Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Gadgerson

Sync Lock Blog Post and Video of how it works.

Recommended Posts

16 hours after implementing the new Sync Lock updates, these are the people that have been Synced in the new system. Hopefully this number gets smaller once we get GPS accuracy added to all the clients.

10 players in New South Wales, Australia

1 players in British Columbia, Canada

2 players in Quebec, Canada

4 players in Brandenburg, Germany

2 players in Land Berlin, Germany

2 players in Selangor, Malaysia

3 players in Central, Singapore

4 players in England, United Kingdom

2 players in Arizona, United States

2 players in Florida, United States

12 players in Illinois, United States

2 players in Massachusetts, United States

1 players in Michigan, United States

2 players in Minnesota, United States

2 players in Missouri, United States

2 players in New York, United States

2 players in North Carolina, United States

2 players in Pennsylvania, United States

2 players in Tennessee, United States

1 players in Texas, United States

7 players in Washington, United States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these new numbers reflective of improvements to system or overall decrease in activity?

at a guess a bit of both, sync lock mechanics will create a decrease in activity - the purpose behind it being preventing the 'false' activity generated by multi scopers.

obviously the challenge is tweaking the system so that the innocent bystanders are *NOT* caught in the crossfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW - I am sort of speechless.

- there are only 3 Zones WORLD WIDE where a significant number of people might be crazy enough to operate Q on more than 2 phones ( is that the case ? Are the 12 players from illinois actually clustered within 1-2 km ??)

- in all other zones WORLD WIDE groups of people playing can't socialize enough that they feel they can dominate 2 players acting together ( or an evil multiscoper operating the incredible amount of TWO devices ) instead they cry and whine and threaten to leave the game ???

- have you really spent DAYS of programming / MONTHS of discussions to get rid of a problem affecting less than 1% of your customers and a mere 21 areas of the game WORLD WIDE ???

the 4 players in brandenburg are 2 pairs living approximately 70 km apart ( 1 pair is me and my daughter ) so these two are no more than 2 players each acting together...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not possible. The choice is allow multiscopers or accept the fact that innocent people will pay to play, get burnt or move on and quit playing. Now people will have to decide is it worth 9.99 per account per month to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW - I am sort of speechless.

- there are only 3 Zones WORLD WIDE where a significant number of people might be crazy enough to operate Q on more than 2 phones ( is that the case ? Are the 12 players from illinois actually clustered within 1-2 km ??)

- in all other zones WORLD WIDE groups of people playing can't socialize enough that they feel they can dominate 2 players acting together ( or an evil multiscoper operating the incredible amount of TWO devices ) instead they cry and whine and threaten to leave the game ???

- have you really spent DAYS of programming / MONTHS of discussions to get rid of a problem affecting less than 1% of your customers and a mere 21 areas of the game WORLD WIDE ???

the 4 players in brandenburg are 2 pairs living approximately 70 km apart ( 1 pair is me and my daughter ) so these two are no more than 2 players each acting together...

or possibly it has acted as a deterrant and those people who were multiscoping aren't anymore?

iirc silver said 7% of players were sync locked on the first day, it dropped to 3% the next day [by virtue of locking the worst offenders you'd assume] and down to 1% now sounds about right as it reduces its innocent people getting hit and the multiscopers who stop multi scoping.

so in theory - it is worknig pretty perfectly. or you can read into it your way, in which case it was a massive waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not possible. The choice is allow multiscopers or accept the fact that innocent people will pay to play, get burnt or move on and quit playing. Now people will have to decide is it worth 9.99 per account per month to play.

what is not possible?

the fact is all this came about, as silver has explained countless times, because people would not just accept multi scoping [fair enough] and either quit playing or threw endless abuse at silver, gadgerson and whoever else monitors the support emails & social media [totally not fair enough].

the choice was either people quit because they think cheating is allowed or they *might* quit because the anti cheating measures aren't perfect.

"better to regret something you have done, than something you haven't" comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mostly indifferent to the Sync Lock, but very hopeful the community will now get past this multiscope nonsense. Qonqr's ability to listen and adapt from player feedback is commendable, regardless if you agree with this or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this, locks are down to about 1%. I haven't been locked since the first day. But my family has cut game play a lot. I do know others who play fairly that haven't cut game play and have been in continuous lock. Many of them are pay players. With 5% of players being pay players and 1% of players still being locked. If half of those being locked are legitimate pay players, the devs have potentially pushed 10% of their paying customers out of the game for a problem that apparently exist in less than 1% of gamers. Nice. ps this doesn't include gamers who have left the game. Many who were pay players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these new numbers reflective of improvements to system or overall decrease in activity?

Treeslayer, that is an excellent question. I had not considered the drop in sync lock may be because we lost a bunch of players. I checked the database. The first 20 hours of today (UTC time) saw a drop to total launches of 2% compared to the first 20 hours of last Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treeslayer, that is an excellent question. I had not considered the drop in sync lock may be because we lost a bunch of players. I checked the database. The first 20 hours of today (UTC time) saw a drop to total launches of 2% compared to the first 20 hours of last Sunday.

is it possible to check the number of total number of unique players who deploy in a day? that would maybe be a better guide than total launches as it would not be affected by the sync lock [other than showing up if players just stopped playing altogether]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- there are only 3 Zones WORLD WIDE where a significant number of people might be crazy enough to operate Q on more than 2 phones ( is that the case ? Are the 12 players from illinois actually clustered within 1-2 km ??)

I have it on fairly good authority that a good chunk of these 12 players belong to a friend group that attend the same school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in one of those areas and have personally sync locked more people than the numbers provided show. A little padding going on I think.

Maybe a better question. How many anti viruses have been purchased per area?

those numbers are just since the last update to the sync lock, not since it began...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I locked my local. Only twice. Fun as it was, I ended up feeling sorry for him so didn't bother the third time. I take a bit of pride knowing that the advantage is needed by my opposition. Im sure I could manage to get a lock if I need to, even with the new tweaks, so Im not so bothered now.

Who were the other two UK players? Anyone? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly sounds like it. The basis that a multiscoper won't be able to maintain this type of regime seems a bit thin, but coupled up with the other criteria it should help out.

In all fairness it now makes Sync lock more of a tactitcal weapon to be used when groups/families get a bit too keen and forget to watch their deployments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×