Conquer Club

KraphtOne wrote:and.... foed for being retarded


edit : and just so you know elijah there IS a trick for getting good dice... at the begining of each game just type "i'm an idiot" into the game chat and hit enter and you'll win everytime

Fruitcake wrote:In all seriousness Elijah, there are ways to ensure a very small % decrease in the chance of receiving high value defence dice when in attack. However, it must be said that this % is small, but not insignificant. A player can still lose if not that good.

I am sure that if you really think about it, the answer to this and in fact any other problem, it will become quite apparent to you. I have been informed it balances the dice, of course, and allows the overrun of the power of x to create a slightly changed paradigm.

Timminz wrote:I'm amazed you could be a captain without using the cheat codes.

Elijah S wrote:I've been on CC for about 2 and a half years and, for the most part, believe that the majority of players play a clean game.
HOWEVER, a friend of mine who designs websites recently told me that any web-based game is vulnerable to malicious coding which can affect the outcome of pretty much any aspect of gameplay.
I also recently read a thread in CC that went as far as giving the instructions to alter drops and dice rolls. -Plus, I've been in games with certain high-ranked players who ALWAYS roll nothing less than amazing dice.

Keeping in mind that CC has to keep a team of multi-hunters - due to the fact that there are many players who will cheat to gain unfair advantages - I'm wondering if others have similar suspicions about the use of codes or other methods of cheating.

Robinette wrote:Legitimate cheating is really difficult on this site...

The card hack program that i wrote just has too many bugs when playing flat rate... so don't even try right now with flat rate games, and never ever with only 2 or 3 player games. Anyway, for those who haven't seen it yet, I'm reposting the basic method to hack into the card program, but it's a bit complicated to explain without a whiteboard. Also, this is not compatible with greasemonkey, so if you want to do it you'll have to work it out just like I did, but with the info below you should be able to do it in a fraction of the time it took me.... just don't give up, it really is worth all the effort.

First off, it doesn't work with flat rate, and it doesn't work with team games. Here 's why... it is all about the Cyclomatic Code Complexity within this site. The simple part to explain is that on this site the code complexity is defined by control flow, and obviously there are different ways of measuring complexity (e.g. data complexity, module complexity, algorithmic complexity, call-to, call-by, etc.), and although these other methods are effective in the right context, it seems to be generally accepted that control flow is one of the most useful measurements of complexity, and high complexity scores have been shown to be a strong indicator of low reliability and frequent errors. That's simple enough, but it's what we do with it that's so cool... This measure provides a single ordinal number that can be compared to the complexity of other games. Because of static software metrics intended to be independent of language and language format, Cyclomatic Code Complexity becomes a measure of the number of linearly-independent paths through a program module and is calculated by counting the number of decision points found in the code. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions ... _body.html Stay with me people... I use a Lutz Roeders Reflector http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/ which basically allows the user to point his Reflector tool at any Common Langauge Runtime (CLR) assembly, and it will then de-compile this creating an entirely reflected treeview with all the objects from the source assembly shown, with code. Yes with code. Great stuff. http://research.microsoft.com/~emeijer/Papers/CLR.pdf Basically you can use this tool to see how any valid CLR (assuming it has not been obfuscated) assembly works. Anyway the up shot of it, is that we get a boolean to say that the current file is valid or not, that is all we care about at the moment. So if the file requested is not a valid CLR type an error message is shown, and nothing else is done. However, if the input file is a valid CLR file, it is then checked to see if the file is a "System" assembly, and if it is... eureka! I get an extra card. Ok so thats pretty much all there is to it.

A while back I started to modifiy this to work with flat rate, but I don't think it would really be worth all the effort. So if you really want this for flat rate, let me explain how far I got and you could work on finishing it. You would have to revisit the treeview with ONLY valid namespaces and ONLY valid classes created. We would also have to find the NameSpaces object which contains the list of strings (for namspaces) and for each string of ucClass objects (for the classes). The list of ucClass objects are created by this and are then ready and waiting to be placed on a suitable code. But as yet we dont know what classes the user needs, it could be all of them, or it could be 1 of them or even none of them. It depends on what the user selects from the treeview on the mainform (frmMain.cs). And that's where I got stuck. So I looked and I looked for an answer. The only thing simliar at all, was GDI+ http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms533798.aspx and in order to do something like this, a destination target needs to be created at the full string size, and then the viewable (onscreen) fragments are printed to individual page framements and saved into the destination image at the correct x/y co-ordinates. In order to do this the application has to programatically perform scrolling to get the next page fragment code to merge with the destination code. I managed to get this to work, but it was a complete nightmare, and there were definetly bugs everywhere, which resulted in losing more cards that I gained! So if there is anyone reading this that is totally rad and knarly at GDI+, and knows how to save the entire contents of a scrollable control to an exisiting code, please feel free to let me know. As for the above code, it is code that I am kind of 1/2 proud of, but would rather wasn't there. Do you know what I mean? After all, sometimes you just get completley stuck with trying to patch all these code fragments together, to form the final destination code.


So for these reasons, it only works properly with 6 player std escalating games, so that is the only type of game that I play.

MeDeFe wrote:In the old days we sacrificed a goat every new moon and regularly prayed to the dice gods. That always did the trick.

wcaclimbing wrote:Here's an interesting post Robinette made a few years ago. With this trick, I got my score up to nearly 3000 points before I got bored with it. Cheating really gets tedious and boring at times.

Robinette wrote:Legitimate cheating is really difficult on this site...

The card hack program that i wrote just has too many bugs when playing flat rate

laughingcavalier wrote:
I always wondered why high ranks don't play flat rate.

Beckytheblondie wrote:It doesn't take a crown next to your name to figure out that flat rate is God's punishment for thoughts of infidelity...

Incandenza wrote:

Beckytheblondie wrote:It doesn't take a crown next to your name to figure out that flat rate is God's punishment for thoughts of infidelity...

Oooo, that's good...

AndyDufresne wrote: But if I do get a intensity cube hack, I'll make sure to let everyone know---once I get to the top of the scoreboard.


--Andy

Elijah S wrote:.... I'm wondering if others have similar suspicions about the use of codes or other methods of cheating.

Scott-Land wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote: But if I do get a intensity cube hack, I'll make sure to let everyone know---once I get to the top of the scoreboard.


--Andy

I'm not convinced that would help you get to the top Andy.