Hackers impossible

[Shady]

I was battling someone and he hit my scout from the front when it was +60 blocking is this really possible because if it is... the new blocking system sucks in my oppinion.

[Forest_Archer]

The blocking system is not freaking new. It's always been this way, except now they show the +/- numbers next the unit description. And ChainHeart Machine already made a thread about this.

[Kreator]

At 60+ it would prolly be around 1% chance or close to that. Might be unlikely, but not impossible.

[Cliche]

The blocking system is not freaking new. It's always been this way, except now they show the +/- numbers next the unit description.


It is new. It hasn't always been this way, and the blocking used to be totally random. I have had games where the scout would get hit 3 times in the front in a row. Ask BullCat0, I had one tournament game against him in a freestyle game and his same scout took 3 front shots in a row.

So to anyone that believes the blocking system has not changed...It has.

-Edit- OKAY! It wasn't totally random. :cool:

[EricH]

It is new but even before the +/- number was shown it existed. It was only decided after people had figured it out that it would be shown to all.

[uniquinous]

Yeach, cliche, it was never totally random. Also note that those numbers are qualifiers, not absolute %. So no, it's not a hax, it's luck.

[Shady]

I hate luck and luck hates me.

[EricH]

I hate luck and luck hates me.
Life hates you, bad luck is just a byproduct of life despising your every thought.

[boogieman]

There is no such thing as luck. It's all a matter of how the chances work out in whoever's favour. For example, I got hit (and lost the game) by an assassin against my knight, who was at +150% blocking. And also, I hit a dragon who was at +79% with my scout and won a game. It's all a matter of how it plays out.

[EricH]

Everything in the game is a mathematical certainty. The proplem is that a pseudorandom number is used in the math, and we do knot know the origin or algorithm for it.

[boogieman]

I'm not even going to try to compete with that... I lost the last time. ;)

[EatMine]

Everything in the game is a mathematical certainty. The proplem is that a pseudorandom number is used in the math, and we do knot know the origin or algorithm for it.Dude, i really resolved to ignore your posts, but somehow i always want to bang my head against the wall when reading them.
I'm pretty sure that you usually know how things work, so why always this cheap talk?

In this case:
there is no way to simulate chance without a pseudorandom number. You know that! You know the origin too ... it's most probably Math.random() ...
So, where is the problem now???

Do you think the way Seed implemented it is "less than perfect / buggy"?
Then post your reasons ... THAT would be an interesting discussion ... not just trying to sound smart while claiming the obvious.

[EricH]

Dude, i really resolved to ignore your posts, but somehow i always want to bang my head against the wall when reading them.
I'm pretty sure that you usually know how things work, so why always this cheap talk?

In this case:
there is no way to simulate chance without a pseudorandom number. You know that! You know the origin too ... it's most probably Math.random() ...
So, where is the problem now???

Do you think the way Seed implemented it is "less than perfect / buggy"?
Then post your reasons ... THAT would be an interesting discussion ... not just trying to sound smart while claiming the obvious.

No, there is a way to come up with a pseudorandom number before it is iniated. An origin is what the algorithm uses as a variable, it could be a deviation of the time and/or date. It is not "Math.Random()" nor is it any other function. Randomize functions are not truly random, they all originate with an origin and use an algorithm to provide a pseudorandom number. If you had enough information, such as the algorithm and the origin, you could most definitly know what the random number would be. That is a fact. It isn't something Seed did. It is how computers work.

The only true random number generator is hooked up to a giger counter.

Don't attempt to sound smart. You're not.

[Digis Online]

I was battling someone and he hit my scout from the front when it was +60 blocking is this really possible because if it is... the new blocking system sucks in my oppinion.
There have been complaints like this before. People have being questioning if the % blocker goes into the .45 ect. If thats so, you could still get a hit.

[EatMine]

No, there is a way to come up with a pseudorandom number before it is iniated. An origin is what the algorithm uses as a variable, it could be a deviation of the time and/or date. It is not "Math.Random()" nor is it any other function. Randomize functions are not truly random, they all originate with an origin and use an algorithm to provide a pseudorandom number. If you had enough information, such as the algorithm and the origin, you could most definitly know what the random number would be. That is a fact. It isn't something Seed did. It is how computers work.http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/11/captobviousod9.gif

The only true random number generator is hooked up to a giger counter.So, uhmmm, your point is that when Seed would have based the calculations on collapsing atoms, the scout would have blocked?

[EricH]

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/11/captobviousod9.gif

So, uhmmm, your point is that when Seed would have based the calculations on collapsing atoms, the scout would have blocked?
No, my point is that in the post before my original post, "There is no such thing as luck" is more than true. Open your eyes. You claim Math.Random() is a origin. You've little clue what I was saying.

[EatMine]

Ok, i see.
You just wanted to explain "luck" from a "programmer's" view.

Well, my bad then, it's just that when i hear you say the word "problem" in conjunction with some technical terms, my bullshit detector raises alarm.
But ok, crying wolf this time ...

[EricH]

Ok, i see.
You just wanted to explain "luck" from a "programmer's" view.

Well, my bad then, it's just that when i hear you say the word "problem" in conjunction with some technical terms, my bullshit detector raises alarm.
But ok, crying wolf this time ...
I like to explain everything from a programmer's view. That is how I explain life. Infact, I'd like to think that not even the decay of a radioactive isotope is random. However, as far as we know and observe, it is.

[uniquinous]

.. .. wow - all this cuz I used the word "luck" to distinguish chance from hax.

No, You couldn't figure it out if you had the algorithm. No, 150 is NOT a percentage. I don't understand why people see +100 and immediately think it equals +100% blocking. If that were true, you wouldn't be getting hit, now would you?

[EricH]

No, You couldn't figure it out if you had the algorithm.
Yes you could. It's inherently math. If you can predict the catalyst to the routine Seed programmed, you can certainly predict what'll happen.

[uniquinous]

the catalyst? Do you realize that many gamers base their "random numbers" off the internal clock of the server down to the milli-nano second range? No, not unless you were synched up with that computer and directly monitored the algorythm could you correctly identify it. And, since you're not, and since you *cant* time your computer with the server to the nanosecond, you can compute all you want but you won't know *when* the seed is placed (no pun intended).

[EricH]

the catalyst? Do you realize that many gamers base their "random numbers" off the internal clock of the server down to the milli-nano second range? No, not unless you were synched up with that computer and directly monitored the algorythm could you correctly identify it. And, since you're not, and since you *cant* time your computer with the server to the nanosecond, you can compute all you want but you won't know *when* the seed is placed (no pun intended).

The catalyst would be all the required information and the result of it. The origin, the algorithm of the computer, and the algorithm used in the game.

If you knew the algorithm and the origin, you would be able to predict what happens. The "internal clock" is the origin. You calculate lag, you calculate what the origin will be when you execute, all inside the algorithm. Thats all I was saying. It is all math, you can calculate it. Sure, its hard and not worth it. It still is a fact that it can be calcuated.

The system of blocking Seed has setup would be considered a low-discrepancy sequence if graphed. That and consider in entropy, the blocks and hits should be almost exactly uniform with the actual percentage for that unit. That would be another way to predict the next hit/miss, which would be easier but not as accurate.

Edit: Ever watch the movie Pi?

[bullcat0]

The blocking system is not freaking new. It's always been this way, except now they show the +/- numbers next the unit description. And ChainHeart Machine already made a thread about this.
How about, it is a new system completely.
I have played games beore the update where, First turn, I go to attack his knight from the side, It blocked. Then, I went to attack it from the side next turn, It blocked. With this NEW blocking system, I would have had a 100% hit.
So please, Do not claim that it has not changed.

Edit: And to answer the creator of this thread, The + blocking is divided by 2 for the + percentage.
So +60 = +30% blocking, So it would be a 90% chance to block. Nobody hacked anything, they just landed a 10% hit.

[uniquinous]

If you knew the algorithm and the origin, you would be able to predict what happens. The "internal clock" is the origin. You calculate lag, you calculate what the origin will be when you execute, all inside the algorithm. Thats all I was saying. It is all math, you can calculate it. Sure, its hard and not worth it. It still is a fact that it can be calcuated.
Oh you just calculate lag and then the origin... So, how do you calculate user-side and server-side lag into your equation exactly? How do you know what nanosecond the seed happens to be on if you have no way of accessing it to begin with? Yeah, it's all math, because it's a computer - that does NOT mean someone with a normal non-invasive link to the server could ever calculate that. In fact, I think it would be pretty difficult math if it were a computer directly linked to the server for that very purpose. How would you estimate the lag when nanoseconds matter?

[EricH]

Oh you just calculate lag and then the origin... So, how do you calculate user-side and server-side lag into your equation exactly? How do you know what nanosecond the seed happens to be on if you have no way of accessing it to begin with? Yeah, it's all math, because it's a computer - that does NOT mean someone with a normal non-invasive link to the server could ever calculate that. In fact, I think it would be pretty difficult math if it were a computer directly linked to the server for that very purpose. How would you estimate the lag when nanoseconds matter?
The lag would be the only hard part. Getting the time value on a computer is fairly easy, although I'd have to explore it. I know I can get it via an IP with windows. Still, all I was saying its math and it can be calculated. No such thing as luck.

[!Diamond!]

Well I read the first post and I think this is a pretty pointless thread. All you have done really Shady is complain about the lack of luck you had on that one shot. The simple math has been explained a little more has been explained about the blocking system that I didn't know. But I guess some people get lucky some people don't.Best of advice would be, get on with your life bud;)
it's not a hax, it's luck.

[uniquinous]

The lag would be the only hard part. Getting the time value on a computer is fairly easy, although I'd have to explore it. I know I can get it via an IP with windows. Still, all I was saying its math and it can be calculated. No such thing as luck.
Oh well as long as it's the only impossibility, I'm sure this is an easy task. Although, I am wondering, if you actually can, and aren't just talking crap as usual, how do you acquire the time value with only an IP? Just wondering.

[EricH]

Oh well as long as it's the only impossibility, I'm sure this is an easy task. Although, I am wondering, if you actually can, and aren't just talking crap as usual, how do you acquire the time value with only an IP? Just wondering.
Windows allows you to gain certain information via the remote connection tool, running in command. Thats the easy part, but that's windows. I wouldn't know how honestly with linux.

It is POSSIBLE. Don't deny it. You're an idiot if you do.

[uniquinous]

And you're an idiot if you think you can calculate and anticipate all lag to the nanosecond. If computers could anticipate it and work with it, it wouldn't exactly be lag, now would it? Remote connection tool eh? Could you be a bit more specific? I actually want to know.

[EricH]

And you're an idiot if you think you can calculate and anticipate all lag to the nanosecond. If computers could anticipate it and work with it, it wouldn't exactly be lag, now would it? Remote connection tool eh? Could you be a bit more specific? I actually want to know.
It would still be lag. There is inherent lag, that can be calculated (note I never said exactly). You're an idiot if you think you can't calculate it. If it was calculated in the first place, and you have the same data, its just a matter of math.

Start> Run> MSTSC

[LosPollos]

My god, this last page has made me feel really stupid...hey look, a wheel of cheese! *runs down hill chasing wheel of swiss*

[bobo99]

Yeah I had the same reaction im really good with math and stuff but this made my brain hurt - I think its just to early in the morning this is the earliest I have woken up in like 2 weeks :)

[death of humans]

ive bin lost in this math stuff since the middle bit of it all and i got 89% is my maths xam so looks like ur all smarter at this stuff than me and it could b 2 do with the fact im only 13

[uniquinous]

you're doing well so far in giving bit by bit pieces - but I'm interested in acquiring server/computer local time from IP. Could you at least point to documentation that knows what it's talking about instead of agonizing through every step of this process one post at a time?

For example, if I want to tell someone how to post a s/s I don't say Start -> Access. -> Paint. I tell them where the printscreen button is, i tell them how to paste, how to save, how to host, and how to get my the link. This process of acquiring a time with an IP can't be that tiring to type, can it?

besides, isn't mstsc remote access that requires a password from their end?

[EricH]

you're doing well so far in giving bit by bit pieces - but I'm interested in acquiring server/computer local time from IP. Could you at least point to documentation that knows what it's talking about instead of agonizing through every step of this process one post at a time?

For example, if I want to tell someone how to post a s/s I don't say Start -> Access. -> Paint. I tell them where the printscreen button is, i tell them how to paste, how to save, how to host, and how to get my the link. This process of acquiring a time with an IP can't be that tiring to type, can it?

besides, isn't mstsc remote access that requires a password from their end?

You've got to know what you're doing from there, uniq. I'll only give you hints, it is considered hacking and is punishable. Telnet that port, you don't need a username, and you can run certain commands.

[EatMine]

I can't test it at the moment, but i'm pretty sure you can NOT send commands to RDP via telnet. You might get a command window, in case the port is listening (which of course does not apply to 99.9% of all internet computers), but that's it - no feedback from the remote server.
Kinda would vitiate the purpose of authorization on such a delicate matter like remote login, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

[EricH]

I can't test it at the moment, but i'm pretty sure you can NOT send commands to RDP via telnet. You might get a command window, in case the port is listening (which of course does not apply to 99.9% of all internet computers), but that's it - no feedback from the remote server.
Kinda would vitiate the purpose of authorization on such a delicate matter like remote login, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
Remote login itself is very unsecure being the fact that most people don't change their default account or password. Regardless, you can't gain anything vital from it that you couldn't gain from any other open windows port.

[uniquinous]

oh oh i get it now! So all you need to calculate if your scout will block or not is the username and password to get into the server's back door, the algorithm, the seed, and calculating all the lag in between to the nanosecond. Yeah you're right, that was easy!

noob :dry:

[Forest_Archer]

UGH! I keep getting DC'ed on my grey and gold? Is there something wrong with my cookies?

[EricH]

oh oh i get it now! So all you need to calculate if your scout will block or not is the username and password to get into the server's back door, the algorithm, the seed, and calculating all the lag in between to the nanosecond. Yeah you're right, that was easy!

noob :dry:
Firstly, never said it was easy. Second, I said that was for windows. Open your eyes jackass.

[Forest_Archer]

Firstly, never said it was easy. Second, I said that was for windows. Open your eyes jackass.

oh my!

[uniquinous]

Firstly, never said it was easy. Second, I said that was for windows. Open your eyes jackass.
no no no, you misread. i never said you said it was easy. I just made a statement, which you noobishly projected onto yourself. Sorry, not ever word that I type is because of you. (hey I figured, while I'm showing you to be a noob, I might as well use your own semantic games). I know what you said it was for - i never claimed otherwise. :)

Open *your* eyes, my love. :)

[EricH]

no no no, you misread. i never said you said it was easy.
that was easy!
You were quoting me, afterall.

Open *your* eyes, my love. :)
You're the blind script kiddie.

[uniquinous]

nono, you misread, i was just making a statement like "this is fun" or "purple is pretty" or "that was easy". you assumed the rest. :)

[EricH]

nono, you misread, i was just making a statement like "this is fun" or "purple is pretty" or "that was easy". you assumed the rest. :)
Nope. Nothing to assume. Admit you are wrong for once, and are a script kiddke that has no clue.

[uniquinous]

no, you're too wrong to realize you can't read - this is the last time I'll be posting or viewing this thread.

Sincerely,
-dirka dirka

[Punishment]

Sincerely,
-dirka dirka

hrm o_O lol.

[EricH]

no, you're too wrong to realize you can't read - this is the last time I'll be posting or viewing this thread.

Sincerely,
-dirka dirka
I'll take that as a, you know you're wrong.

[Cuathon]

in case it hasnt been said the blocking system was not always the way it is. learn your history people. other than that, that kid better get a new avatar fast...