PigInZen

I can guarantee that my image was not generated by AI. Procreate on an iPad Pro.

This one digs deep into Guardian/Mensa HQ history. Two variations, let's see if anyone but a fricking weeb gets the diff.

If you're going to ask for money for your product... Look, I don' t want to pile on. I actually would like to see this game improved so exploits like this cannot happen. But that probably requires a level of professional development that you don't seem to be willing to commit to. It's a simple question, one I fear that you've already answered, Alex. Do you want the challenge of this or is this still just a hobby (albeit a profitable hobby)?

Hi ArcKnox. I've missed you. Also, the original Dio Brando had much to say about game admins. Much that was correct.

I don't disagree with this one bit but it's important for a paid service to hire professionals.

Jesus, there is so much to unpack with this incident. I see that many are focused on the perpetrator(s) and their participation in activities that are so blatantly in violation of the terms of use of this game. Rightly so, I might add. But this does raise, at least for me, what I consider to be bigger questions regarding this game and the operation thereof. For background, I have 25 years of experience in IT, mostly in endpoint management but I do know systems and have participated in large projects for multiple Fortune 500 companies. Some serious issues have been highlighted because of this incident from a systems operation and control perspective. I do not have insight into how Alex is running his operation so there I am probably making multiple false assumptions. The point is that the questions are being raised, not that I am providing answers to them. To start: 1. It appears there is a systems-wide lack of verification and process control with regards to player actions. Apparently a player was able to spawn massive amounts of resources without admin notification. This implies that there are no processes in place with regards to potential abuse vectors. I'm talking about a scheduled process/script that monitors resources and production by comparing current production to long-term trends and against outlying potentials (i.e. 1st and 2nd std dev potentials). Since there are theoretical limits to the amount of change that *could* occur to production in game (i.e., maximum production capability per nation and game-wide) this is simply a programming problem, and does not have any problem in implementation. It's totally doable and the apparent fact that it hasn't been done is concerning. 2. It also appears that there is documented proof of a similar exploit in use in a prior self-reported example by the original perpetrator. This points to a lack of control over session interaction with clients and the game system itself. I can only assume from face value and the example of nuking an opponent twice by simultaneously employing two separate and discreet clients that there is no system in place for identifying unique sessions and therefore multiple clients could indeed interact with the game within a relatively short period of time and conduct the same operation without failure. This points to a lack of database interaction control. Again, this is simply a systems design and programming problem, not an implementation problem unless the game system itself is really limiting the implementation. 3. The kicker for me is that this is a for-profit operation. There is an expectation by a paying customer that the game will operate within a set of expected behavior - that is, that you will gain an advantage by purchasing something within the game that someone will not be able to gain for free. Obviously this exploit calls this expectation into question and raises the most important problem of all: that the fundamental balance of the game is easily exploitable because of poor design and implementation. While I have purchased credits in the past I will no longer do so due to the serious administrative impact this exploit has highlighted. In short, this game needs to be run better. Things like this are avoidable. If asked for my advice it would be to hire professional staff to constantly evaluate the backend operation and question where potential exploits might be found, build reporting and verification systems to highlight exploits that were never considered, and to be more responsive to reports of exploits. LOL, I'm shaking my head that the original report was not acted upon from a systems perspective. To continue to allow customers to purchase credits while not addressing that issue is unethical and highly problematic. TL;DR, old man rants about things he cannot easily change. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I don't see the "rarely used letters" war.

While you're all still figuring out how to proselytize your false god we followers of Dio will go on kicking ass in his name.

I like the cut of this new guy's jib

So how many more of your pixels do we need to kill before you stop? Won't you think of the PIXELS?!?!

threads like this remind me why I avoid this !@#$ing place

Seems to me that these proposed changes haven't been thoroughly thought out and this is simply a patch to something that will obviously be broken. Alex, I seriously hope you have a whiteboard with post it notes with which you've been looking at the logic structure of your rule changes!

You know, we're not asking for perfection but when people spend money on a game they do expect the administration of said game to be cautious and not be reactionary. Fair warning, taking action like this is only going to alienate some of your most active players.

What if I told you Mensa was fairly liberal in RL? BRING IT

But if the data is from self-reporting then it's most definitely overestimated.