Feedback talk:User/Rose Of Kali/Item protection from hack theft

This could go hand in hand with requiring strong passwords which will prevent the ease of hacking in the first place (1 upper case, 1 lower case, 1 symbol no dictionary words). I don't think though ArenaNet would be able or want to put such a thing in such an old game. --Dominator Matrix  03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your words are the key: "prevent ease of hacking." But even with uber passwords, people still get hacked. Even with "clean" systems, people still get hacked. I don't think there's anything that players or Anet can do to completely eradicate hacking, and that's where this comes in. Also, if this can be done, I see no reason not to. When people complained about customized minis, how long did it take them to "invent" dedication? [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 03:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this would require a server database overhaul, and lots of coding which will put them away from GW2 even though it could affect GW2. So its slim, but still a chance. --Dominator Matrix  03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With that attitude, the Feedback namespace shouldn't exist. ;) [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't say it was impossible its just an area A.Net really doesn't want to touch it seems :/. --Dominator Matrix  03:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they better stinkin' want to touch it in the light of recent events, brightly reflected on Gaile's talkpage. [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 03:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems well worth suggesting
I like the idea of offering players some method of protection from some of the worst affects of hacking. The game currently has three mechanisms of reserving items.
 * Customization (automatic, for armor and some quest items; on demand, for weapons only)
 * Dedication (minis, at the hall of monument &mdash; can still be stolen, but the impact on the player is lessened)
 * Account reservation (zoins and other items that have hidden tags that do not allow them to be moved between accounts)

If I understand correctly you want to make it possible to tag any item as if it were a zoin. I can see ANet adding a Guild Hall NPC to perform this type of service. Perhaps, as with extra storage and makeovers, there is a real world fee involved to make this worth coding.

I don't know that the 5-day limit will be sufficient: if your account is compromised and you are unaware, folks can slip and slip out at will; they would just have to outwait you to steal the reserved items. What if instead of a time limit, the NPC required you to type an additional password? You would not be allowed to use your account p/w (leaving at risk only those players with keyloggers on their PC).

And, if going the extra step into a 2nd p/w, what about making this an extra storage pane instead? You pay US$20 (instead of $10) to get the protected storage, which requires typing a second password 1x/logon before you can take stuff out. &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the password idea, not only for if your account gets hacked, but if you share your account with someone.. (I'm sayin this because i had to share an account for about 3 months with my brother when it first came out..)Sloh Em Oshun 07:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the armor and weapons you wear or carry with you all the time? A storage pane can't protect those. I intended for a way to know when items get "tagged for unprotection" so that you can see it. 5 days may be too little for players that aren't very active now, but longer times may become annoying if you change your mind and want it reversed. The reason I don't like the second password is because hacked accounts usually have their passwords compromised in the first place. But compromising a password you don't use often is unlikely except by dictionary/brute force, so that may be an option. How about an Email notification when an item was requested for un-protection? That way you know even if you don't login frequently. But then, this leaves a problem of those who no longer have access to the Email they used as their login. I wonder if it would be possible to choose the anticipated unprotection time on a protected item, say between 5 days and 30 days, and players could gauge the amount of time based on their activity in the game and the likelihood that they may need to unprotect a particular item. Same with character deletion. That way you can choose greater delay and increase your protection at the cost of having to wait yourself if you decide to delete the char/sell the item. The thing is, protecting something from a hacker is essentially protecting it from your own self. Hmm... I'll have to think about this. More ideas welcome. [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 09:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the current environment, there's no way to completely guard against theft through social engineering or hacking. Only the use of a token (e.g. SecurID) that generates a unique 50% component of your password every X seconds is going to block these attempts (and I'm sure that evil-doers will find a way past that at some point). So, any protection has to way cost & inconvenience vs. degree of protection. Currently, ANet's measures are actually pretty good. Alas, the risk/reward for hacking is too great for thieves to pass up (very little risk in certain nations if caught; excellent rewards).


 * Therefore, for each type of protection, it makes sense to compare how much trouble (for ANet/player) vs. how much additional safety.
 * {| style="font-size:80%"

! Protection type !! Applies to !! Risk reduction !! ANet Cost !! Player cost !! Notes
 * Customization || Armor/Weapons || Only mods are at risk || none || armor: free; weapons: nearly free || Mods replaceable through cash/trades.
 * Password protected storage || Stored items only || Industry best || Advanced new feature || Remember 2nd password || Cost-effective for ANet if they charge premium for service
 * Dedication || Minis only || Does not protect directly || none || none || reducing the value of item reduces reward to thieves
 * Reservation plus || Any item || 100% for limited # items, limited # days || Highly advanced new feature || Inconvenient || Code is present to reserve a few items; new code must be written to allow any/many to be tagged
 * }
 * I present the table entirely for comparison purposes; feel free to update/change/delete as it is helpful to you to compare effort (ANet/Player) vs. risk reduction. Regardless of whether ANet implements the exact idea presented here, I think it's useful to discuss. I am sure that some peeps at ANet are looking for something like this; if they don't use this suggestion, it might still help them come up with the next great thing&trade;.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reservation plus || Any item || 100% for limited # items, limited # days || Highly advanced new feature || Inconvenient || Code is present to reserve a few items; new code must be written to allow any/many to be tagged
 * }
 * I present the table entirely for comparison purposes; feel free to update/change/delete as it is helpful to you to compare effort (ANet/Player) vs. risk reduction. Regardless of whether ANet implements the exact idea presented here, I think it's useful to discuss. I am sure that some peeps at ANet are looking for something like this; if they don't use this suggestion, it might still help them come up with the next great thing&trade;.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I present the table entirely for comparison purposes; feel free to update/change/delete as it is helpful to you to compare effort (ANet/Player) vs. risk reduction. Regardless of whether ANet implements the exact idea presented here, I think it's useful to discuss. I am sure that some peeps at ANet are looking for something like this; if they don't use this suggestion, it might still help them come up with the next great thing&trade;.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)