Yeah, I don't have the coding skills to confirm it myself, but I've heard that from a few sources.LargoLaGrande wrote: ↑15 March 2024, 14:21 In my opinion, if somebody is using "solvers" for me it's not a problem. Basically, I suppose, a solver tries to do the same "deep deduction" we "humans" try to do with pen and paper, or Excel, or other home made tools (I'm a software engineer and it's very funny to write code to solve some Turing Machine games).
I'm saying that even with "solvers" the game is fair. A solver can't beat a human, it's basically quicker in sorting out possible solutions, but not better.
If some people want to use a "solver" and think it is funny (and I don't), it's ok for me. At least if I play well we will probably tie.
In my opinion the majority of people complaining about cheaters simply didn't understand or didn't like the "deep deduction", that for me is the main attractive of this type of games, and think they were cheated.
Now, about real cheaters.
I was suspicious about a game, a player beaten me with one verifier less than the minimum that was possible for me, I was not so expert in the game so I asked for explanations and I was not convinced, but thought it was my fault. The same player beaten my in the same way some days after, so I got very suspicious.
I studied a little bit the code of the page (as I said, I know how to code) and found how to cheat.
I can confirm what NachitoRus wrote, probably we found the same method
I played other games with at least 2 players that are cheating 100%, their pattern is the same: they wait your moves, if you use 3 verifiers they solve with 2, if you use 2 verifiers they solve with 1, otherwise they solve with 0 verifiers. I even tried not to play and my opponent didn't played at all, and kicked me out of the game at the moment my remaining time (and also his time) became red. They never use more than 2 verifiers, because they want to be sure to win, even if the game is very difficult and a "not cheater" player requires a lot of verifiers.
They are ruining the game for everybody, so please fix this.
I've had such players try to claim that they are watching which verifiers I needed to use and then deducing what answers they must have given by which test I needed to perform next.
Even if true, I detest that kind of play, I have no interest in the people-watching game... but in fact the explanation simply didn't hold true in the cases I've experienced; they still would not have been able to determine the answer 100% correctly even using that method. I'm quite certain that in reality they used the method you describe here.
They simply need to close that loophole (I assume that's possible?) and also stop indicating which verifiers you test as you go along; only reveal it at the end of the round. This will prevent the horrible cat-and-mouse game of trying to out-wait your opponent.
Make those 2 change and then I agree, solvers can't do any better than a human can do (although there are edge cases where "create a challenge" *can* actually help you beat the minimum, when not all possible solutions have been assigned puzzle codes).