Pokémon Go Is Shadow Banning Cheaters(wired.com)
wired.com
Pokémon Go Is Shadow Banning Cheaters
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/pokemon-go-cheaters-shadowban/?mbid=synd_digg
101 comments
> Back then, people were already talking about augmented reality, but nobody knew when this technology would be accessible.
I still don't get why people talk about Pokémon Go and AR. As if one had anything to do with the other.
Pokémon Go has zero actual AR; it's just overlaying a 3D animation on top of a camera feed, with no relation to reality other than readings from a shitty smartphone gyroscope. When playing, I would actually disable that feature anyway, because it made catching Pokémon harder (performance issues + no "AR" means no gyroscope input, which makes the game no longer care about you maintaining constant orientation).
The AR we've been promised for decades now was about overlaying computer data that's related to what you're looking at in the real world. At this point, even those "point camera at the printed tag, see a 3D model on your phone" have more AR in them than Pokémon Go.
I still don't get why people talk about Pokémon Go and AR. As if one had anything to do with the other.
Pokémon Go has zero actual AR; it's just overlaying a 3D animation on top of a camera feed, with no relation to reality other than readings from a shitty smartphone gyroscope. When playing, I would actually disable that feature anyway, because it made catching Pokémon harder (performance issues + no "AR" means no gyroscope input, which makes the game no longer care about you maintaining constant orientation).
The AR we've been promised for decades now was about overlaying computer data that's related to what you're looking at in the real world. At this point, even those "point camera at the printed tag, see a 3D model on your phone" have more AR in them than Pokémon Go.
The "real" AR might be the shared experience of location-based spawning of Pokemon, Pokecenters, arenas, etc. especially based on real landmarks.
This thread reminded me of:
"Recently I went with my nephew to hunt Pokémon. We were walking down the street and a bunch of kids approached us. They were also hunting Pokemon. My nephew and these children got into a bit of a fight because they were trying to capture the same invisible creatures. It seemed strange to me. But these Pokémon were very real to the children.
And then it hit me: This is just like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! You have two sides fighting over something that I cannot see. I look at the stones of buildings in Jerusalem and I just see stones. But Christians, Jews, and Muslims who look at the same stones see a holy city. It’s their imagination, but they are willing to kill for it. That’s virtual reality, too."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/the-pos...
"Recently I went with my nephew to hunt Pokémon. We were walking down the street and a bunch of kids approached us. They were also hunting Pokemon. My nephew and these children got into a bit of a fight because they were trying to capture the same invisible creatures. It seemed strange to me. But these Pokémon were very real to the children.
And then it hit me: This is just like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! You have two sides fighting over something that I cannot see. I look at the stones of buildings in Jerusalem and I just see stones. But Christians, Jews, and Muslims who look at the same stones see a holy city. It’s their imagination, but they are willing to kill for it. That’s virtual reality, too."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/the-pos...
Doubly interesting given that, unless they were fighting for the ownership of a gym, there were no "same" invisible creatures - each player has their own Pokémon spawning, and that state is not shared between players.
Given that the author isn't that familiar with Pokemon Go, it seems plausible that he could have gotten some mechanics confused.
What a weak comparison. The Israelis and the Palestinians are fighting over a homeland. Humans have been fighting over land since the beginning of time.
Sure, but then that's not anything new. Any persistent-world multiplayer game would qualify, and if you want to focus on real-world locations, then there's at least Ingress.
Also, last time I checked, Pokémon spawning wasn't synchronized. There's close to zero shared world state between the player (only the static - spawn zones, Pokéstop locations, Gym location and status - and lure).
Anyway, to be clear: I'm not complaining about the game itself - just about abusing the term "AR" to describe it.
Also, last time I checked, Pokémon spawning wasn't synchronized. There's close to zero shared world state between the player (only the static - spawn zones, Pokéstop locations, Gym location and status - and lure).
Anyway, to be clear: I'm not complaining about the game itself - just about abusing the term "AR" to describe it.
I might be mistaken about what you mean by "spawning wasn't synchronized" but if I see a Pokemon pop up, I know that whoever I'm playing with will see the same one in the same place. That's a huge part of the fun of the game.
I'm not sure if that is true now; it definitely wasn't true a few months ago when I played it. Spawn locations are shared - i.e. everyone sees the same probability distribution of finding a particular Pokémon in a given spot. But if you saw one spawn, your friend won't see the same one because this was not synchronized. It was entirely local to a player. So you couldn't e.g. steal a Pokémon from someone else trying to get it too.
I think ever since it came out Pokemon spawned in the same exact place for everyone (hense cheating tools came about like maps that showed where all the pokemon are), but yeah you couldn't "steal" pokemon, everyone can catch the same pokemon which makes for videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-XnTDcQZjY
Yeah, that's what I meant.
> Pokémon Go has zero actual AR; it's just overlaying a 3D animation on top of a camera feed, with no relation to reality other than readings from a shitty smartphone gyroscope.
Isn't it also positioning the Pokémon based on the camera feed ? I was under the impression that it was detecting objects in the picture and was trying to position the Pokémon in a way that made sense, but I was never sure.
Isn't it also positioning the Pokémon based on the camera feed ? I was under the impression that it was detecting objects in the picture and was trying to position the Pokémon in a way that made sense, but I was never sure.
Not in my experience. I believe the placement is random (in particular, that the distance from you to the Pokémon was simply randomized). It does "feel" like they're placed "in a way that makes sense", because the image is an overlay on top of camera feed - which guarantees it is on top of everything in the camera feed, and the brain will play tricks to make sense of the picture. It works especially well if you don't have the feel for how big the Pokémon should be compared to the environment (most of us don't). See also, "perspective optical illusions" as a search keyphrase.
Also, again from what I remember when playing ~6 months ago, the Pokémon placement in AR mode locks orientation and distance. So walking forward is literally the same as standing still - only the background camera feed changes, but Pokémon and its animation isn't affected in any way. This again supports the theory that placement is random and totally unrelated to "real world".
Also, again from what I remember when playing ~6 months ago, the Pokémon placement in AR mode locks orientation and distance. So walking forward is literally the same as standing still - only the background camera feed changes, but Pokémon and its animation isn't affected in any way. This again supports the theory that placement is random and totally unrelated to "real world".
AR is a bit easier on the tongue than computer-mediated reality. I wouldn't be too upset over it, they're on the right track.
Marketing.
Well, that's why I hate it. It destroys any meaning words have.
The map is real, the Pokemon and gyms that appear on it are not. Does that not count?
See, the thing is, I think that's all it was. Hype at the start. Things aren't looking so well now.
I've heard that the developers are continuously adding things, but it looks like the game has become a lot more harder to play without spending money on it.[1]
[1]:https://redd.it/6dn5kp
I've heard that the developers are continuously adding things, but it looks like the game has become a lot more harder to play without spending money on it.[1]
[1]:https://redd.it/6dn5kp
The link you posted, did you read past the top comment? There are a lot of people still playing and many of those that are are still heavily involved. I can't say I've ever played every day or every time I get my phone out, but I know enough people that play often that I still keep it around and play once in a while especially if there is an event.
Of course there was a spike at first release, like every other game. Less press after a year is hardly indicative of the game being only hype. If you can name a game that didn't get less press a year after release I'd love to hear it.
> but it looks like the game has become a lot more harder to play without spending money on it
I'd love to hear why you think this is true other than someone mentioning it with no explanation in the top comment of that link. The only thing I can think of is a slight hit to pokeball drop rates which - while annoying - only affects those in rural areas who don't have access to many pokestops. This game (like Ingress) has always been geared toward urban areas and ignored rural players. This was an issue day 1 and it hasn't changed unfortunately, but this is not a recent development.
Honestly, the game is pretty hollow and is hardly something I'd recommend everyone pick up, but to say that it was only hype and things aren't looking good now is uninformed.
Of course there was a spike at first release, like every other game. Less press after a year is hardly indicative of the game being only hype. If you can name a game that didn't get less press a year after release I'd love to hear it.
> but it looks like the game has become a lot more harder to play without spending money on it
I'd love to hear why you think this is true other than someone mentioning it with no explanation in the top comment of that link. The only thing I can think of is a slight hit to pokeball drop rates which - while annoying - only affects those in rural areas who don't have access to many pokestops. This game (like Ingress) has always been geared toward urban areas and ignored rural players. This was an issue day 1 and it hasn't changed unfortunately, but this is not a recent development.
Honestly, the game is pretty hollow and is hardly something I'd recommend everyone pick up, but to say that it was only hype and things aren't looking good now is uninformed.
>If you can name a game that didn't get less press a year after release I'd love to hear it.
Major nitpick, i know, but you said game not app so i guess Minecraft[1] got pretty much a stable news coverage throughout the years
[1]https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=minecraft
Major nitpick, i know, but you said game not app so i guess Minecraft[1] got pretty much a stable news coverage throughout the years
[1]https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=minecraft
I did read past the first comment. That's why I posted the link to the whole thread and not just that comment.
I didn't say the game flopped. It didn't, but the excitement the parent comment to mine talked about was just because of hype, and it is not holding up. That's was my observation.
If you look at the current numbers, I bet they aren't having problems with anticipating server capacity now.
Pokemon was a big parts of multiple generations, so the initial outburst of players; because of nostalgia. The retention rate is very low I would imagine.
I didn't say the game flopped. It didn't, but the excitement the parent comment to mine talked about was just because of hype, and it is not holding up. That's was my observation.
If you look at the current numbers, I bet they aren't having problems with anticipating server capacity now.
Pokemon was a big parts of multiple generations, so the initial outburst of players; because of nostalgia. The retention rate is very low I would imagine.
[deleted]
If not looking so well is still being number 25 in the top grossing charts on iOS months after release, I want to be not looking so well.
Yes, it is no where near what it was at launch, but that is because the launch stats were astronomical.
Yes, it is no where near what it was at launch, but that is because the launch stats were astronomical.
Could also be because its not a good game. It could be so much more and dominating the charts instead of hanging in them.
I agree it is a huge success, but it could have been much more.
I agree it is a huge success, but it could have been much more.
There are still plenty of people who regularly play in a casual way. I regularly play and have a number of friends who do.
The people who played and quit with the hype weren't the people paying money in the first place. The people who were throwing money at the game are still playing and still paying money. And they now have corporate sponsorships rolling now as well. For example, I just saw an event this past weekend that clearly paid to have lures up at all stops in the area.
I don't think that things "aren't looking so well" yet. It doesn't have the peak playerbase anymore, but its certainly still making good money.
The people who played and quit with the hype weren't the people paying money in the first place. The people who were throwing money at the game are still playing and still paying money. And they now have corporate sponsorships rolling now as well. For example, I just saw an event this past weekend that clearly paid to have lures up at all stops in the area.
I don't think that things "aren't looking so well" yet. It doesn't have the peak playerbase anymore, but its certainly still making good money.
If the game had been playable at launch, it would have retained a lot more of its initial userbase. The constant crashes and long outages turned a lot of people off.
It's doing really well. Not as well as the hype train at the start but it's EXTREMELY popular with kids and high-schoolers.
The adult contingent has dropped off a lot but I bet once they add PvP it'll pick up.
It's still a cute game, but there is little depth atm.
The adult contingent has dropped off a lot but I bet once they add PvP it'll pick up.
It's still a cute game, but there is little depth atm.
> I bet once they add PvP it'll pick up.
At this point I honestly lost hope that they'll ever add it.
At this point I honestly lost hope that they'll ever add it.
Niantic aren't exactly speedy, it's true.
It would be interesting to know their current churn rate. Every time there is a new update to the app, they force you to download it before allowing you access. From a practical standpoint I've always assumed this lobs off large portions of their audience (it's a big download and isn't trivial).
But if they are still gaining new users, perhaps that doesn't matter. Be interesting to know what that gain/loss math looks like.
But if they are still gaining new users, perhaps that doesn't matter. Be interesting to know what that gain/loss math looks like.
In general, "the game has become a lot more harder to play without spending money on it" doesn't mean that the game is doing poorly - it's a sign that they have gotten the user growth/initial advertisement that they wanted, and are working on the revenue part.
After all, for such games, if you're not going to spend money, then you're not a customer - the only reason for allowing you to play is to use you to advertise the game to potential customers; making it harder to play freely might be the only way to turn you from an user to a customer.
After all, for such games, if you're not going to spend money, then you're not a customer - the only reason for allowing you to play is to use you to advertise the game to potential customers; making it harder to play freely might be the only way to turn you from an user to a customer.
Huh, apparently Nintendo's chronic inability to judge a market extends to companies they work with.
I really liked the concept of a Pokemon game for mobile.
Unfortunately, they went with the P2Win model that 99% of mobile games use nowadays, chock full of microtransactions and devoid of any meaningful content.
They stripped the game of all the elements that actually made Pokemon fun and all that was left was Ingress with a Pokemon skin.
Maybe some day we'll get an actually good Pokemon game for mobile. Until then, I'll cherish the memories of playing on my gameboy.
Unfortunately, they went with the P2Win model that 99% of mobile games use nowadays, chock full of microtransactions and devoid of any meaningful content.
They stripped the game of all the elements that actually made Pokemon fun and all that was left was Ingress with a Pokemon skin.
Maybe some day we'll get an actually good Pokemon game for mobile. Until then, I'll cherish the memories of playing on my gameboy.
Maybe 5 months ago I would have said "good news everyone, handheld consoles are dying rapidly!"
But the Switch was a smash hit and Nintendo gets to keep their Pokemon IP platform exclusive for another decade or so at least :(
But the Switch was a smash hit and Nintendo gets to keep their Pokemon IP platform exclusive for another decade or so at least :(
I feel like the number one gripe I have is that they are using the branding of one of the most simple and fun games of all time but ignoring it's design. Rather than just copying the mechanics of the Pokemon games, they just made their own game?
For example, battles obviously should be a direct rip off of the main games. Coding Pokemon battle seems super easy to do. And in order for it to be fun, they just have to copy the exact system.
Similarly with leveling, encounters, missions, everything was just designed around what was easy for the team to do rather than what people liked about Pokemon. It's embarrassing.
For example, battles obviously should be a direct rip off of the main games. Coding Pokemon battle seems super easy to do. And in order for it to be fun, they just have to copy the exact system.
Similarly with leveling, encounters, missions, everything was just designed around what was easy for the team to do rather than what people liked about Pokemon. It's embarrassing.
I was extremely excited when I heard about Pokemon Go initially.
Pokemon battling is actually a fantastic game mechanic, and one I have fond memories of. I'd love a game where I do it against other people, but the competitive scene is way too intense to appeal - I want a simple, Clash Royale style game where I could battle against players of similar intensity. Capture mechanics, like the ones Pokemon Go actually used, could keep teams feeling novel and interesting.
But instead, we got Go. No story, no battles, just captures and microtransactions. I'm honestly baffled that it ever saw such energy - it seems like Pokemon sans Pokemon.
Pokemon battling is actually a fantastic game mechanic, and one I have fond memories of. I'd love a game where I do it against other people, but the competitive scene is way too intense to appeal - I want a simple, Clash Royale style game where I could battle against players of similar intensity. Capture mechanics, like the ones Pokemon Go actually used, could keep teams feeling novel and interesting.
But instead, we got Go. No story, no battles, just captures and microtransactions. I'm honestly baffled that it ever saw such energy - it seems like Pokemon sans Pokemon.
try to take a step back and think about what would actually be involved with coding a pokemon battle. all the possible moves, statuses, mechanics, etc of a pokemon battle is probably not super easy to do. there may be product decisions that you may not have considered. do you think pokemon GO would be as fun if each interaction with a pokemon took 2 minutes instead of 10-15 seconds it takes now?
Yeah, I think it'd be as fun. I mean, every single battle in the main Pokemon series uses those mechanics. Every wild Pokemon encounter, every trainer battle, every gym leader battle, etc.
The time it takes obviously varies based on what exactly you're battling and how strong your team is, but it's clearly something that millions of people consider fun when done thousands or hundreds of thousands of times per game.
It'd also only need to be the case for gym battles, so hey, most people wouldn't be spending tons of time on these battles anyway.
As for the coding required... I see what you mean (the amount of work they put into the mechanics in the main series is absolutely insane given all the strange possibilities for moves and strategies), but it's apparently easy enough for fan game developers to be able to copy it. If amateurs can code similar systems for fan games like Pokemon Uranium, Niantic can code it for Pokemon GO.
The time it takes obviously varies based on what exactly you're battling and how strong your team is, but it's clearly something that millions of people consider fun when done thousands or hundreds of thousands of times per game.
It'd also only need to be the case for gym battles, so hey, most people wouldn't be spending tons of time on these battles anyway.
As for the coding required... I see what you mean (the amount of work they put into the mechanics in the main series is absolutely insane given all the strange possibilities for moves and strategies), but it's apparently easy enough for fan game developers to be able to copy it. If amateurs can code similar systems for fan games like Pokemon Uranium, Niantic can code it for Pokemon GO.
I just want more PvE content. Right now I'm just walking around collecting pokemon, because actual gym battles have been completely impossible for me since about a month after the game came out. All gyms are 12-stacked with pokemon with super-high CP, that I can't really meaningfully interact with, unless I level up significantly. And even then, there's no strategy involved past "pick the pokemon that does well against this element" and tapping the screen really fast.
Their problem with cheaters would be mitigated much better if they focus on PvE.
Their problem with cheaters would be mitigated much better if they focus on PvE.
The gym situation is pretty unsustainable.
I'd like to see them either revise the gym mechanics entirely or introduce "junior" gyms that would make some of the weaker Pokémon viable to use. Heck, a gym with a dynamic CP cap could work - max_CP = 1000 - (15 * gym_level) with too-big Pokémon being forced out. You could boot the strongest protectors in a gym with a flock of (weak) Pidgeys at that point as long as they raised the XP of the gym, then evolve/transfer/both all of those for individual XP.
Right now most varieties even fully evolved and with perfect IVs and movesets are simply not worth putting into gyms.
Edit: As far as the pay-to-win aspect, I'm not really seeing that. The purchasable items can all be gotten by getting into a few gyms a day to get "coins," which would go along with a social aspect of getting together with a few friends on the same team to go take down gyms. The only item that's hard to come by and I think inconveniently priced is the Egg Incubator, which without real-$ purchases is weighted towards a LOT of walking per stop.
Lure modules and incense have never seemed to make much difference to me (and lures can be done by just one person in a popular location with everyone benefiting), and while Lucky Eggs are nice they're not really that important.
Buying Pokeballs just seems silly if there's any kind of outdoor art installation area anywhere nearby, because you can wander that for a relatively short time and stock up - or just veg on a blanket in the park between 2-4 art pieces and swipe 2-4 stops every 5 minutes.
I'd like to see them either revise the gym mechanics entirely or introduce "junior" gyms that would make some of the weaker Pokémon viable to use. Heck, a gym with a dynamic CP cap could work - max_CP = 1000 - (15 * gym_level) with too-big Pokémon being forced out. You could boot the strongest protectors in a gym with a flock of (weak) Pidgeys at that point as long as they raised the XP of the gym, then evolve/transfer/both all of those for individual XP.
Right now most varieties even fully evolved and with perfect IVs and movesets are simply not worth putting into gyms.
Edit: As far as the pay-to-win aspect, I'm not really seeing that. The purchasable items can all be gotten by getting into a few gyms a day to get "coins," which would go along with a social aspect of getting together with a few friends on the same team to go take down gyms. The only item that's hard to come by and I think inconveniently priced is the Egg Incubator, which without real-$ purchases is weighted towards a LOT of walking per stop.
Lure modules and incense have never seemed to make much difference to me (and lures can be done by just one person in a popular location with everyone benefiting), and while Lucky Eggs are nice they're not really that important.
Buying Pokeballs just seems silly if there's any kind of outdoor art installation area anywhere nearby, because you can wander that for a relatively short time and stock up - or just veg on a blanket in the park between 2-4 art pieces and swipe 2-4 stops every 5 minutes.
Personally what I really want is some sort of randomly generated pokemon adventure based on your local landmarks. Just take a bunch of linked quests, scatter them around landmarks that are a good distance away from each other and let me walk to and from collecting mcguffins. Turn parks into Safari Zones. If I live in the middle of nowhere, then make up some virtual landmarks and put the quests there.
There's so much you can do if you think of it as generating a roguelike on top of the landmark, road and park data they have.
There's so much you can do if you think of it as generating a roguelike on top of the landmark, road and park data they have.
Honestly, coding a battle setup up to the level of, say Red/Blue is not hard. Lots of elements, sure, and newer games make things somewhat harder, but it's such a convenient structure that things aren't hard. It's a common sophomore/junior college assignment, and far easier than features Go already has like location management and anti-cheating.
The delay point is much better. I don't think GameBoy style fight-to-capture would have been good, the technique used (basically Safari Zone, actually) was solid for that. But I think full PvP against other players would have been a huge hit - certainly it's why I never joined.
The delay point is much better. I don't think GameBoy style fight-to-capture would have been good, the technique used (basically Safari Zone, actually) was solid for that. But I think full PvP against other players would have been a huge hit - certainly it's why I never joined.
> The delay point is much better. I don't think GameBoy style fight-to-capture would have been good, the technique used (basically Safari Zone, actually) was solid for that.
Only because the whole point of the game became grinding on simple pokemon to turn into candy to level up / evolve other Pokemon. It's a circle of crappy game mechanics requiring other crappy mechanics to work.
Sure, it would suck to need to actually fight 800 other magikarp to get a Gyarados, but that's not how any other pokemon game works. I can have my magikarp fight any other pokemon and gain xp.
I was able to do a red/blue style combat game for a homework assignment in Java. Not saying it's really easy, but it's not incredibly hard, and like you say, it's not harder than anti-cheat or many other things in the game. Also, if using a normal pokemon battle mechanic, you don't have all the issues with cheating at gym battles, and latency that the current game has.
Only because the whole point of the game became grinding on simple pokemon to turn into candy to level up / evolve other Pokemon. It's a circle of crappy game mechanics requiring other crappy mechanics to work.
Sure, it would suck to need to actually fight 800 other magikarp to get a Gyarados, but that's not how any other pokemon game works. I can have my magikarp fight any other pokemon and gain xp.
I was able to do a red/blue style combat game for a homework assignment in Java. Not saying it's really easy, but it's not incredibly hard, and like you say, it's not harder than anti-cheat or many other things in the game. Also, if using a normal pokemon battle mechanic, you don't have all the issues with cheating at gym battles, and latency that the current game has.
I think most people like the concept of catching Pokemon as it is now. But I've of the biggest complaints is that you can't battle other trainers.
Good God yes!
You can't trade, and you can't have head-to-head battles. The interactivity is extremely limited, and heavily rewards grinding.
There is an acceptable Pokemon[-style] game for mobile. It's called "Pocket Mortys".
While it is based on a show that is inappropriate for children, the game has intentionally avoided including any content that would push it past an E rating.
It has in-app purchases, but all content is available to gratis players, given enough grinding.
While it is based on a show that is inappropriate for children, the game has intentionally avoided including any content that would push it past an E rating.
It has in-app purchases, but all content is available to gratis players, given enough grinding.
Honestly, I find Pocket Mortys more fun than Pokemon Go. That's pretty depressing, since it's mostly supposed to be a funny tie-in game.
Everything in Pokemon Go is available freely to anyone as well, given enough grinding. The ones griping about play-to-win and microtransactions just don't want to grind.
Metaphorically, Pokemon Go grinds with jewelers' rouge, while Pocket Mortys grinds with coarse emery.
The reward to effort ratio is lower.
Besides that, when you put free-to-play players in direct competition with paid players, and give the latter an enormous advantage over the former, that's when people start griping about pay-to-win.
The reward to effort ratio is lower.
Besides that, when you put free-to-play players in direct competition with paid players, and give the latter an enormous advantage over the former, that's when people start griping about pay-to-win.
This is similar to an approach I suggested some time ago here for other games as well - if you detect griefers/cheaters/trolls, just let them play against each other.
That's what Blizzard did for Diablo II about 15 years ago.
Yep, this is easily the best way to deal with people who are committed to messing with an online community.. Make them think they're still having an impact when they're not..
I believe HN does something similar but I ran a small forum back in the early 2000s and we could flag one or more people into groups where their posts were only visible to each other, but not to anyone else.
Since the site was invite-only, there was no anonymous access so they had no practical way of finding this out on their own.
Eventually they got bored of "being ignored" and left on their own..
I believe HN does something similar but I ran a small forum back in the early 2000s and we could flag one or more people into groups where their posts were only visible to each other, but not to anyone else.
Since the site was invite-only, there was no anonymous access so they had no practical way of finding this out on their own.
Eventually they got bored of "being ignored" and left on their own..
> their posts were only visible to each other
For the Something Awful forums, this is called hell-banning.
For the Something Awful forums, this is called hell-banning.
Blizzard has another cool anti-cheat tactic that's deployed alongside cheating bans. Remember that old story about how ITS had a command to crash the system to take the fun out of crashing the system? In Overwatch, one character's Ultimate is basically an aimbot; another's is basically a wallhack.
Shadowbanning seems like a technique that only worked back when it was an original idea that nobody knew about. Nowadays if you have a dedicated cheater who actually has something concrete to gain from abusing the system, it's absolutely trivial to "test" if you're shadowbanned by checking on an account in good standing, and treating that exactly the same as a supposedly-ineffectual normal ban.
If shadowbanning traps most of the casual abusers, leaving only the elite cheaters, we cannot quite say that it doesn't work, right?
Shadowbanning can be refined to deal with the situation you have identified. For instance, the abusive account's postings can be shown to an account in good standing, if their IP addresses are the same, or in the same class C, or in recent login history, those accounts did appear to some from the same machine or small network.
The system can also detect a pattern of behavior whereby some account in good standing is expressing unsual interest in accounts in poor standing, like specifically searching for their postings or looking at profiles or whatever. Or maybe some more subtle clues.
Shadowbanning can be refined to deal with the situation you have identified. For instance, the abusive account's postings can be shown to an account in good standing, if their IP addresses are the same, or in the same class C, or in recent login history, those accounts did appear to some from the same machine or small network.
The system can also detect a pattern of behavior whereby some account in good standing is expressing unsual interest in accounts in poor standing, like specifically searching for their postings or looking at profiles or whatever. Or maybe some more subtle clues.
I guess my account has been shadowbanned since the beginning - there are only 2 PokeStops in 5 km (3.1 mile) radius and all they have is Pidgey and Rattata 99% of the time.
The way they have implemented it Shadowbanning is basically sending the bots to the cornfield.
I still think the game is ridiculous in how much it punishes people for simply not living in the city. Even if you had a low density of stops out in the country they could at least have decent numbers of random spawns. This is one reason I stopped playing, seeing only Pidgies and Ratatas gets old. Also, having the game get angry at you for riding a bike is dumb, bike riding is a huge part of the lore of the game!
I still think the game is ridiculous in how much it punishes people for simply not living in the city. Even if you had a low density of stops out in the country they could at least have decent numbers of random spawns. This is one reason I stopped playing, seeing only Pidgies and Ratatas gets old. Also, having the game get angry at you for riding a bike is dumb, bike riding is a huge part of the lore of the game!
Yeah, it's even weirder when you realise that better Pokemon appear in the countryside in the rest of the series. That's what the whole long grass thing is all about.
So the people who live in places most like actual Pokemon regions and who travel around like trainers get worse Pokemon than those who stick to the same large city and never go anywhere interesting.
Seems kind of backwards if you ask me.
So the people who live in places most like actual Pokemon regions and who travel around like trainers get worse Pokemon than those who stick to the same large city and never go anywhere interesting.
Seems kind of backwards if you ask me.
That may just be the game for you - depends where you are. Compare your pokestops against the Ingress map if you're not sure.
Did you cheat, grief or troll?
I am putting a strong assumption that he has the same problem that a large chunk of players like myself have called 'ruralistis' or 'farmlandempti' where if you aren't in a large city or on a coast, your pokemon spawns for the first 8 months of the game were limited to pidgeys and rattatta and once in a blue moon there might be something amazingly rare like a Weedle, because our town data wasn't in the data source they used to calculate biomes.
Many player have noticed this and have been updating openstreetmaps.org data in hopes that Niantic does a biome refresh and that OSM is actually where they are sourcing their data from.
Many player have noticed this and have been updating openstreetmaps.org data in hopes that Niantic does a biome refresh and that OSM is actually where they are sourcing their data from.
"updating" OSM = creating parks and rivers where they don't exist. It's an annoyance for OSM maintainers, there's a Slack channel that specifically flags things that look like they might be Pokemon Go users adding bogus features.
> and that OSM is actually where they are sourcing their data from
Which it isn't - they use Google Maps data. Tho GM uses OSM as one of their sources (apparently) so... YMMV
Which it isn't - they use Google Maps data. Tho GM uses OSM as one of their sources (apparently) so... YMMV
No. I open the app every day for 45-60 minutes when I go for a daily walk, no funny business.
Shadowbanning was in place from very early on - we noticed it during the initial attempts at decoding the original protobuf syntax. Specifically, "moving" around very quickly would often get you shadowbanned very quickly.
So... paying to level up is not 'cheating', but using a bot is? I don't think the distinction is as stark as Niantec would like one to believe.
When I first discovered Ingress it was a revelation. I played it for hours, walked everywhere etc. Then I discovered cheaters and that's it. A pity really, it was a cool concept for millions completely broken by a few dozen morons.
This is the best kind of ban. Make them think they aren't banned and just let them continue to waste their time.
do people still play?
Manager: "You know what this website really needs?"
Programmer: "What?"
Manager: "No scroll bar..."
Programmer: "Hmm..."
Manager: "... For a website that you need to scroll."
Programmer: "Genius!"
Programmer: "What?"
Manager: "No scroll bar..."
Programmer: "Hmm..."
Manager: "... For a website that you need to scroll."
Programmer: "Genius!"
killin_dan(2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tabVaoeNtdk
Start at 27:45 but you should watch the entire thing.
Start at 27:45 but you should watch the entire thing.
Breaking the game IS the fun. Actually winning afterwards is irrelevant.
No it is not. Some gyms of my town are full of Blissey from level 40 accounts all with the same looking names. Given how hard it is to KO even one within the allocated time when playing alone, it's effectively ruining a whole part of the game for every non-cheater player.
Blisseys are hard solo, though if you have a few folks hitting them with a Gyrados or Dragonite you can take them out. My wife and I just took down a L10 gym with 5 Blisseys, and the rest Snorlaxes and Dragonites, and with three people no gym can hold no matter what's in it. You have to know other players to do that, though. The cheating scum will just take it back after a while and play the same game though. Glad they're finally starting to try to take on the cheaters - they definitely do steal the fun from legit players.
There's some indication that this is being addressed - among other things, it seems like they may cap the number of a single type that can be in a gym.
Honestly this is the kind of thing where I could see hyper-local chat (team or public) of the sort Yik-Yak was trying to do. "Hey Instinct within 1 mile, meet in 15 to take down the gym at the fountain?"
Honestly this is the kind of thing where I could see hyper-local chat (team or public) of the sort Yik-Yak was trying to do. "Hey Instinct within 1 mile, meet in 15 to take down the gym at the fountain?"
I didn't play Pokemon Go, but the only reason I ever installed Ingress was to figure out how Android location services ran. This led me to arm shared objects decompilation and mocking and other interesting shenanigans.
Achieving internet points was not very high on the goals list
Achieving internet points was not very high on the goals list
The people who are cheating aren't the ones figuring out the cheats. The people providing the cheats are doing interesting things, but also enabling cheaters to steal fun from the game from everyone else.
Okay; but the people who are breaking the game are going on to "win" afterward, and are ruining it for everyone who isn't cheating.
If you want to prove to yourself that you can level up your Ratatat to level 1,000,000 - fine, do it. But don't send that pseudorodent to your local gym to lock it down forever.
If you want to prove to yourself that you can level up your Ratatat to level 1,000,000 - fine, do it. But don't send that pseudorodent to your local gym to lock it down forever.
Breaking online games and thus ruining other's people experience isn't.
Flooding live production servers with requests to figure out the location of Pokémons isn't "white hat" either.
Flooding live production servers with requests to figure out the location of Pokémons isn't "white hat" either.
That's just called a game design flaw. They should have implemented a tracking system that doesn't suck.
From an interesting interview with a Niantec Exec on the linked sub, stating they're adding PvP aswell: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSilphRoad/comments/6e3qt2/legend...