amatiel · 2014-02-08 12:25:47

colorfusion wrote:

Having arbitrary limits and multiple vaults with special conditions honestly seems a lot more complicated than most of what is being suggested here, which would mainly just work in the background and be automatically done.

Really? You think that having your vault only hold 100k, if you want more wealth then you need to place another one which must be 15 tiles from the first... You think this is more complicated than the fuel heat and noise mechanics discussed in this thread? I saw a whole lot of math in some of those suggestions...

jere · 2014-02-08 12:30:41

Really? You think that having your vault only hold 100k, if you want more wealth then you need to place another one which must be 15 tiles from the first... You think this is more complicated than the fuel heat and noise mechanics discussed in this thread? I saw a whole lot of math in some of those suggestions...

Yes. Adding a cap would be fairly easy, but another vault? That complicates the gameplay exponentially.

Fuel is a really simple calculation added when moving items to the backpack. Doing a calculation like that in a computer program is the easiest thing in the world, but changing the game rules significantly isn't.

I don't think anyone would really enjoy a cap, plus I still think Price could have basically did the same with (as long as each run was profitable) with as little as $100k....

colorfusion · 2014-02-08 12:33:13

Amatiel wrote:

colorfusion wrote:
Having arbitrary limits and multiple vaults with special conditions honestly seems a lot more complicated than most of what is being suggested here, which would mainly just work in the background and be automatically done.
Really? You think that having your vault only hold 100k, if you want more wealth then you need to place another one which must be 15 tiles from the first... You think this is more complicated than the fuel heat and noise mechanics discussed in this thread? I saw a whole lot of math in some of those suggestions...

With fuel, heat and noise the user doesn't need to do any of the maths at all, they barely need to be aware of it.

With dual vaults a lot of things would needed to be changed. What happens with self tests? How does money and tool redistribution work? Paintings? A lot of strange arbitrary things to learn, and you'd very rarely have the chance to learn them. The game code would need to change quite a lot.

Last edited by colorfusion (2014-02-08 12:36:33)

Amatiel · 2014-02-08 12:40:23

I view the problem as being excessive/massive wealth.

The problem i see with fuel is that its also gonna make it harder to knock over the extremely wealthy like price atm. Instead of someone managing to save just enough to knock him over with 80-100k of tools, they now need to save what? Double that? More? By which time mr price has recognized the potential threat and dealt with it.

Having multiple vaults is not meant to be attractive, or easy to deal with, or even common. It just gives a way for players to accumulate wealth like what mr price has at the moment, but it makes them more and more vulnerable as they accumulate it. Its better than a flat out cap, which would restrict player freedom too much imo.

Convince me that the core issue here isnt extreme wealth, and i might buy into your suggestion more.

I concede that testing will certainly be an issue. Perhaps multiple vaults would mess with the game code too much and is unworkable but i still dont agree with the fuel concept as that hammer swings both ways.

Last edited by Amatiel (2014-02-08 12:44:28)

colorfusion · 2014-02-08 12:53:44

Amatiel wrote:

I view the problem as being excessive/massive wealth.
The problem i see with fuel is that its also gonna make it harder to knock over the extremely wealthy like price atm. Instead of someone managing to save just enough to knock him over with 80-100k of tools, they now need to save what? Double that? More? By which time mr price has recognized the potential threat and dealt with it.
Having multiple vaults is not meant to be attractive, or easy to deal with, or even common. It just gives a way for players to accumulate wealth like what mr price has at the moment, but it makes them more and more vulnerable as they accumulate it. Its better than a flat out cap, which would restrict player freedom too much imo.
Convince me that the core issue here isnt extreme wealth, and i might buy into your suggestion more.
I concede that testing will certainly be an issue. Perhaps multiple vaults would mess with the game code too much and is unworkable but i still dont agree with the fuel concept as that hammer swings both ways.

I personally partially agree with your first point, that fuel would probably also negatively affect people trying to get through otherwise unbeatable combo locks.

Mr Price's house isn't an unbeatable combo lock though. You can push through part of it, then scout around and work out how to get through it normally without tools the next time. Currently though this costs the same, if not more, than just brute forcing through the whole thing at once. I think the point of fuel is to discourage just "knock[ing] him over" with huge amounts of tools, and more encourage scouting.

I feel there are probably more ideal solutions that fuel, but adding two vaults and strange changes to gameplay aren't the right way to go.

jere · 2014-02-08 12:58:43

I'm not convinced that Jason even thinks any of this is a problem yet, so I'm not too attached to anything... this conversation is pretty much academic at this point.

instead of someone managing to save just enough to knock him over with 80-100k of tools, they now need to save what? Double that? More? By which time mr price has recognized the potential threat and dealt with it.

It would make it no more harder to scout Price out and pull off a smart robbery against him, but it would make it exponentially harder for Price to thoughtlessly bulldoze everyone. Which is not to say jgw is never being thoughtful here... I imagine in some cases he's putting forth effort and in others bulldozing. He's clearly one of the best players and he's playing smart.

But again, as I've said, one of the main reasons he has the wealth in the first place is how easy it is for him to brute force people and keep a profit every time he does it.

And also, the cap wouldn't prevent the brute forcing. With a cap: If you have $100k and he has $100k, he just brings $100k worth of tools, knocks you out, and has the same amount of money for next time. If you have $50k and he has $100k, he just brings $50k worth of tools.

Amatiel · 2014-02-08 13:19:55

What if tool cost works kinda like the tax system... If your worth is between 0-20k then u pay no tool tax lol, if your worth is 20-40k then u pay 20% tool tax, next tax bracket is 40-60k who pay 30% and so on.

Im just brainstorming, partly hoping to inspire a brilliant idea from you guys, even if its decided that no change is best, id rather it be the result of a thorough discussion within the community than leave all the burden to poor old jason.

Vocko1993 · 2014-02-11 16:03:02

jere wrote:

I know the rich should never be invincible. I'm totally cool with that. But I feel that brute forcing is currently way too powerful. The practical limit of tools you need to brute force even the best house is easily below $200k. And if your house approaches those kinds of values, it's a no risk, no brainer to take you out.
jwg thinks it's too easy to get to the very top. I think part of that is how easy it is to take out the mid/top players with brute forcing. The entire first page of houses has been wiped out by a single player almost every day recently. That's evidence enough for me.
Here's a thought on how to handle that: what if you pay a surcharge (i.e. fuel) for stacking multiple tools. It could be something really minor like 5% per extra tool. This would not hamper new players, but it would protect all players somewhat from ridiculous brute forcing.
So here would be the total cost to buy and carry:
Current:
1 saw - $400
2 saws - $800
10 saws - $4,000
20 saws - $8,000
30 saws - $12,000
40 saws - $16,000
Proposed:
1 saw - $400
2 saws - $840
10 saws - $6,205
20 saws - $20,215
30 saws - $49,393
40 saws - $107,276
It changes the equation. $16k is a drop in the bucket for a rich player aiming to get a payout. But $100k+ will make you think twice.

This is the dummbest idea ever...

Why ?

You dont thing about newstarting houses that have only 2000$ ...

If you have 2k ...what can you do with that??? , sure you can make a nice house that will be broken in 2-3 hrs...and where is the fun with that?
I tried over 20 houses managed to rob 2-3 from that... just becouse i had my 2k starting tools... IF this kind of pricing would be in only the rich f***s would play the game...

jere · 2014-02-11 16:27:29

Thanks for the constructive feedback. \s

We all start at the bottom. I know what it's like. This makes it harder for the rich to do what they do, doesn't really change what low level players can do..... but of course everyone ignores that part.

This is kind of like when someone brings up taxing the rich (in real life) and the middle class screams that we have enough taxes already.

arakira · 2014-02-11 17:13:17

Vocko1993 wrote:

This is the dummbest idea ever...

This is the dumbest post ever...
Read carefully the proposition, it doesn't affect starting players.
About the rich vs. poor ideas... Don't be upset because you are poor, there are millions of different houses you can build, and many of them will stand more than 3h if you take the time to learn the game and make progress. Each time you buy a new videogame, do you expect to master it after a few hours of play? That would spoil the fun

redxaxder · 2014-02-11 18:44:51

What if the robber could bring fewer stacks of tools? Say.. 6.

Then trap diversity would become much more punishing to wealthy robbers, but houses that pile tons of resources onto the same mechanic would be just as vulnerable as before.

Vocko1993 · 2014-02-12 10:50:06

redxaxder wrote:

What if the robber could bring fewer stacks of tools? Say.. 6.
Then trap diversity would become much more punishing to wealthy robbers, but houses that pile tons of resources onto the same mechanic would be just as vulnerable as before.

True I agree with you . There should be less stacks....like you said 6-7 then the rich guys would be abble to rob any1 they like

monkey · 2014-02-12 13:55:27

Posted this in another thread already, but it seems to me the simplest fix is getting rid of the infinitely stackable items.

Imagine: you kept the 8 stacks, but each stack size limit was 5. If you want 6 saws, that's two stacks. If you want 40 saws sure, but that's all you can take.

Infinite tools were brought in to solve the 9 thick wall problem, right? But you only need infinite tools if the levels are infinite, which they aren't. Level size is 30x30. Thickest feasible wall is a bit less than that, say 26 tops. So you could in theory build a wall that will take 6 stacks to brute force, leaving only 2 slots for other tools.

If stack limit were 5, then building walls 6 thick would still be a tactic, but rather than make levels impossible they would just reduce inventory choices for brute forcers.

Maybe a combination of stack size limit and slightly reduced number of stacks (from 8 to 7) would be worth looking at?

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#76 2014-02-08 12:19:17

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#77 2014-02-08 12:25:47

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#78 2014-02-08 12:30:41

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#79 2014-02-08 12:33:13

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#80 2014-02-08 12:40:23

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#81 2014-02-08 12:53:44

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#82 2014-02-08 12:58:43

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#83 2014-02-08 13:19:55

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#84 2014-02-11 16:03:02

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#85 2014-02-11 16:27:29

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#86 2014-02-11 17:13:17

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#87 2014-02-11 18:44:51

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#88 2014-02-12 10:50:06

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

#89 2014-02-12 13:55:27

Re: Bruteforcing too easy, a proposal

Board footer