Also in Rauta's post it says that it was fixed for players who reported it. If the guy was willing to spend money to keep it instead of reportng it, he probably wasnt too interested in fixing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by facescraper
Printable View
Also in Rauta's post it says that it was fixed for players who reported it. If the guy was willing to spend money to keep it instead of reportng it, he probably wasnt too interested in fixing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by facescraper
Really? You are really going to float that ♥♥, as a software company. Yes, yes, you can say you have never been 'hacked', because Webster says so... As you ARE representing the company, you do it a great dis-service by going that route, in the eyes of all of the software developers that play this game, and have given SC money. Yes, I know, the great many people out there don't really know what a hacker is, due to the media jumping all over the word, but if you are going to use the jargon of a given set of people (the originators of the term, not what Webster thinks the term should be, or what a script kiddie thinks they are) then please use it correctly as well. But, you have to actually have been around, and involved in computers back then to really get it. Not your fault that you were born too late... (just a guess)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rauta
Were your servers compromised, by en external entity? Probably not. Was someone using a KNOWN, MONTHS OLD, exploit, to circumvent your code to a nefarious end? Most Certainly. The fact that the players that encountered this particular bug had to tell you, so you could fix it, absolutely blows my mind, and is just SC being lazy about bugs. So, you can't just do 'Select player_name from some_db where some_table = TID_GOBLIN_HUT and is_multiplayer = yes'. You are going down a very slippery slope with that logic. One that you may want to re-evaluate.
This is a known exploit, and now it is very known. I wonder how many people are actively trying to reverse engineer your statements, as to how this happens, and the fact that you have no visibility into it happening in the first place.
not all of your players are 14 (I would bet that most of your active player base is well over 25), some of us are even software developers. You might want to take that into consideration when future exploits are brought to your attention.
Yes, I would rather SuperCell have locked the thread, fixed the PROBLEM and not just the player, stated that it was an exploit, was rare, and will never happen again, and move on. Lot's of people are now playing single player games, to see what else can be exploited....
Semantics aside, Rauta also made it clear that it was from their side and that players were NOT able to do anything to reproduce this outcome.
I agree, it was on their side. I am more concerned that they did not scrub for the occurrence, once the bug was known, and fix the player dataset. It isn't hard to scrub for that stuff. SC has full control over the game files, and can easily see who is doing what when. The how is the hard part.Quote:
Originally Posted by zachUVA
i am also concerned that a bug (possible exploit, as in, an event has to happen for the bug to take place, if I can reverse engineer what happened, i can always make it happen, thus, exploit it manually, as a player) thread was not immediately locked, pending investigation notice, with a condensed report as to the findings, with no additional information as to how something might occur. (now i know there are bugs in the single player to multi player conversion process) Yes, I know the community will be mad, but they are also mad when clan chat is broken, and when you take away too many levels during a maintenance break. Heck, they are mad at maintenance breaks. SC pulled a Rovio AND they unseated EA. They can stand some heat in the forums, from people who will continue to play, regardless of responses on bug threads. Their paying player base would rather have a more secure game, and would understand.
to be fair though, it's not a game breaker. the guy could have a max of 240 troops. the max for standard maxxed camps is 220 anyway... there was a clan castle glitch before this that allowed people to store many more troops in the clan castle than normal and they patched that also. sh#t happens. it's gets fixed. no need to cry like a girl cause some guy has 20 more archers than everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by EightyAte
each camp held 240. he had 3, plus his regular camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by facescraper
if i just spent $15.00 to play for a few hours, with everything amped up, pumping out troops, and resources, to get hammered by nearly 900 troops, then i might cringe a bit at spending that money the next time.
sh#t happens is why I quit playing DayZ, and BF3. Once I saw what the hacks did to those games, it just wasn't fun any more.
what if they only fixed that clan castle glitch on the people that reported being affected by it?
Your info is incorrect. 240 was the TOTAL spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by EightyAte
so the max was 960 with 4? that's epic.Quote:
Originally Posted by zachUVA
I saw it for myself. One hut alone had 3 healers, 20 giants, and some number in the teens ( I want to say 14) of archers. When I looked at the other 2 they looked similar, though i didn't really pay attention to the count at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by zachUVA
The guy had 4 lvl 5 army camps, and three of these goblin huts. His TOTAL troop capacity was 240, meaning 180 in the camps and 20 in each of these huts. Here is a screenshot of the base:Quote:
Originally Posted by EightyAte
http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/...d4627aca93.jpg