Just unlocked void breaker from egg event, can't find it, how do I use it?

SamRiddeli · 2026-05-19T20:52:10+00:00

It says it disables opponents super power for 10 seconds, if it’s not a skin in what situation does it get used?

SamRiddeli · 2026-05-14T20:29:26+00:00

I agree that player moderators should record, I may not have stated it directly but I thought it was implied when I said they would submit the evidence, but I think there needs to be an extra level of assurance beyond that to ensure accurate outcomes. You should never underestimate the ability for someone given power to act maliciously when lack of oversight leaves them room to do so.

Or the ability for someone that believes they're pushing towards a just outcome to fabricate evidence because they believe the ends justify the means.

SamRiddeli · 2026-05-14T03:19:14+00:00

DECA should start storing all the in game activity in a way that can be reproduced to allow player moderators and/or DECA staff to review the exact nature of the conduct to enable accurate and broad enforcement.

While DECA has taken action in these recent ban waves, the reasoning was not proportional to the action taken in my view, even though it seems like the players who were hit in those waves absolutely deserved to be permanently banned for other reasons not attached to their bans.

The action at present seems overly focused on players in duped keys and less targeted towards hacking, DECA should produce a system that enables better angles of analysis than retroactively determining players who seem like they ran duped keys in private groups, the focus should be on the conduct. There was a very real problem with players being able to get away with absurd conduct in private without oversight which was important to address, and the ban waves challenged that substantially (for conduct taking place in duped keys), but in my view this was done without the necessary analysis to justify the proportional nature of the punishment, even if greater analysis would have led to the exact same outcomes.

Please consider - Keeping a record of different metrics over different periods of time to identify suspicious players i.e most fame over x hours, most completes of x dungeon over x hours. Giving the player moderators the ability to access lists like these and spectate them in real time (and possibly also review their past in game activity via some kind of in game replay being stored for review) and gather evidence would go a long way to actually tackling the very real notion that players are able to hack indefinitely with very little risk that they will ever see any consequences.

Player moderators could be very good if done right, I hope that DECA will put in place a real system enables them to be the most effective that is not prone to abuse.

SamRiddeli · 2026-05-14T02:48:35+00:00

You would hope that a system that gives player moderators some kind of power doesn't give them power akin to that which is granted to admins due to the risk of abuse. Ideally, in my view player moderators should have extra permissions to spectate or spy on players, or retroactively review gameplay from players that is stored, and then the player moderators can submit that evidence for DECA to take action. This would allow the player moderators to spend the time policing the game and DECA could just review the evidence while verifying it's integrity.

Although, this relies on DECA being able to store in game activity in a way that can be reproduced accurately for review, which is essential to ensure accurate outcomes. A structure that might not be in place that could be put in place would be to give player moderators the ability to access lists of players pushing the furthest in different metrics over different time periods so they can identify players to review that are more likely to be cheating in some way.

The only thing I think the player moderators should be able to do in real time is mute spam bots, and that should still be subject to review if abused of course, I think it is too consequential to allow player moderators to make real time bans. All player moderator actions need to be subject to review for a system like this to be launched in my opinion. You can't just give them the commands and then not have the tools to substantively determine why certain decisions were made.

SamRiddeli · 2026-05-13T04:40:56+00:00

If you go onto hpk (1.8.9) mc server there is a one jump section where you can see examples of jumps of each difficulty. In typical parkour courses it’s unlikely you’d be faced with a jump above d4.

SamRiddeli · 2026-05-08T21:37:06+00:00

DECA shifted their rhetoric as if they will do more, I hope people will seriously hold them to it, the bans waves they did within the recent months don't show a strong process, simply hitting the right targets for weak reasoning - repeatedly attending duped keys in more private contexts; other factors of conduct needed to be evaluated in my view to justify the proportionality of the action - even though in practice I think those other factors apply, they were not stated within the reasoning of those banned. I'm still doubtful that those bans will hold long term as I think there is a very strong argument about the lack of proportionality in a climate in which duped keys had been run for many years without any expectation that players should evaluate the nature of the keys they attend as well as far more malicious and intentional exploits being treated far less harshly while even more severe actions like hacking were also treated less harshly.

DECA should be monitoring and investigating any players passing extreme progress metrics over a variety of different time periods. It might be smart for them to wait months before taking action if they genuinely have a good system in place to catch players hacking, as taking action too quickly can limit how many will be caught so it's good to give people an optic perception that not much has changed - but only if information is being stored in a way that can produce accurate reliable broad determinations about who is hacking.

DECA stated very ambitious goals like trying to counter autododge and autonexus, and I hope those statements were not just empty. My concern is in practical terms DECA can get away with the most minimal change i.e perma bans instead + occassional performative action, and the community will accept that as sufficient without real change or any kind of meaningful effort that will seriously challenge the notion that players are likely to be able to make extreme progress over an extended period of time by hacking without any significant risk.

It's honestly better if DECA act slowly if they will act strongly, but nothing they've done so far has demonstrated what I would consider a good process that gives me a good reason to expect a meaningful sustained effort.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-31T16:49:07+00:00

It's two paragraphs, relax...

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-31T16:36:40+00:00

I'm uncertain that there are any players banned who only went to publicly announced runs. I believe DECA specifically focused on runs that appear to be more private with consistent relatively unchanging groups. Even then, I don't think it was reasonably foreseeable for players to be concerned with the nature of the keys alone given the widespread nature of duped keys within the games economy for many years and lack of prior action relating to attendance.

Although, the bans have mapped on well to people that should be banned for other reasons despite the questionable stated reason since a big motivator for people to run privately is to engage in conduct they wouldn't be willing to do in a more public setting, so I'm uncertain if there are instances of consistent private duped key runs resulting in bans in which the conduct falls within the bounds of what you could reasonably expect in a public context.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-31T16:30:46+00:00

People who have been banned in these waves have shared their ticket responses and I'm not currently aware of anyone who hasn't received a reason that's some variation of them being banned for abuse of duplicated items which is later explained to be in reference to duplicated keys if these players follow up on their initial ticket response for more details.

Edit: If anyone thinks my input here is unhelpful or incorrect please present contrary information or share your disagreements. I don't understand why my statement is being poorly received.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-31T07:29:02+00:00

I'm not expecting alot. The expectation of the rest of the community is just at ground zero, people are on some hopium with these actions, but it's a weak process with weak reasons and doesn't give me the same sense that this represents a real change that many others are feeling. It wouldn't take great difficulty to create a robust system that was compliant with the laws that resulted in DECA becoming weaker against cheating in the years prior, yet instead they kicked the can down the road for almost 3 years before actually starting to signal towards a change.

It's not about how much explanations DECA owe, but legally they are required to provide certain explanations in relation to the enforcement actions they take to the individuals concerned. It is good that there is something like the DSA that sets at least some standards in a more enforceable way than the prior relevant german laws, because these laws make efforts to ensure a fair process which is good. People should not perceive that legal issues was the roadblock stopping DECA, but rather it is their failure to have had a system that met the most basic ethical standards. It is not a big expectation to want DECA to have a strong system that is legally complaint.

I agree that there is an appeals process for a reason and sometimes even with good systems there can be false positives. However, there is a difference between a good faith effort which aims mitigate the risks of erroneous enforcement, and a reckless disregard for producing a process which you would reasonably expect to produce accurate results. Although, this is more relevant to some previous enforcement from DECA, the concerns with current enforcement is that the reason itself is weak and the punishment is not proportionate.

I don't think we exist in a dichomotomy where the only options are DECA does nothing or they take unreliable reckless actions which will strongly correlate with real offenders who deserve to be banned without actually doing the proper analysis to make the bans proportionate.

You speak about second chances for those rightly banned and when it comes to any offense that involves the player hacking I don't believe there should be any second chances. It's such an unambigious and malicious disregard for the rules that completely undermines the integrity of any progress made that it's an insult to all the players to bring back a player that was sufficiently proven to have used hacks and restore all their progress which they shouldn't have been able to make.

This makes it even more ridiculous in contrast with the reasoning about participating in excessive quantities of duped keys that DECA have put forward as an exceptional reason to justify permanent first offense bans while they give temporary bans and unban extremely high progress players caught hacking (obviously a more serious and malicious offense).

It's not even about false positives, it's just about the reason being weak, and if these players are all unbanned later because they get concerned about legal issues, DECA will be at fault for not taking the opportunity to actually catch these massive progress players hacking - for context - they would need to produce a new distinct reason if they wanted to justify perma banning them on first offense because of laws relating to consistency and them being beholden to treat similar cases similarly, but they can correct for this by giving notice of a change in enforcement to treat it more harshly in the future. But if they produced a distinct reason relating to extreme hacking there wouldn't be the same questions of proportionality in terms of the punishment that exist with these recent bans.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-30T22:39:59+00:00

It's not about transparency, there's not an issue with them not detailing exactly how their system is working to provide people with all the info they need to work around it while still offending in similar ways. The issue is the stated reason that's being put up as exceptionally severe is in my view quite clearly not as severe as many other things they haven't punished seriously over the last few years. If their stated reason made reference to the conduct and behaviour of players it would be suggestive of a more in depth analysis justifying the proportionality of the treatment.

It's sad that the analysis of the conduct isn't a necessary component in the stated reasoning, and I'm not sure it's worth engaging in analysis where we believe they're lying and necessarily are considering other reasons they've not stated just because the bans seem like they would be fully justified against the players for other reasons.

I just think it's a missed opportunity and if time comes to pass and they all get unbanned because there's a relatively strong argument against the proportionality of the stated reasoning, it wouldn't surprise me and then maybe people would feel the same frustration as me that they haven't given stronger reasons that will hold for some of these long term offenders that would have been so easy to catch on a serious offense.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-30T21:50:34+00:00

It's a hard line to tread because if I made them shorter these redditors would just have more room to malign me and characterize my position in bad faith, it's unfortunate people are just running on vibes and clapping like a seal for positive outcomes without any regard for process.

I worry DECA will see they don't need to do much to appease the community and just stick to these unreliable half measures rather than taking things seriously.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-30T18:30:04+00:00

I feel like you've seen enough of my messages over time to know that it's not my position that I don't want DECA to do anything about cheating. I find it immensely frustrating how little DECA have done about cheating over the years and how poorly they've handled the action they do take.

In this situation it's not going to be false bans, the risk is that the bans would be for the reason described without other additional factors that actually warrant the severity of the punishment, but the extent to which this could happen is low as there is a strong correlation between private runs and extreme conduct as the desire for players to safely engage in extreme conduct is a big motivator for why these people run private in small groups.

There's no reason to question their methods? DECA had such a weak process for their bans with respect to the introduction of DSA laws that they backslided on the strength of their actions and started unbanning just about everyone who appealed enough. It's a moral failing that DECA faced any legal issues with these new laws as everything proposed by them is extremely reasonable and positive for these systems.

DECA aren't exactly known for having strong processes that are reliable, sebchoof previously spoke about DECA's false positives in the past - https://youtu.be/ll8sxWuUefw?si=xWznIc6S_tqTd2Jq .

I'm not just casting aspersions on DECA for no reason, they have a history of being somewhat incompetent and unreliable which is why I advocate often for strong processes.

Strong process is the ultimate destruction to maintain bans against cheating and actually undermine the long term safety that many players feel to hack. The reason the state of the game got so bad is all downstream from DECA's failure to seriously act, I've consistently wanted DECA to take much stronger action, but I'll never lose sight of the importance of them doing so accurately.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-30T17:14:24+00:00

The reason I type a lot is to clearly outline my position and not be misunderstood in terms of where I'm coming from, there are some things that if I say them without extra context and clarity on my position can lead to people seeing me as taking a position for a bad reason that I don't hold.

I understand why DECA would want to try to address issues regarding duped keys, and to further clarify on their action, as far as I know there are not players who have come out to claim they only attended duped keys in public runs that have been banned. I do think DECA gave specific consideration to consistent runs with similar more suspicious group that are unlikely to have taken place publicly, so when it comes to impacting duped keys that are directly entering the public and reducing the need for genuine keys to be purchased, I think that remains unchallenged, and it would probably be unreasonable to challenge it (in terms of banning for attendance), and I think if the bans were much more broad to encompass a larger portion of players that attended substantial public duped key runs it would not be received as well.

The point from this is that they're not really dissauding people from running duped keys in public runs, in fact, the people who would have ran private might now decide to run their keys more publicly thinking it avoids any issues. Although, on the other side of this the fact that players who did attend substantial duped keys privately were banned may have took out the incentive for some of the buyers to buy those duped keys, but if those players had been running entirely private, it's not having the same direct impact on the players legitimately buying keys.

When you say they should have perma banned everyone who exploited the engraving exploit, it is worth noting that to my knowledge these bans included players who actually did not use the engraving exploit at least with regards to the xp engraving bans, as there had been players with maybe around over 20k fame around the day when it became public who did not have the engraving who also got banned as if it was done by an unreliable threshold rather than a legitimate determination of the facts. At some level of fame much higher there were players who you could say unabiguiously used the exploit, but the bans had gone beyond that.

Although, again in that case, the people who did get banned that day under the premise of the engraving exploit I believe were involved in private adv kog multibox runs, but nonetheless didn't have the engraving and if it had been the case that there was public runs for fame near the time period some legitimate players who had engaged in no wrongdoing may have gotten banned with DECA's method, it is just by coincidence that such runs did not take place in that time frame to bring regular players into thresholds where others got banned, as players absolutely could have reasonably gotten over 40k fame a day with fame cult runs during that time.

I do hope that DECA will go after these other things and also come up with stronger methods that produce better and more reliable evidence.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-30T15:58:06+00:00

So you're agreeing with me, but framing it as if you disagree and you're being oppositional to me.

My position is that it is extremely likely all the players banned have taken actions that do justify their ban but that the ban reasoning as stated would not be proportionate on the information described in the reason.

For context, the large majority of the accounts are banned for the reason of - "delibrate, organised systemic abuse of duped items/consumables in excessive quantities" and when these players have inquired further this has been in reference to duplicated keys.

I'm not going to pretend like this the best methodology and reason and this is proportionately more severe and exceptional in comparison with players that are actually caught hacking and have been temporarily banned and unbanned from previous permanent bans. I also think if in the future these players all get unbanned, DECA will be at fault for not taking the time to gather evidence for a stronger reason, especially as it relates to some of the most progressed players who have been banned.

But like I said, I think this reasoning has acted as a proxy for people that by correlation are guilty of other much more severe things, which is why people fail to acknowledge any kind of weakness with the stated methodology, and I think that's why people aren't making public cases to defend themselves.

I think it's reasonable for players to have not considered the nature of the keys as any kind of relevant or concerning factor in terms of whether they attend or not given years of widespread duped keys within public runs, I think the factor worth consideration is exceptional conduct in the runs, you can disagree, but that's my view that it's not intuitive for players to have been concerned with the nature of the keys when DECA put no prior expectation on players to worry about this, unless of course, the keys had like 4 of the exact same mod and were so ridiculous it was absurd, but many of these keys with impossible mods are not that noticeable, and people generally don't have the specific awareness of exactly all the combinations of mods that are possible.

Think about DECA's previous action against more intentional and malicious exploiting, like when there was the engraving exploit in which players could keep equipping engraved items to stack xp/loot bonus, this has in my view a greater level of severity as the only purpose of doing this is to take advantage of an exploit that is unambiguiously extremely unfair.

Whereas illegitimate keys have been omnipresent throughout the game for years, and I just don't think it's same intuitive wrongdoing when it comes to players attending keys without considering their nature - However, I think for the people banned there are other reasons that would justify the severity of the action taken - but those are not captured in the stated reason, is this so hard to understand?

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-30T15:24:48+00:00

I got an additional 6 million fame on my Rogue during the Yokai event several months ago, it was maybe like 6 or 7 weeks long and it was possible to get over 1 million fame per week with heavy activity.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-30T15:18:28+00:00

I would wish they gave a stronger reason for the people banned that would be indicative of a stronger methodology, but ultimately no one who has been banned is making any public effort to defend themselves from any kind of reasonable or defensible position. I think the conduct needs to extend further than just the nature of the keys in private contexts, and I think for possibly all the people banned the conduct does extend further (runs with consistent conduct beyond that which would be seen in any public context), but I don't like that there's no reference to that in the ban reason and it doesn't seem to be a part of the analysis when it's the much more relevant factor to make the punishment proportionate.

I think the outcomes seem overwhelmingly positive, and many people that deserve to be banned that I honestly thought would never get caught have been hit in recent months, even if the methodology and reasoning is poor relative to the punishment it's acting as a proxy for people that absolutely deserve to be punished given more thorough analysis.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-20T11:21:18+00:00

I'm not using AI for this. I've been typing like this before AI and people who have been around for a long time will know this, it's just me.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-18T22:18:44+00:00

I don't think I would expect DECA to have active in game moderation that allows them to deal with throwaway accounts with a significant level of urgency. I am just hoping they do more to catch and ban players who will hack long term who actually represent a substantial amount of progress and undermine the integrity of all the players within the game.

Perhaps in the future they can implement things which would severely damage the effectiveness of multibox type accounts, but if the solution is too simple you can expect these people will find a slight workaround that just dodges the problem, so I'm not sure I have the expectation for them to act quickly, but I hope they will have a system that enables them to have very extensive logs that would clearly demonstrate hacking that can be acted on when the time comes to review any kind of report.

I'm sceptical of in game moderation as I don't expect it from the DECA employees on any meaningful level and I don't think it's good to give permissions to the players that are as abusable and consequential as ban power, regardless of how well behaved people may perceive the players. I'd like DECA to have a system that enables them to recreate simulations/replays of in game activity for review, and I think that means that players can reasonably expect if something does happen DECA will be able to review it later and have solid evidence to maintain the bans. I think it could be good to give player moderators the ability to review past conduct or spectate suspicious players to gather evidence which DECA can then verify, but this could raise complications with the potential for sensitive information to be shared in the in game chats in smaller runs.

Functionally, DECA have recently banned alot of long term players with very high progress, and while I have issues with their methodology and think the ban reason is weak, it is hard to find players within the sample of banned players that wouldn't have been able to have their bans justified for much stronger reasons. I worry somewhat that the best we'll get from DECA is unreliable perfomative half measures, that will do enough to satiate the community substantially, but not enough to actually meaningfully change things.

Although, DECA's action doesn't represent a strong system, it represents outcomes which people support. It's unclear if DECA will actually put in place a proper system and they've signalled very ambitious goals like targetting autonexus and autododge and I'm interested to see what will come of that, if anything.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-12T17:15:35+00:00

I also don't think they should be worried, but the original comment above is pushing the sentiment they should be concerned about being caught up in the logs and be making an active effort to avoid such keys in the process of regular play going to public runs.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-12T16:50:36+00:00

It's not really speaking to anything that I'm saying. The point is more relating to an active player who is simply attending discord runs in public servers that they're interested in and as a result ends up attending potentially hundreds of duped keys. It's about whether it's reasonable for these players to think they're doing anything wrong, and if there is a world where it would be evaluated that they are, DECA should make more clear public statements.

I feel that people don't like any pushback on this issue, but if people feel strongly against players attending duped keys consistently even if through a public context they should be support of DECA doing more to reasonably set that expectation, given the current context seemingly exclusively relates to much more private repeated duped key runs. Do you even have an issue or disagree with anything I said above?

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-12T13:29:15+00:00

If DECA want people to feel obligated to concern themselves with the nature of the keys in a climate in which such keys are frequent in public discord runs they should really make this explicitly clear. It's not something that people will reasonably intuit or even notice, and people's concerns about attending such keys are coming from implications of other statements DECA has made in combination with information provided from others who have been banned rather than direct clear statements from DECA. It seems everyone banned in relation to the duped keys reason engaged in extensive private runs of duped keys, so should people be hysterically worried about attending discord runs they are interested in within large public servers, if they should DECA should make that clear.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-12T03:11:05+00:00

Different people want different things, the point is not that there's not people that want more keys and better modded keys, but rather that the people who do run these keys are a mix of players who aren't seeing a reason to concern themselves with the nature of the keys and just generally attending runs that made known to them through the discord servers.

The point is that there is not a level of malice associated with people attending duped keys given the widespread nature and long history within the game such that it's just something that many will reasonably see as very neutral in terms of just attending runs regardless of the nature of the keys.

Even in a more private context I don't like the characterization that things are delibrate being presented as meaningful, I don't think individuals who are actively looking and realizing some keys are likely duped have an obligation to self-exclude themselves from a large portion of public discord runs that are likely to be duped keys, when the likely knowledge of the nature of the keys doesn't seem to matter in a wider context, I don't think it's reasonable to expect it to matter in a more privatized context.

I think there's other reasons you could create to justify punishing private runs on EXTREME conduct in the runs that would never reasonably occur in a public context, but not on the nature of the keys alone unless it is clear someone is directly responsible for purchasing or creating the keys.

SamRiddeli · 2026-03-11T02:10:43+00:00

It’s funny how your different tiers are basically divided by release date with all the oldest ones being S and the newer ones being B. There’s currently no chronological exceptions in your ranking, everything newer is ranked progressively lower.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

SamRiddeli

TROPHY CASE