Discussion on Cheating [merged]

[bebita]

i played quantum before and now , damn ... if is not one of the best era's since wave 10.
to be honest i do not want to see jason again around and to see cheaters playing this game(remember hippy and his multies and how much i cried to make one of them disseapear?)
game cop ...with atack logs is hard for someone to cheat and 2 game cops are enought
now lets just play and stop crying on forums and let people play a good game

[Neimenljivi]

i played quantum before and now , damn ... if is not one of the best era's since wave 10.
to be honest i do not want to see jason again around and to see cheaters playing this game(remember hippy and his multies and how much i cried to make one of them disseapear?)
game cop ...with atack logs is hard for someone to cheat and 2 game cops are enought
now lets just play and stop crying on forums and let people play a good game

Bebita, sadly you are not aware of this. But there are at least 3 multies around. They can't continue to feed each other any more, since that is monitored, but they use multies to gain help in a different way. All of that was more than proven. Game Cops have the necessary tools to prove it. They monitored what was happening for a long time.
Heck, stranger and his multi/"brother" Sleepdeprived confessed they have the login info of each other. That IS against the rules and is cheating. Sleepdeprived deleted after I've massed him a couple of times, stranger account is still there. If nothing else, stranger account benefited from his "brother" having login info at least when I massed both of them - he would have lost around 3 mil spies if it weren't for Sleepdeprived logging in.

As far as this era goes - there is nothing special about it. Juliette asked me over half a year ago which era I thought was the most successful. I said the old skool one. This is an attempt to recreate the old skool era, yet there are no features from the old skool era in it. What this era is is an era with no special feature. Nothing special at all about it. Just an era that took the least to be made. Heck, even proven cheaters aren't banned. The only reason why so many people play it is the black market $ reward on main server for top 3. I agree this is good to make people play it and should probably stay for every era, but eras actually need to be made correctly. Not just copying the code from an old era and removing the special feature it had.

~Jack

[Neimenljivi]

..gone insane, of course.. For not dealing with this.

Anyway, here's something a lot of you might find interesting. I won't name any names (and I ask those who know the names, to keep it quiet for now), will just keep them as A and B, A being main account and B being a "friend".

Seeing how I won't give any names, I first have to explain some history between the two accounts. Account B never really played. Never did anything, except to benefit account A. Account B wouldn't do anything if it got massed, but would go after those who massed account A or were a threat of any sort to account A. As soon as account A goes inactive for an era or two, so does account B. They come back playing at the same time. Account B fed account A back while feeding wasn't deemed illegal and they denied that fact (that account B fed account A). After GAL were added, account B still fed account A (they acknowledged it in something like "well everyone's being fed"). Account A never did anything to help account B, while account B has always been helping out account A.
In current era, account A kept a relatively low covert. Account B (surprise surprise) had a big covert and spied everyone who was a threat to account A in any sort of way - account A couldn't spy those people due to the low covert. Yet account A always knew stats of the people that account B spied. Account B sabbed people who had a lot of naq or units out, then account A just happened to login and, didn't even spy those accounts, but knew they had 1) a lot resources out and 2) a small enough defence. Straight after account B finishes sabbing someone, account A logs in and farms/raid that account. Goes straight for that account, no searching, spying or anything - just that account.
Account B and account A's relationship wasn't an unknown fact, so when both accounts became active again, account B's name was changed to something that wouldn't link both accounts and thus they could remain under the radar.

99% of the time account A logged in, account B logged in just before/after account A's login. Take a look at these times.

Account A
Last login: 4-04-14 04:54:46
Previous login: 4-04-14 04:30:31
Account B
Last login: 4-04-14 04:56:13
Previous login: 3-04-14 04:47:34

Account A
Last login: 6-04-14 06:17:22
Previous login: 6-04-14 05:38:18
Account B
Last login: 6-04-14 06:17:47
Previous login: 4-04-14 06:13:03

Account A
Last login: 8-04-14 01:50:02
Previous login: 8-04-14 01:13:35
Account B
Last login: 8-04-14 01:48:19
Previous login: 8-04-14 12:54:48

Account A
Last login: 8-04-14 01:50:02
Previous login: 8-04-14 01:13:35
Account B
Last login: 8-04-14 01:48:19
Previous login: 8-04-14 12:54:48

Account B rarely banks. Just builds covert, spies and sabs people that are a threat to account A.
One case was also very interesting. Account B sabs someone with a decent amount of units out. Account B's activity stops at 1.07. At exactly that time, account A starts farming and raiding people - with the first one being the account which account B sabbed previously.

There was one event for instance, where account A was farming people. Account A stopped. 5 minutes later account B logged in and spied all the people who could be considered a threat to account A. Account B logs off. Account A logs in and continues farming.

Another even when account A spied someone, saw they had an ample amount of UUs out, but a defence that would have to be sabbed first. Account A doesn't want to risk their own units and resources for that. So - a funny coincidence, let me tell you, something you wouldn't expect to happen - account B happens to login and sabs that person. You're right - before sabbing, account B didn't spy the account to either see what defence that person has, or what covert action they have, or even if they have enough UUs or something.. But let me remind you the last thing account A did was spy that very person. After sabbing, account A logs in again and raids the person.

Let me tell you that these 2 accounts were being CAREFULLY watched at for over 2 months. Always the same pattern. Always. Account A never loses any resources and account B always magically appear to do whatever account A would need whenever account A needs it - spy logs, someone sabbed, someone massed, etc. I don't recall ever seeing their login times far from each other either. The examples I posted above are few out of many - I am just not arsed to go through 500ish ingame PMs.
Let me again state that their activity cycles (which era they play and which era they don't play) keep overlapping as well. Surprise surprise. Let me tell you again that these accounts have been suspicious ever since account B was created.

There's just one piece of evidence that they've tried hard to conceal. IPs never matched. But that's like saying "oh, this brunette was that blonde chick we saw a week ago?" - we all know one can dye their hair and we all know proxies exist and can easily be used to change one's IP. But hey, if that's the exonerating "evidence".. Well all I can say is that one of the people who helped investigate these multies used to be a RL detective, 9 years of experience. He's positive they are multies as well (although our lovely staff is apparently more experienced than an ex RL detective in weighing evidence). I am sure if he was as positive as he is now in a RL case he had, managed to get a bunch of evidence which all point toward the same direction and then went to the court and they exonerated a woman due to being a brunette instead of a blonde that was on a video camera at the crime scene a month ago (despite all the other evidence showing it is the same person), he'd flip out big time.

So all I can say is "ain't no cheater, cuz they're gone..insane.."

How events unfold will be very interesting, of course. Simply because it's so easy to replicate what they're doing and I imagine quite a few people will start doing it if cheaters continue to get away unpunished. Well, them walking away might be also due to one reason - they are known to buy an USS or two every now and then.

My bank holds enough naq to make sure that this person (and we only need to worry about account A as account B was set up to help account A throughout the era, not to go for ranks at the end of the era - account A was set up for that) doesn't end nowhere near the top.

In the mean time I am very interested in what Q community thinks about such a cheater. So please share your views about this here. Everyone's opinion is welcomed. As I said, the only thing I won't do yet is disclose the names of account A and B.

~Jack

[Ronon Dex]

The way I see it if player A & player B are indeed 2 different players then i don't see anything wrong in that sort of play style, its a bit underhanded but a valid tactic.

There will always be people helping each other to win or do better in this game, and as long as this "helping" is within the rules then I cant see what can be done.

However the evidence shows that these 2 accounts are extremely likely to be the same person using proxys to try and cover their tracks. Having at least 2 accounts and using this tactic is down right out of order, and really does spoil the game for many others.

To Admin: At the end of the day isn't it better to ban these two people for extremely noticeable and suspicious activity, and maybe (unlikely) piss 2 people off for getting it wrong? Or do you really think that its better to leave him/her unbanned and allow continued cheating and piss off most of the Q community?

To end: Listen to your staff! You put them there for a reason, supposedly you chose them because you can trust what they say, believe they are good at what they do and are fair with the issues they bring to you.

[Sniperwax]

I have yet to try Quantum due to the constant QQ-fest but I did very much enjoy this diatribe. Well done Niem. I hope the proxy cnut gets banned.

[S1eepy]

You mean Clark Kent is Superman?!?

But he was wearing those glasses the whole time! How could anyone have known?


Go get em Neim =D



Hmmm, were both the accounts farming throughout the era? I imagine they would have to be if AccountB was to keep up with armysize/covert levels/techs to be useful as a spy account.
Coz that's a lot of work to put in for a fairly small reward..

Even if it wasn't illegal, I dont think I would put that much effort in to have a spy account. I would definitely make it into a massing-the-crap-out-of-everyone-else-in-the-game account. Otherwise, its just not worth the effort ^^

[Ronon Dex]

I have yet to try Quantum due to the constant QQ-fest but I did very much enjoy this diatribe. Well done Niem. I hope the proxy cnut gets banned.

There really isn't that much QQ and its only about cheaters which is no more than what happens in main..

You should give it a go for an era

[S1eepy]

I have yet to try Quantum due to the constant QQ-fest but I did very much enjoy this diatribe. Well done Niem. I hope the proxy cnut gets banned.

There really isn't that much QQ and its only about cheaters which is no more than what happens in main..

You should give it a go for an era

He hasnt got what it takes to compete with the Q crowd =P

[The Doctor]

The way I see it if player A & player B are indeed 2 different players then i don't see anything wrong in that sort of play style, its a bit underhanded but a valid tactic.

There will always be people helping each other to win or do better in this game, and as long as this "helping" is within the rules then I cant see what can be done.

Yup, helping each other is allowed, otherwise, alliances would all be banned

However the evidence shows that these 2 accounts are extremely likely to be the same person using proxys to try and cover their tracks. Having at least 2 accounts and using this tactic is down right out of order, and really does spoil the game for many others.

I agree with that.

To Admin: At the end of the day isn't it better to ban these two people for extremely noticeable and suspicious activity, and maybe (unlikely) piss 2 people off for getting it wrong? Or do you really think that its better to leave him/her unbanned and allow continued cheating and piss off most of the Q community?

And here is where the issue is. Yes, it is suspicious and noticable. However, there is no evidence. Assumptions based on circumstances (similar login times and such), but it is not evidence.

I can not, and will not, take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

[Ronon Dex]

Thanks for at least replying. Appreciated.

I would just like to ask if this is not seen as evidence, (which i can understand ish) then in this case (because its not feeding) the only solid evidence you are going to get (for you to act on) is an IP match or some sort of confession weather that be direct or indirect.

In either case I don't think you'll get it.

[S1eepy]

Sooooo, If I find myself a pair of glasses.. I can be Clark Kent too?



more seriously;

I can not, and will not, take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

You need to consider "reasonable doubt"
[spoiler]If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty[/spoiler]

I would say in this case - if the evidence presented by Neimenljivi is correct (I havent personally checked all he has said, so I cant guarantee it) then guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt

[bebita]

Account A
Last login: 4-04-14 04:54:46
Previous login: 4-04-14 04:30:31
Account B
Last login: 4-04-14 04:56:13
Previous login: 3-04-14 04:47:34

Account A
Last login: 6-04-14 06:17:22
Previous login: 6-04-14 05:38:18
Account B
Last login: 6-04-14 06:17:47
Previous login: 4-04-14 06:13:03

Account A
Last login: 8-04-14 01:50:02
Previous login: 8-04-14 01:13:35
Account B
Last login: 8-04-14 01:48:19
Previous login: 8-04-14 12:54:48

Account A
Last login: 8-04-14 01:50:02
Previous login: 8-04-14 01:13:35
Account B
Last login: 8-04-14 01:48:19
Previous login: 8-04-14 12:54:48

heyyy...
what u need more proves
u don't need more

[Mental]

Sooooo, If I find myself a pair of glasses.. I can be Clark Kent too?



more seriously;

I can not, and will not, take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

You need to consider "reasonable doubt"
[spoiler]If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty[/spoiler]

I would say in this case - if the evidence presented by Neimenljivi is correct (I havent personally checked all he has said, so I cant guarantee it) then guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt

The balance of probabilities is the usual measure for a judge, Juries go for beyond reasonable doubt.

[Neimenljivi]

First off, everyone, Crixus and Arty put in a lot more work. I haven't had the tools at my disposal since I resigned, they just wanted to bring me in due to my experience in catching cheaters. All I could do, on my own, was to investigate account A and B's relationship based on forums and based on my own memories which that investigation brought to light again. So all the 'good work' should first and foremost go to Arty and Crixus, I helped when and if I could, I reviewed the evidence, collected the evidence I could collect, but they did the lion's share of work. Heck, I spent a good couple of hours dealing with this, just the long messages we've been exchanging probably took a few hours for constructing and reading and whatnot, the forum search also took a few hours and these forum posts and everything do take some time as well (the initial post of this thread took an hour of my time to be composed with all the relevant info and all while making sure no names are disclosed). But Arty and Crixus spent countless more hours watching the login times, watching the logs, cataloging all that suspicious activity and everything. As I said, this is the result of a 2 months investigation.

Ronon - I completely agree with you. Everyone has helped someone at a point in their gaming career. But I know of no one who'd be helping someone each and every time they played Q, who'd be there each and every time their "friend" needed them. If I asked my GF to help me out, she would, for a week or two, maybe a month. But she definitely wouldn't have been doing it for as long as these accounts have been doing it - and me and her aren't exactly the newest couple on the block.
I also agree with your end comment. Both Juliette and Haz need to understand that, compared to us, they hardly have any experience with Quantum. If they had been playing for so long, they would understand that multis in Quantum can't "trade" with each other, feeding will get them banned, etc., and that the only way one would be able to benefit from having a multi in Q is by putting other people at a disadvantage - either by massing people, sabbing people, or by spying on other people. For as long as feeding was allowed, account B fed account A. Feeding was made illegal and accounts are banned for doing it. Account B stops feeding account A, but continues to help it either by sabbing people so that account A can farm/raid them without the need to increase their strike (and thus save valuable resources as stat building only puts one at a disadvantage when it's done too early), or by spying on people so that account A doesn't have to build a big covert early on (again, something that saves a lot of resources in the first month and a half of the era), or by massing them. I don't recall account B massing someone in this era - although I could have forgotten about it, since I wasn't checking GAL in the first month or so - but account B has massed people in the past. The people account B massed in the past were never on friendly terms with account A.

S1eepy - I'll let you be Clark if you wear Superman's dress
Account B stopped farming about a month ago, around the same time account A started building covert. Bare in mind that at that point, even a completely inactive account could use 5k ATs, train everything into spies, and see everyone's stats as people didn't have covert actions as big as they are now. So the army size wasn't that much of a deal, besides - UP is very cheap when you aren't the one with the top raw, so having an average UP (especially when you start to build it up a bit later) isn't hard at all. All account B needed to do was to train units in spies, use up 2-3k ATs weekly for farming (and spend it all for spy levels and techs) and that was enough to see everyone's stats. Account B had covert action around 7x higher than account A pretty much all the time. It isn't really hard, doesn't take much time, but saves up valuable resources for account A. Especially whenever account B sabs people account A would want to see sabbed (either as a way for account A to successfully farm/raid them without the need to throw the resources for bigger strike, or as a way to get rid of them from account A's hair).

Like you said, Ronon, the only "solid" piece of evidence one can get in Quantum (due to accounts not being able to trade with each other and due to feeding being carefully monitored and sanctioned) is an IP match and there's a childishly easy way to get around it. All of us know about dynamic IPs and about proxies. IPs not matching shouldn't therefore prove that it is not the same person. When all the evidence points towards the same thing, when the evidence prove it beyond reasonable doubt (which S1eepy, another someone who has way more experience in Quantum than the current admins, also agrees with), I don't see why the accounts aren't banned.

S1eepy - if it wasn't correct, Haz and Juliette would say it isn't. The report is about a month old, so they've had plenty of time to go through all the evidence and see the evidence is correct.

Bebita - I agree with you. We just tried to collect as much evidence so that we wouldn't get the "assumptions based on circumstances (similar login times) don't prove anything" response from the admins.. Look where that got us

Also one final message to those asking me who the accounts in question are - you will all know in due time. I don't know everyone's relationships with the person behind these two accounts and I want everyone to give me their opinion purely based on facts presented here, not based on their (dis)like of that spcific person.

~Jack

[Mental]

The balance of probabilities would lead me to believe that chances are high that the same player is behind both accounts, The burden of proof is a lot lower than beyond reasonable doubt.