Quote:Enforced standards, code reviews, walkthroughs are perceived to be too expensive. OK for the military boys and NASA, but not for non-critical earthbound software.As games get more complex and the development teams larger, all of these tools are being used more and more frequently. The industry as a whole is maturing, though I think that maturation is taking the fun and originality out of a lot of games as well. I gotta say that my impressions of military software have been none-to-good, but perhaps that's just a personal bias.
I did post earlier to say that my saying that there are NO false positives was a hasty reaction. Not that I think otherwise now, but making such a claim would be arrogant, I think. My bases for thinking that there haven't been any mistaken account closings are:
1) it's a small project coded by people who I trust to know what they're doing.
2) the code is very simple.
3) the technique used to identify hackers is mathematically accurate. (it isn't statistically based, etc.)
4) hand verification of the complaints has yet to indicate that there were any errors.
This isn't to say that there were no errors and that we won't find any in the future. But so far, it looks to me as if things went okay. However, since we've decided not to reveal *how* we're deciding who's hacking, I think it would be pretty stupid of me to think that everyone could be convinced of its accuracy -- so I'm not asking *you* to have confidence in the program. But I think that what I've said will convince *some* people to look at the matter differently. I.e. not from the "blizzard has just made a mess of things again" viewpoint.
{EDIT} PS: I *can* be impressed by an OCR claim that it's 99% accurate when all previous OCR claims were for 50% accuracy. That doesn't mean that I think that 99% accuracy is enough to be useful in the field. But I get impressed because it makes me think that progress has been made in the technology. Some people are easier to impress I guess ;)