Haze mode: A method of handling cheaters.
Firewater
Balance Expert Join Date: 2002-12-12 Member: 10690Members, Constellation
Balance Expert Join Date: 2002-12-12 Member: 10690Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">New look on dealing with cheaters.</div>Hey all,
I have been thinking about this for a while regarding the constant struggle that many multiplayer games have a problem with dealing. What is evident in most FPS and RTS games is that the cheat code creators can often times crack the code faster than patches can come out to fix them. I was also thinking briefly about the psychology of someone who is cheating, not so much an etiology of the cheater; as to me that is not very important, but more along the lines of the attraction of cheating to some players. Bottom line answer that I can come up with is that the cheater wants to ruin others people fun while playing. Ultimately the resource that cheaters crave is the attention that they receive when dissatisfied players complain and type insults to the cheating player. They basically enjoy the power of influence on other players mood that are just trying to enjoy the game.
Now the typical method of handling cheaters is to have an admin permanently remove him or her from the server. While this usually works often times the cheater gets satisfaction from the banning. I would propose an alternative to the typical kicking/banning of a player (though thats obviously still an option). What I would propose is Haze Mode.
Haze mode is simply a set of admin powers that can effectively ruin the cheaters fun whilst they are on the server. Several of the methods I would recommend are already included in most admin plugins (i.e. gag, slap, etc...), as well as some other methods that would be effective in minimizing the cheating, whilst giving the other players a good laugh or two while they are playing.
When using Haze mode, I would propose the following admin powers that could be used to reverse the effects that a cheater brings to a server.
1. 0 Damage mode
Pretty self-explanatory; the player who is being "hazed" cannot do any damage to either friendly or enemy players.
2. Mirror Damage
Mirror damage is when a player shoots another player (friend or foe) and the damage that is done returns to the hazed player. Effectively, everytime the hazed player attempts to shoot someone, the damage is returned to the hazed player.
3. Slow mode
Reducing the hazed players speed down to a point of admin's choosing.
4. Mute
Globally mute the player from the server
5. Teleport
Move the player around (debating this one).
The reason why I am recommending these features is because when a player would get hazed, everyone else would be able to laugh at the cheaters expense as opposed to the cheater laughing at everyone else in the server. Granted, it is probably a little childish, but then again so is cheating. I'm pretty sure that this idea will not be implemented, however I think it would be hilarious if it was. Again the whole point is to reverse the typical effects a cheater has for the majority of players.
Thoughts?
I have been thinking about this for a while regarding the constant struggle that many multiplayer games have a problem with dealing. What is evident in most FPS and RTS games is that the cheat code creators can often times crack the code faster than patches can come out to fix them. I was also thinking briefly about the psychology of someone who is cheating, not so much an etiology of the cheater; as to me that is not very important, but more along the lines of the attraction of cheating to some players. Bottom line answer that I can come up with is that the cheater wants to ruin others people fun while playing. Ultimately the resource that cheaters crave is the attention that they receive when dissatisfied players complain and type insults to the cheating player. They basically enjoy the power of influence on other players mood that are just trying to enjoy the game.
Now the typical method of handling cheaters is to have an admin permanently remove him or her from the server. While this usually works often times the cheater gets satisfaction from the banning. I would propose an alternative to the typical kicking/banning of a player (though thats obviously still an option). What I would propose is Haze Mode.
Haze mode is simply a set of admin powers that can effectively ruin the cheaters fun whilst they are on the server. Several of the methods I would recommend are already included in most admin plugins (i.e. gag, slap, etc...), as well as some other methods that would be effective in minimizing the cheating, whilst giving the other players a good laugh or two while they are playing.
When using Haze mode, I would propose the following admin powers that could be used to reverse the effects that a cheater brings to a server.
1. 0 Damage mode
Pretty self-explanatory; the player who is being "hazed" cannot do any damage to either friendly or enemy players.
2. Mirror Damage
Mirror damage is when a player shoots another player (friend or foe) and the damage that is done returns to the hazed player. Effectively, everytime the hazed player attempts to shoot someone, the damage is returned to the hazed player.
3. Slow mode
Reducing the hazed players speed down to a point of admin's choosing.
4. Mute
Globally mute the player from the server
5. Teleport
Move the player around (debating this one).
The reason why I am recommending these features is because when a player would get hazed, everyone else would be able to laugh at the cheaters expense as opposed to the cheater laughing at everyone else in the server. Granted, it is probably a little childish, but then again so is cheating. I'm pretty sure that this idea will not be implemented, however I think it would be hilarious if it was. Again the whole point is to reverse the typical effects a cheater has for the majority of players.
Thoughts?
Comments
Of course, the first step to getting rid of cheaters is to have an active ,responsible admin on your server nearly 24/7.
One question I have is what to do in the case of full servers? These players, while they are screwed over gameplay wise, are still taking potentially precious slots. Perhaps the haze markers also tag them as a kind of anti-reserved slot. So, the moment you reach server cap, locate and remove a hazed player so that you can accept an actually serious player.
Of course, the first step to getting rid of cheaters is to have an active ,responsible admin on your server nearly 24/7.
One question I have is what to do in the case of full servers? These players, while they are screwed over gameplay wise, are still taking potentially precious slots. Perhaps the haze markers also tag them as a kind of anti-reserved slot. So, the moment you reach server cap, locate and remove a hazed player so that you can accept an actually serious player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wouldn't be a bad idea, any hazed player can be removed to make room for a player with a reserve slot. The haze list would work similar to a ban list. An admin can put a time limit or make it permanent.
I could see something like the "stealth ban" on the SA forums working. If the "hazed" player is invisible, muted, has no clip through other players, and can do no damage/effects to other players then then that would be the ultimate subversion of their attempts to garner attention, no matter what hacks they are using.
I could see something like the "stealth ban" on the SA forums working. If the "hazed" player is invisible, muted, has no clip through other players, and can do no damage/effects to other players then then that would be the ultimate subversion of their attempts to garner attention, no matter what hacks they are using.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I don't expect the developers to put this in the game. But its just a way to reverse the attention that they are seeking. I wouldn't expect a hazed player to last more than 10 seconds in a server, thats kind of the point. Its just meant for a quick laugh at the cheater's expense. While they would be getting special treatment, it take away the power/attention they want away from the cheater and replace it with undesriable attention based on the cheater's part.
Now, generally I don't ever go back to those servers, but it's not a good impression to newcomers to the game to find an admin like this in the first server they join. When they ask: why does the game have these dumb admin spells, and the reply comes 'the game was designed to have them', I think the initial disbelief would drive many away from the game, or at least cause them to despise it a bit.
As with all anti cheater systems they are really limited by the admins that administer them
Now, generally I don't ever go back to those servers, but it's not a good impression to newcomers to the game to find an admin like this in the first server they join. When they ask: why does the game have these dumb admin spells, and the reply comes 'the game was designed to have them', I think the initial disbelief would drive many away from the game, or at least cause them to despise it a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Server admins can already grief without the addition of a haze mode or its equivalent. Since NS is very community based, if an admin wants to power trip that is fine. But that particular admin will deal with the social reprocussions accordingly (i.e. word getting out and people not wanting to play on said server).
Basically its just a way to reverse the effects of cheating and to take away their power/influence. Again I stated that the devs will not put this in, but I think it would be a neat take on reducing cheating behaviors in the community.
Guns aren't as fatal as an annoying brat gagging or slapping you just because you welded a door he didn't think should be welded, but in terms of the image of NS2, it would be a lot more prevalent and a lot more offputting if this was happening everywhere. True, you can always add a server to your Favourites once you establish it's good, but how many people actually do this? The other thing is you're putting the onus on the player to make up for your design faults.
Your assumption is that the inherent cheater/griefer protection would bring more positives to NS2 than it would bring negatives. I would say that the fundamental difference between a server were cheaters prevail and a server where cheaters are banned is not the program being used, but the admins themselves. Good servers will always have better admin coverage than poor servers. Whather the software being used is third-party or first-party doesn't change the result much.
Yet another reason why this would be a bad decision is it would distract from updates to the game (just like Combat distracted from updates to Classic). Would you prefer balance updates or would you prefer delayed balance updates because the admin tool is also being worked on?
In the schools I work with, they have armed police officers in the schools. These are some poorer school districts as well as wealthy ones. Haven't heard of any school shootings in NJ in recent times.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Guns aren't as fatal as an annoying brat gagging or slapping you just because you welded a door he didn't think should be welded, but in terms of the image of NS2, it would be a lot more prevalent and a lot more offputting if this was happening everywhere. True, you can always add a server to your Favourites once you establish it's good, but how many people actually do this? The other thing is you're putting the onus on the player to make up for your design faults.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean again the plugins pretty much already exist, so it would just be taking those and making them more mainstream. I can't think of a server that didn't have an admin plugins. Its not the tools, its the people administrating the servers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your assumption is that the inherent cheater/griefer protection would bring more positives to NS2 than it would bring negatives. I would say that the fundamental difference between a server were cheaters prevail and a server where cheaters are banned is not the program being used, but the admins themselves. Good servers will always have better admin coverage than poor servers. Whather the software being used is third-party or first-party doesn't change the result much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again its an alternative take on how to deal with cheaters that would be completely optional to use. I never stated that it would not require an active admin community to keep the server relatively cheat free.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yet another reason why this would be a bad decision is it would distract from updates to the game (just like Combat distracted from updates to Classic). Would you prefer balance updates or would you prefer delayed balance updates because the admin tool is also being worked on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again if the developers were to implement this it would be a one shot deal; also you have no evidence that the developers would have to choose this feature over balance updates, that is poor argumentation.
I think A) is a fallacy by even the most generous standards.
B) is optimistic at best.
An addition like this would take up dev time, and therefore -assuming there is a finite amount of dev hours that can be put into the game as a whole, which is largely accepted to be the case- the balance would have less polish than if time weren't being spent on this. As an advocate of focus on balance, surely you would prefer to see the maximum time spent on balance instead of fiddling with first-party Admin support that can be supplemented by existing programs, or at least new programs modelled on existing programs that already do what you describe.
Then all it would take is for unknownworlds to request features that they haven't had time to develop (such as a more complex anti-cheat menu as suggested in this thread). That way when the beta is released i'm sure heaps of the ns2 player base would work with that as a reference point and be willing to develop and contribute code to the final release of the game.
I think A) is a fallacy by even the most generous standards.
B) is optimistic at best.
An addition like this would take up dev time, and therefore -assuming there is a finite amount of dev hours that can be put into the game as a whole, which is largely accepted to be the case- the balance would have less polish than if time weren't being spent on this. As an advocate of focus on balance, surely you would prefer to see the maximum time spent on balance instead of fiddling with first-party Admin support that can be supplemented by existing programs, or at least new programs modelled on existing programs that already do what you describe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My assumption is that the LUA scripting would not take up as much time as it normally would; If it did take up a significant amount of time I would expect it not to be implemented.
I don't understand why it solely has to be taken away from balance to program it. Some other things could be taken away and replaced with this. Why are you so harped on balance? They could get a community member to code this up in a heart beat thus costing the development team a minimal amount of time.
Poor argumentation again sir. Not buying it.
Otherwise kick/ban
If someone manages it to introduce a speedhack, you would not be able to slow him down in any way.
but its an interesting idea, though it sounds like a custom admin mod or whatever.
Also, theorically, the only form of hacking possible would be speed hacking, and even then it wouldn't be much of a advantage.
If someone manages it to introduce a speedhack, you would not be able to slow him down in any way.
but its an interesting idea, though it sounds like a custom admin mod or whatever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that the Haze mode option would not be able to address speed hackers directly. However, if you put on mirror damage/no damage to that player, I wonder how long he or she would last? Maybe they would stick around anyway. In all likelihood the cheater would want to leave immediately.
Again, this is just a minor suggestion/addition to the current method of dealing with cheaters in the community.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand why it solely has to be taken away from balance to program it. Some other things could be taken away and replaced with this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why would you want to deprioritise development time spent on the game in favour of an admin tool that already exists as a third-party addon? I'd prefer them to make a game first, then spend some time post-release on improving the game before they consider dedicating any time to a non-essential feature.
Why couldn't they get a community member to make this? Because they are making a retail game. Even if someone offered to make it for them for free, they would still need to test that it worked, which would be taking time away from testing core functionality.
BadMouth's point is the best argument I've seen against this idea.
If I have ever implied that kicking/banning was no longer an option, then I apologize. Haze mode would be used to reverse the frustration of the cheater back on to him or her. If it does not work, admin could kick and ban as usual. The point is to leave further a bad taste in the cheaters mouth because often times (at least by reading the myg0t forums) they take pride in getting kicked and/or banned.
Again, this is just a way to reverse the frustration that cheaters want so desperately to create.
I don't think you can give them therapy while they're still in the virtual setting, thats not what they came there for.
I don't think you can give them therapy while they're still in the virtual setting, thats not what they came there for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know how you see this as attempt at education or some sort of therapeutic relationship.
Its just a goof to play on a cheater before he or she leaves or is banned. Any other inferences you draw are your own and not from any information that I have posted.
General Consensus is that this idea would be inappropriate (overall at the most, developer created at the least) and that if server admins want to add said feature they would have easy access to do it themselves.