What are the effects of this "patch"? I think it would be fair to the rest of us that this be spelled out fully ahead of time.

Also, reading what happened, it seems like a fix might have been just to add a "inform of non-redshirt" option that you could do from the start. That should have some value, and in real life it would. Okay, recruit, I am not going to promise you pt, but you won't get redshirted and may get time off the bench, depending on how the season evolves. More people would have done this more often and noticed its effects earlier then. Also, I do think the prestige issue was on point. Come play with us, we have great prestige A+, and we aren't going to redshirt you, vs. a C team saying we aren't going to redshirt you, big deal, of course I should be playing with you. So maybe just do that WIS rather than tinkering with all the algorithms.

Open to other ideas, but I don't think this warrants a wholesale, undisclosed change to the nature of recruiting.

I would suggest to remove the redshirt option entirely from recruiting.

Let it be a decision that happens on an individual roster after signings.

That could work too, especially if that would not involve changing the algorithms.

i don't think the issue here is limited to just this redshirt-no redshirt deal. they aren't exactly clear in chris's explanation, but i think there were even bigger problems lurking in the same general space, and that they are cleaning up a number of problems. i don't think anything short of a significant rework would eliminate all the issues.

Posted by gillispie on 11/3/2022 4:52:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the issue here is limited to just this redshirt-no redshirt deal. they aren't exactly clear in chris's explanation, but i think there were even bigger problems lurking in the same general space, and that they are cleaning up a number of problems. i don't think anything short of a significant rework would eliminate all the issues.

Interesting. I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of any computer program that has not seen any meaningful update/improvement in years. Those with analytical skill will probe for unintended weaknesses and, once found, will exploit them for all its worth.

WIS should take some measure of responsibility here.

eventually i'll stop beating this drum, but it was a real mistake for this issue to be brought to the forums before CS. the amount of change CS is making should really have been made without a gun to their head, so it could be properly tested. now we have a serious risk of mistakes and issues, with code being rushed into production instead of going to QA. those issues could take the form of bugs, it could take the issue of new exploits being possible. i have never brought a recruiting exploit to CS that they did not fix in a timely manner. its different if a serious issue is brought to CS and they won't pay attention, but that was not attempted here.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 11/3/2022 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 11/3/2022 4:52:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the issue here is limited to just this redshirt-no redshirt deal. they aren't exactly clear in chris's explanation, but i think there were even bigger problems lurking in the same general space, and that they are cleaning up a number of problems. i don't think anything short of a significant rework would eliminate all the issues.

Interesting. I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of any computer program that has not seen any meaningful update/improvement in years. Those with analytical skill will probe for unintended weaknesses and, once found, will exploit them for all its worth.

WIS should take some measure of responsibility here.

well, my take on this for ages is to get the 'good' coaches (by morals, not skill) aware of the reality that bugs like this exist in all games like this, and that through our combined vigilience, we can 1) find a lot of the exploits ourselves, and get them reported, and 2) keep our eyes out for the bad actors who may be exploiting them.

when i first came back to 3.0 after retirement, one of the early things i did was find a free home visit glitch. this was quietly reported and promptly fixed. its hard because i will reference this stuff in passing, to try to raise awareness, but i can't talk about methods, because the same problems circle back too often.

the clear success case for my approach... 2 months into co-coaching with chap is when i stumbled on the free home visit glitch. but i had my eye out for it, i'd found almost the same problem in prior versions. anyway, soon as it happened, i knew, and i picked up a test team, proved it out, and sent in detailed info. but also, i trusted chap enough to walk him through the entire thing. a year later, they made a change, and chap found a serious recruiting glitch, that would impact the competitive balance substantially, and he handled it like a pro. he documented it and sent it in immediately, did not abuse it for personal benefit, and did not share the details with anyone, at least until after WIS fixed it.

i don't expect most other coaches in this game to do things i will do, which is to occasionally take a couple hours to try to find exploits to report. but you all can stumble into them pretty easily, i have stumbled into probably half of mine, the other half i went looking for. anyway, its REALLY easy to stumble into one and not even realize it happened. with chap, it took me like, half an hour, to convince him that a serious exploit had even happened. if it happened to him without me, he'd not have even noticed. and if he did, he'd have thought, that's a weird glitch, and have moved on. now he knows that it is important to pay attention to that stuff, because it could prevent real harm to the community if someone else finds it an exploits it maliciously.

I have not read every word of the 30+ page "Cheater-Confirmed" thread.

Was there any logic given as to why it was made public rather than done privately with CS? The original pitchfork was created with that title, not by topdogg or others who have since posted strong opinions.

Posted by gillispie on 11/3/2022 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 11/3/2022 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 11/3/2022 4:52:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the issue here is limited to just this redshirt-no redshirt deal. they aren't exactly clear in chris's explanation, but i think there were even bigger problems lurking in the same general space, and that they are cleaning up a number of problems. i don't think anything short of a significant rework would eliminate all the issues.

Interesting. I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of any computer program that has not seen any meaningful update/improvement in years. Those with analytical skill will probe for unintended weaknesses and, once found, will exploit them for all its worth.

WIS should take some measure of responsibility here.

well, my take on this for ages is to get the 'good' coaches (by morals, not skill) aware of the reality that bugs like this exist in all games like this, and that through our combined vigilience, we can 1) find a lot of the exploits ourselves, and get them reported, and 2) keep our eyes out for the bad actors who may be exploiting them.

when i first came back to 3.0 after retirement, one of the early things i did was find a free home visit glitch. this was quietly reported and promptly fixed. its hard because i will reference this stuff in passing, to try to raise awareness, but i can't talk about methods, because the same problems circle back too often.

the clear success case for my approach... 2 months into co-coaching with chap is when i stumbled on the free home visit glitch. but i had my eye out for it, i'd found almost the same problem in prior versions. anyway, soon as it happened, i knew, and i picked up a test team, proved it out, and sent in detailed info. but also, i trusted chap enough to walk him through the entire thing. a year later, they made a change, and chap found a serious recruiting glitch, that would impact the competitive balance substantially, and he handled it like a pro. he documented it and sent it in immediately, did not abuse it for personal benefit, and did not share the details with anyone, at least until after WIS fixed it.

i don't expect most other coaches in this game to do things i will do, which is to occasionally take a couple hours to try to find exploits to report. but you all can stumble into them pretty easily, i have stumbled into probably half of mine, the other half i went looking for. anyway, its REALLY easy to stumble into one and not even realize it happened. with chap, it took me like, half an hour, to convince him that a serious exploit had even happened. if it happened to him without me, he'd not have even noticed. and if he did, he'd have thought, that's a weird glitch, and have moved on. now he knows that it is important to pay attention to that stuff, because it could prevent real harm to the community if someone else finds it an exploits it maliciously.

Yeah...I feel as if most of the argument has devolved into a discussion about ethics. I could not exploit a weakness in a program to my advantage because my personal ethics would prevent me from gaining an advantage that I felt was unintended (as opposed to an easter egg, which is intended.) Others are not looking at the spirit of the fair play guidelines but, rather, are taking a literal approach...almost a legal stance...if something is not expressly forbidden, in no uncertain terms, then it is all fair in love and war.

WIS should tighten its fair play guidelines to eliminate some of this ambiguity.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 11/3/2022 5:07:00 PM (view original):
I have not read every word of the 30+ page "Cheater-Confirmed" thread.

Was there any logic given as to why it was made public rather than done privately with CS? The original pitchfork was created with that title, not by topdogg or others who have since posted strong opinions.

well, it was originally is 'is this a cheater?' type thread. benis changed the title after it was confirmed. i think he was wanting to run it by a few folks, but i think it was also pretty clear abuse that could have went straight to CS or been ran by a couple coaches in a more private setting.

i still think benis did a great thing here, overall. also, someone else is the one who published the exploit, on like page 20, a friend or nephew of the accused, something along those lines. which was definitely not ideal, but it was actually helpful in the conversation, i think once folks knew the simple nature instead of the boogeymen we had in our head where people are doing some crazy scheme to find free APs and stuff... it helped actually calm the conversation down a bit.

its also possible CS wouldn't have done anything or enough without benis taking it public. we have a fairly new CS here, and IMO the relationship is a 2 way street. between CS and the community. i think its always better to approach CS and give them a chance to do right, give them a chance to process the situation and come up with a plan, instead of just assuming they will fail and acting accordingly.

Posted by gillispie on 11/3/2022 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 11/3/2022 5:07:00 PM (view original):
I have not read every word of the 30+ page "Cheater-Confirmed" thread.

Was there any logic given as to why it was made public rather than done privately with CS? The original pitchfork was created with that title, not by topdogg or others who have since posted strong opinions.

well, it was originally is 'is this a cheater?' type thread. benis changed the title after it was confirmed. i think he was wanting to run it by a few folks, but i think it was also pretty clear abuse that could have went straight to CS or been ran by a couple coaches in a more private setting.

i still think benis did a great thing here, overall. also, someone else is the one who published the exploit, on like page 20, a friend or nephew of the accused, something along those lines. which was definitely not ideal, but it was actually helpful in the conversation, i think once folks knew the simple nature instead of the boogeymen we had in our head where people are doing some crazy scheme to find free APs and stuff... it helped actually calm the conversation down a bit.

its also possible CS wouldn't have done anything or enough without benis taking it public. we have a fairly new CS here, and IMO the relationship is a 2 way street. between CS and the community. i think its always better to approach CS and give them a chance to do right, give them a chance to process the situation and come up with a plan, instead of just assuming they will fail and acting accordingly.

sigh...I miss the days of tarek

I have no problem with Benis posting the info here, and I thank him. Bosses always want things told to hem in private and kept out of public eyes. I hate that. It's a form of control I hate. I imagine some of you are bosses:). I believe in sincere disclosure and transparency. We could all be playing evenly with the knowledge of this cheat code now, and it would literally be fair. I don't like the fact that this is going to result in having to learn a new algorithm. That's going to make me most mad at this whole thing. I think it's an overreaction to have to do a change immediately. Everyone knows the deal now, and they could all use it if they want, and then let the programmers test in private and make a change when they have beta'd it for us.

By the way, I just started playing Hardball Dynasty, and this discussion cannot help me but compare it to how old coaches will operate there. I am in a world where no coaches would explain why some of them were demoting top players to aaa at the beginning of the season. No where was such a strategy explained in any official set of rules. And coaches would not tell new players when explicitly asked. That seems very parallel to what has happened here.

And it makes me wonder how many other tricks exist in that game that only a select few know about.

I've got to say that I tend to think this is an overboard attack. It was discovered, it's published, it can become part of the conventional wisdom, and let's continue to play. I don't think wholesale changes are necessary.

For a parallel, I am not asking for a fix to the above Hardball question. Some people do more much more math than others do in this game, and they learn things about how the game works as a result. Are they under some obligation to share the results of their math with everyone?

Some tinker and explore the various options given them, experimenting with the game, much more than others. Why are they under an obligation to share the results of their experimentation?