Corn Noodles said: I think exploits should be fully published to shame the developers into fixing them.
TheDragonHermit said: Please calm down, exploits will always exist in a game that has this many moving parts. And wherever there are exploits there will be people who use them to get ahead and people who don't out of principal. It isn't like there is just one way to play a game, and none of them can really be considered right or wrong.
Emanon2000 said: From what I recall... They changed to this matching version because people were playing their nodes and then leaving troll decks for others to face that weren't objective based. This was a whole different issue/exploit that was experienced. They changed the system so that people would face the last deck(s) played and not ones simply left to mess everyone up...
shteev said: TheDragonHermit said: Please calm down, exploits will always exist in a game that has this many moving parts. And wherever there are exploits there will be people who use them to get ahead and people who don't out of principal. It isn't like there is just one way to play a game, and none of them can really be considered right or wrong. Well, sometimes that's true, and sometimes it isn't.We've talked about the new brackets opening up, for example. Some people don't consider it an exploit to wait for the second bracket, some people don't consider it an exploit to wait for the final bracket (me, I was not pleased when [redacted] won Rishkar's Expertise by doing this!). Even if we did consider this a serious exploit, how would we fix it? Shift people around in brackets that they have already joined? Guess how many brackets are going to open up from the start of the event and divide players evenly between them? I can't think of a watertight solution off the top of my head, and I reckon that even if I was to sit down and think hard about a 'solution' to this 'problem', it would proably contain the type of flaw that I myself so enjoy ribaldly jibing the dev team about on this very forum.The PW level exploit is a more cut and dry case. It seems to me like the intention of the code as it stands is to pit level 1 PWs against level 1 PWs and lvl 60s against lvl 60s. Selecting an opponent based on the level of the curent PW selected, rather than the last one, is a very easy fix. Anyone see any unforseen problems with that? I mean, you could select an opponent, and then level up your planeswalker for an easier game... but.. you can already do that now.
Ohboy said: We've been through here before. You can't have forgotten. No promoting exploits in the forums.
Although I am rather enjoying a classic Shteev vs. Ohboy fightclub moment, this issue is as resolved as it could possibly be at this point. Brigby commented on a poll that I put up during the Elspeth event:
@Brigby said: "Hi everyone. I just wanted to let you all know that this matchmaking issue was something the Hibernum was working on fixing, so I will be sure to inform the new team of the progress they had made prior"
And also: "Hibernum actually anticipated finishing and implementing the fix last week, however as you can imagine, there were some unfortunate occurrences that prevented its development from concluding. "
https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/67092/elspeth-event-leveling-issues/p1
Considering the moderators didn't remove the steps to remove the "exploit", we can assume that its not against forum rules to discuss.
As an aside, I don't consider it an exploit to wait on a second or third bracket. I do think its a silly methodology and I think that Ohboy's suggestion to randomly assign all platinum players is perhaps a more fair way to run the system. However, it's not true that we are able to constantly or reliably join a second bracket just because we have a "plus sized" coalition and a big network. How would we decide who are the platinum level lab monkeys who have to jump in to check things out? Sometimes someone randomly joins and announces a new bracket, but I don't know anyone who just waits around until they hear something. Although I agree with Shteev that it's annoying to know people get the best card in the game by scoring 50 points in an hour while most of us duked it out for 3 days, They made a calculated gamble that paid off for them. It could have gone very poorly instead.
babar3355 said: Although I am rather enjoying a classic Shteev vs. Ohboy fightclub moment, this issue is as resolved as it could possibly be at this point. Brigby commented on a poll that I put up during the Elspeth event:@Brigby said: "Hi everyone. I just wanted to let you all know that this matchmaking issue was something the Hibernum was working on fixing, so I will be sure to inform the new team of the progress they had made prior"And also: "Hibernum actually anticipated finishing and implementing the fix last week, however as you can imagine, there were some unfortunate occurrences that prevented its development from concluding. "https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/67092/elspeth-event-leveling-issues/p1 Considering the moderators didn't remove the steps to remove the "exploit", we can assume that its not against forum rules to discuss.As an aside, I don't consider it an exploit to wait on a second or third bracket. I do think its a silly methodology and I think that Ohboy's suggestion to randomly assign all platinum players is perhaps a more fair way to run the system. However, it's not true that we are able to constantly or reliably join a second bracket just because we have a "plus sized" coalition and a big network. How would we decide who are the platinum level lab monkeys who have to jump in to check things out? Sometimes someone randomly joins and announces a new bracket, but I don't know anyone who just waits around until they hear something. Although I agree with Shteev that it's annoying to know people get the best card in the game by scoring 50 points in an hour while most of us duked it out for 3 days, They made a calculated gamble that paid off for them. It could have gone very poorly instead.
Ohboy said: Besides, if you'd put some thought into it you would have realised that unlike you, I do not have a "plus sized" coalition-alliance/whateveryoucallit collating data to see when a bracket flips.
Ohboy said: And you're doing that thing where you pretend to have complete memory loss. I don't cite what I trust you remember. Heres the last time you did this. It really wasn't even that long ago. Brigby warned you off twice. https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/652852#Comment_652852And here, I can't tell if you self censored because you clearly knew, or brigby censored it for you. But clearly you were informed that this stuff shouldn't be here. https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/652588#Comment_652588
Ohboy said: I dig up your history only because you insist I do. This tinykitty is childish and distasteful to me and I wish you'll stop asking me to do that to you.
babar3355 said: They made a calculated gamble that paid off for them. It could have gone very poorly instead.
They made a calculated gamble that paid off for them. It could have gone very poorly instead.
Sarahschmara said: I'll never understand why making friends in game and sharing information to set everyone up for success is considered a bad thing @Ohboy
James13 said: Sarahschmara said: I'll never understand why making friends in game and sharing information to set everyone up for success is considered a bad thing @Ohboy Now this is a little ridiculous. He responded to an accusation of intentionally monitoring brackets and entering on refresh and now it's being willfully spun/interpreted as something ludicrous. Distasteful.