<!--quoteo(post=1669799:date=Feb 7 2008, 01:12 AM:name=corpsman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(corpsman @ Feb 7 2008, 01:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669799"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand why cheaters even play games. I can see that they fear other people so out of fear they hide behind a "cheat," but then why play against other people anyways? Out of fear robbers don't rob houses with big dogs inside and don't steal from people golding shotguns. That would be "scary" to say the least, so if they do it the action is only ego. [showing off] But noone knows you online, so I can only guess that cheaters have no real life... Am I right?
Which also makes me think people who cheat probably don't really enjoy the games they play. There can be no sense of satisfaction when the goals they may reach are reached by a line of code. I may beat the next guy in a drag race, but if I had to use nitro to beat him and he didn't then I still end up taking home no real trophy. Just a chunk of metal. It must be ego.
Also, I wonder what is the point. What is the point of boosting an ego with people you will never meet? Why maintain an ego from false superiority, when noone cares. Noone gives you credit because you don't deserve it, so why do it? Why not try playing a game instead of downloading the ending? I would much rather enjoy a story and achieve a rank among friends then hold on to a piece of falsehood inside my heart. I just couldn't do that to myself, I like myself too much. Don't cheater like themselves enough to try and enjoy a game. Don't be afraid of it, they are not created to make you fail. They are created to tell a story and bring you enjoyment!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't speak directly for the psyche of a LAN or online computer game cheater (as if you could, these are individuals we just catagorize into the same group each case is different and none of it is black and white), but I can hazard an educated guess at some of the factors that contribute to that mindset.
Let me make some arbitrary psyche catagories of individuals who would find a cheat appealing: Rager - to these people getting people in a public server or forum all upset is amusing, more amusing than even playing the game Retalitory - tired of being the last kid among their "peers" in the game or angry at something, they use the cheat as a means to dish out punishment on the enemy Advertisemental - after making coding a new cheat it is needed to be tested live before it can be sold (rare) Rebellious - usually this mentality are only the ones coding the software. They view many servers and anti-cheat systems as totalitarian (which they are by definition). They also tend to point out that most systems are designed to cull just the old ones, and feeding the company dirty money from the new CD-keys that will have to be bought as part of the cat & mouse game. Thriller - using a cheat and not getting caught is an adrenaline rush, this is the polar opposite of a blatant cheater Competitive - they will use whatever means get the edge over another to achieve the prize; note that this motivation is mostly when a cash value prize is involved. In some situations, the prize can be nothing more the bragging rights of a victory entitlement.
Take and combine various of the above to get the "psyche of a cheater", but that will always vary from individual.
There is practically nothing you can do on the developer side (what this topic really connotates) to reduce cheating without major fun-damaging and limiting factors being implemented.
Of what developers can do is to establish a streamlined in-game system on both dedicated and listen servers to effectuate self-service when the admins aren't there and better tools to analyze suspected players without distracting from the game for everybody else. Instead of scanning everybody's memory and reducing performance or lagging the connection, how about allow for an individual examination console command directly integrated into the netcode?
What we need is fairly simple. We need a way to have bans integrated into the game. And then someway of shareing them, so that anyone can see who is banned on a server (with the banned persons SteamID probably in a RSS view). And someway of specifying which servers the current admins trusts to make good bans. Then a server admin can choose which servers he wants to trust the bans from. It will automaticly download the recent banlist from those servers every hour or two, and keep those separate from its own internal banlist (ie not on its RSS feed of banned people so we dont have a cascade banlist where 1 server bans someone which is trusted by 3 others each trusted by 3 others and so on till he is banned from all servers). And then just check against that list when someone tries to join. Clearly this wouldnt effect people set up as administrators on the server even if banned by a trusted server.
It's a good idea because there doesn't need to be a master ban list - they would likely implement a way of sharing banlists through xml and letting communities create common lists that would network with each others' servers.
So imagine there are 3 server communities who share similar viewpoints on what criteria are bannable, say yoclan, NSA, and mrcommunity - or something, just for example. A player (we'll arbitrarily use the name makaveli here) gets banned from yoclan - the ban then propogates to the other servers on their next update, say once every 30 minutes, with no further effort from the admins on the other 2 servers makaveli is now banned on all 3.
It'd be easy to set up a system where there were "published" and "unpublished" banlists too, so that if a new admin wanted ban powers, but the server didn't want to mess with their larger community ties, they could only give the new admin powers over the unpublished banlist. If you did that, it would be nice to be able to see the discrepancies between lists incase a higher admin wanted to make the bans global later.
I remember this discussion before a long time ago. I am SOOOOO for a ban list. A master list as part of the game, so it cannot be ignored by the server owners. They could have the option of having it turned off, so when browsing servers you would know which server allows cheats, but at the very least then I would know which ones not to join. You never know until it is too late...
It could be setup as a timed ban sort of thing. If the person is banned from one server, then they cannot join that server again for one week, but they can still play on all of the other servers. If they are banned from more then three servers then they cannot play on any server for one week. If they have been banned from servers more then X amount of times then they are banned from the game and/or have to somehow redeem themselves. I don't imagine too many people wil either care, or they will just do it then go back in and cheat so make it perm ban after X amount of times being banned frmo all servers.
It wouldn't be banned from all servers except the servers who are on the list. So if they are 100% set on cheating then they can still play on public servers where cheating is not regulated, but if they decide not to cheat anymore then they are allowed back onto the servers who decide to "join" the list after one week.
Not the best idea I am sure, but something like that. Basically ban them for X amount of time, if they repeat it ban them again, if not then alls good!
A true global list where every server admin is automaticly part of can not work. Someone could easly do a lookup to find every player on every server automaticly, and then ban everyone.
<!--quoteo(post=1670676:date=Feb 16 2008, 04:46 PM:name=obsid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(obsid @ Feb 16 2008, 04:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670676"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A true global list where every server admin is automaticly part of can not work. Someone could easly do a lookup to find every player on every server automaticly, and then ban everyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, games have been doing this for a while now... Are you just trying to discourage them because <i>you</i> cheat?
<!--quoteo(post=1670692:date=Feb 16 2008, 07:28 PM:name=corpsman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(corpsman @ Feb 16 2008, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Uh, games have been doing this for a while now... Are you just trying to discourage them because <i>you</i> cheat?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's no reason to be hostile because someone doesn't share your point of view. I know that I could count on one hand the number of people I would trust to accurately determine whether or not someone is cheating, hence the reason I wouldn't trust a global banlist that lots of people could add to.
Seriously. If we make it (and I think some sort of system would be nice, even if we just use VAC) you need to leave it up to a higher power to officiate on a global scale.
However, I'm sure the modders will have a very nice server-by-server ban system in place in no time. It's like one of the first things to go up once a new game arrives, well, except perhaps votemap abilities.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669764:date=Feb 6 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Feb 6 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know about that, but any attempt to implement a global banning system in NS has been met with heavy resistance thusfar, basically for why I stated.
Do you want YOUR playing future dictated by some admin-kiddie you pissed off because you're such a leet player? I think not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree you can't let every admin join, but that website at the top of the page seems to work now . . . <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://steambans.com/" target="_blank">http://steambans.com/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The tricky part would be getting people who know enough about NS to review the evidence.
<!--quoteo(post=1670770:date=Feb 18 2008, 12:56 AM:name=ChimpZealot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimpZealot @ Feb 18 2008, 12:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no reason to be hostile because someone doesn't share your point of view. I know that I could count on one hand the number of people I would trust to accurately determine whether or not someone is cheating, hence the reason I wouldn't trust a global banlist that lots of people could add to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not saying that they are wrong because they do not agree with an idea. I am saying games have been using global systems [and stat systems] for a long time.
I agree, people could abuse such a system, expecially when I go on servers where everyone seems to be best friends except me. *shrug* But again, if all the complaints are coming from a single server and I play on 10 well, that sort of speaks for itself. And the server admins could always have their own control over who does/doesn't play. I was thinking of this as a long term idea. If someone gets bannedweek after week from every server servers, and has been demo'd then they are probably not playing fair.
<i></i><!--quoteo(post=1670633:date=Feb 15 2008, 07:23 PM:name=obsid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(obsid @ Feb 15 2008, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What we need is fairly simple. We need a way to have bans integrated into the game. And then someway of shareing them, so that anyone can see who is banned on a server (with the banned persons SteamID probably in a RSS view). And someway of specifying which servers the current admins trusts to make good bans. Then a server admin can choose which servers he wants to trust the bans from. It will automaticly download the recent banlist from those servers every hour or two, and keep those separate from its own internal banlist (ie not on its RSS feed of banned people so we dont have a cascade banlist where 1 server bans someone which is trusted by 3 others each trusted by 3 others and so on till he is banned from all servers). And then just check against that list when someone tries to join. Clearly this wouldnt effect people set up as administrators on the server even if banned by a trusted server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1670662:date=Feb 16 2008, 10:30 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Feb 16 2008, 10:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670662"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a good idea because there doesn't need to be a master ban list - they would likely implement a way of sharing banlists through xml and letting communities create common lists that would network with each others' servers.
So imagine there are 3 server communities who share similar viewpoints on what criteria are bannable, say yoclan, NSA, and mrcommunity - or something, just for example. A player (we'll arbitrarily use the name makaveli here) gets banned from yoclan - the ban then propogates to the other servers on their next update, say once every 30 minutes, with no further effort from the admins on the other 2 servers makaveli is now banned on all 3.
It'd be easy to set up a system where there were "published" and "unpublished" banlists too, so that if a new admin wanted ban powers, but the server didn't want to mess with their larger community ties, they could only give the new admin powers over the unpublished banlist. If you did that, it would be nice to be able to see the discrepancies between lists incase a higher admin wanted to make the bans global later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really like these two ideas but I would like to alter them a tad.
Four ban lists, server adjustable to whether they are used.
<b>Vote list:</b> Non-admin players can start a vote to kick a player for cheating or abusive behaviour. It takes 70% (server adjustable) of the on line players to execute and the player is band for 30-180min (server adjustable) only. This list is not open for any other server. This way if there is no admin present cheaters get nailed straight away. Abuse would be limited due to the high degree of agreement required and limited to this server only for a short period of time, but enough to stop cheaters.
<b>Admin Private:</b> New or not so trusted admin's can ban a player for longer e.g. 1day-week (server adjustable) or a trusted admin can add a player if the offence is minor e.g. name calling and does not justify banning from the trusted network. This list is not open for any other server. Any abuse would be limited to this server only.
<b>Admin shared:</b> Trusted admins only can add players to this list. Banning works the same as <b>Admin Private:</b> except other servers that trust this server can update their "<b>Server limited</b>" list from this server.
<b>Server limited:</b> Downloaded each map change/day from the "<b>Admin shared</b>" list of trusted servers. This prevents someone getting ban on server <i>A </i>and ending up on server <i>F </i>even though servers <i>A</i> and <i>F </i>do not trust each other or even know each other. Thus, this limits abuse on one server to just its trusted servers network.
This way we have a banning system that does not require constant updates to identify new cheats, any abuse is contained to the server/trust network involved, and players have a way of stopping blatant cheaters from screwing up their day directly when there is no admin present. As soon as admin abuse is determined from one server then the admin’s from those other servers would be able to take that server off their trust network. Also, keep in mind that just because server <i>A</i> trusts <i>B</i> does not mean that <i>B</i> trusts <i>A</i>. So if you are running a server and you don’t like this idea you can always not used it, but at least you have the option.
What's this? An advertisement for the site? Adj is a detective it I see... not a bad idea, heh. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> I don't understand your intention in posting that link though... Are you wanting to recruit me? Personally, I tend to stay cautious to passing judgment and blacklisting people, as in reality justice is never perfect. Still I am in a way glad to see you few made a site to adapt to a problem in the community -- that ability to for this game and its community evolve out of nothing more than hobby volunteer-labor has always been something I liked about this community.
<!--quoteo(post=1670770:date=Feb 18 2008, 12:56 AM:name=ChimpZealot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimpZealot @ Feb 18 2008, 12:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no reason to be hostile because someone doesn't share your point of view. I know that I could count on one hand the number of people I would trust to accurately determine whether or not someone is cheating, hence the reason I wouldn't trust a global banlist that lots of people could add to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are they at the site Underwhelmed just posted?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1670891:date=Feb 18 2008, 11:00 PM:name=Misere)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Misere @ Feb 18 2008, 11:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670891"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i></i> I really like these two ideas but I would like to alter them a tad.
Four ban lists, server adjustable to whether they are used.
<b>Vote list:</b> Non-admin players can start a vote to kick a player for cheating or abusive behaviour. It takes 70% (server adjustable) of the on line players to execute and the player is band for 30-180min (server adjustable) only. This list is not open for any other server. This way if there is no admin present cheaters get nailed straight away. Abuse would be limited due to the high degree of agreement required and limited to this server only for a short period of time, but enough to stop cheaters.
<b>Admin Private:</b> New or not so trusted admin's can ban a player for longer e.g. 1day-week (server adjustable) or a trusted admin can add a player if the offence is minor e.g. name calling and does not justify banning from the trusted network. This list is not open for any other server. Any abuse would be limited to this server only.
<b>Admin shared:</b> Trusted admins only can add players to this list. Banning works the same as <b>Admin Private:</b> except other servers that trust this server can update their "<b>Server limited</b>" list from this server.
<b>Server limited:</b> Downloaded each map change/day from the "<b>Admin shared</b>" list of trusted servers. This prevents someone getting ban on server <i>A </i>and ending up on server <i>F </i>even though servers <i>A</i> and <i>F </i>do not trust each other or even know each other. Thus, this limits abuse on one server to just its trusted servers network.
This way we have a banning system that does not require constant updates to identify new cheats, any abuse is contained to the server/trust network involved, and players have a way of stopping blatant cheaters from screwing up their day directly when there is no admin present. As soon as admin abuse is determined from one server then the admin’s from those other servers would be able to take that server off their trust network. Also, keep in mind that just because server <i>A</i> trusts <i>B</i> does not mean that <i>B</i> trusts <i>A</i>. So if you are running a server and you don’t like this idea you can always not used it, but at least you have the option.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah that would work. All you have to do is create the infrastructure and you're all set <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> . Seriously though if you're going to start a project I'd be willing to help out with the XML and such. I've been meaning to learn that better anyway.
Comments
Which also makes me think people who cheat probably don't really enjoy the games they play. There can be no sense of satisfaction when the goals they may reach are reached by a line of code. I may beat the next guy in a drag race, but if I had to use nitro to beat him and he didn't then I still end up taking home no real trophy. Just a chunk of metal. It must be ego.
Also, I wonder what is the point. What is the point of boosting an ego with people you will never meet? Why maintain an ego from false superiority, when noone cares. Noone gives you credit because you don't deserve it, so why do it? Why not try playing a game instead of downloading the ending? I would much rather enjoy a story and achieve a rank among friends then hold on to a piece of falsehood inside my heart. I just couldn't do that to myself, I like myself too much. Don't cheater like themselves enough to try and enjoy a game. Don't be afraid of it, they are not created to make you fail. They are created to tell a story and bring you enjoyment!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak directly for the psyche of a LAN or online computer game cheater (as if you could, these are individuals we just catagorize into the same group each case is different and none of it is black and white), but I can hazard an educated guess at some of the factors that contribute to that mindset.
Let me make some arbitrary psyche catagories of individuals who would find a cheat appealing:
Rager - to these people getting people in a public server or forum all upset is amusing, more amusing than even playing the game
Retalitory - tired of being the last kid among their "peers" in the game or angry at something, they use the cheat as a means to dish out punishment on the enemy
Advertisemental - after making coding a new cheat it is needed to be tested live before it can be sold (rare)
Rebellious - usually this mentality are only the ones coding the software. They view many servers and anti-cheat systems as totalitarian (which they are by definition). They also tend to point out that most systems are designed to cull just the old ones, and feeding the company dirty money from the new CD-keys that will have to be bought as part of the cat & mouse game.
Thriller - using a cheat and not getting caught is an adrenaline rush, this is the polar opposite of a blatant cheater
Competitive - they will use whatever means get the edge over another to achieve the prize; note that this motivation is mostly when a cash value prize is involved. In some situations, the prize can be nothing more the bragging rights of a victory entitlement.
Take and combine various of the above to get the "psyche of a cheater", but that will always vary from individual.
There is practically nothing you can do on the developer side (what this topic really connotates) to reduce cheating without major fun-damaging and limiting factors being implemented.
Of what developers can do is to establish a streamlined in-game system on both dedicated and listen servers to effectuate self-service when the admins aren't there and better tools to analyze suspected players without distracting from the game for everybody else. Instead of scanning everybody's memory and reducing performance or lagging the connection, how about allow for an individual examination console command directly integrated into the netcode?
So imagine there are 3 server communities who share similar viewpoints on what criteria are bannable, say yoclan, NSA, and mrcommunity - or something, just for example. A player (we'll arbitrarily use the name makaveli here) gets banned from yoclan - the ban then propogates to the other servers on their next update, say once every 30 minutes, with no further effort from the admins on the other 2 servers makaveli is now banned on all 3.
It'd be easy to set up a system where there were "published" and "unpublished" banlists too, so that if a new admin wanted ban powers, but the server didn't want to mess with their larger community ties, they could only give the new admin powers over the unpublished banlist. If you did that, it would be nice to be able to see the discrepancies between lists incase a higher admin wanted to make the bans global later.
It could be setup as a timed ban sort of thing. If the person is banned from one server, then they cannot join that server again for one week, but they can still play on all of the other servers. If they are banned from more then three servers then they cannot play on any server for one week. If they have been banned from servers more then X amount of times then they are banned from the game and/or have to somehow redeem themselves. I don't imagine too many people wil either care, or they will just do it then go back in and cheat so make it perm ban after X amount of times being banned frmo all servers.
It wouldn't be banned from all servers except the servers who are on the list. So if they are 100% set on cheating then they can still play on public servers where cheating is not regulated, but if they decide not to cheat anymore then they are allowed back onto the servers who decide to "join" the list after one week.
Not the best idea I am sure, but something like that. Basically ban them for X amount of time, if they repeat it ban them again, if not then alls good!
Uh, games have been doing this for a while now... Are you just trying to discourage them because <i>you</i> cheat?
There's no reason to be hostile because someone doesn't share your point of view. I know that I could count on one hand the number of people I would trust to accurately determine whether or not someone is cheating, hence the reason I wouldn't trust a global banlist that lots of people could add to.
Seriously. If we make it (and I think some sort of system would be nice, even if we just use VAC) you need to leave it up to a higher power to officiate on a global scale.
However, I'm sure the modders will have a very nice server-by-server ban system in place in no time. It's like one of the first things to go up once a new game arrives, well, except perhaps votemap abilities.
Do you want YOUR playing future dictated by some admin-kiddie you pissed off because you're such a leet player? I think not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree you can't let every admin join, but that website at the top of the page seems to work now . . .
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://steambans.com/" target="_blank">http://steambans.com/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The tricky part would be getting people who know enough about NS to review the evidence.
I am not saying that they are wrong because they do not agree with an idea. I am saying games have been using global systems [and stat systems] for a long time.
I agree, people could abuse such a system, expecially when I go on servers where everyone seems to be best friends except me. *shrug* But again, if all the complaints are coming from a single server and I play on 10 well, that sort of speaks for itself. And the server admins could always have their own control over who does/doesn't play. I was thinking of this as a long term idea. If someone gets bannedweek after week from every server servers, and has been demo'd then they are probably not playing fair.
<!--quoteo(post=1670662:date=Feb 16 2008, 10:30 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Feb 16 2008, 10:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670662"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a good idea because there doesn't need to be a master ban list - they would likely implement a way of sharing banlists through xml and letting communities create common lists that would network with each others' servers.
So imagine there are 3 server communities who share similar viewpoints on what criteria are bannable, say yoclan, NSA, and mrcommunity - or something, just for example. A player (we'll arbitrarily use the name makaveli here) gets banned from yoclan - the ban then propogates to the other servers on their next update, say once every 30 minutes, with no further effort from the admins on the other 2 servers makaveli is now banned on all 3.
It'd be easy to set up a system where there were "published" and "unpublished" banlists too, so that if a new admin wanted ban powers, but the server didn't want to mess with their larger community ties, they could only give the new admin powers over the unpublished banlist. If you did that, it would be nice to be able to see the discrepancies between lists incase a higher admin wanted to make the bans global later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really like these two ideas but I would like to alter them a tad.
Four ban lists, server adjustable to whether they are used.
<b>Vote list:</b>
Non-admin players can start a vote to kick a player for cheating or abusive behaviour. It takes 70% (server adjustable) of the on line players to execute and the player is band for 30-180min (server adjustable) only. This list is not open for any other server. This way if there is no admin present cheaters get nailed straight away. Abuse would be limited due to the high degree of agreement required and limited to this server only for a short period of time, but enough to stop cheaters.
<b>Admin Private:</b>
New or not so trusted admin's can ban a player for longer e.g. 1day-week (server adjustable) or a trusted admin can add a player if the offence is minor e.g. name calling and does not justify banning from the trusted network. This list is not open for any other server. Any abuse would be limited to this server only.
<b>Admin shared:</b>
Trusted admins only can add players to this list. Banning works the same as <b>Admin Private:</b> except other servers that trust this server can update their "<b>Server limited</b>" list from this server.
<b>Server limited:</b>
Downloaded each map change/day from the "<b>Admin shared</b>" list of trusted servers. This prevents someone getting ban on server <i>A </i>and ending up on server <i>F </i>even though servers <i>A</i> and <i>F </i>do not trust each other or even know each other. Thus, this limits abuse on one server to just its trusted servers network.
This way we have a banning system that does not require constant updates to identify new cheats, any abuse is contained to the server/trust network involved, and players have a way of stopping blatant cheaters from screwing up their day directly when there is no admin present. As soon as admin abuse is determined from one server then the admin’s from those other servers would be able to take that server off their trust network. Also, keep in mind that just because server <i>A</i> trusts <i>B</i> does not mean that <i>B</i> trusts <i>A</i>. So if you are running a server and you don’t like this idea you can always not used it, but at least you have the option.
<!--quoteo(post=1670621:date=Feb 15 2008, 03:52 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Feb 15 2008, 03:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://demos.h4x.cc" target="_blank">http://demos.h4x.cc</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Eh?
What's this? An advertisement for the site? Adj is a detective it I see... not a bad idea, heh. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> I don't understand your intention in posting that link though... Are you wanting to recruit me? Personally, I tend to stay cautious to passing judgment and blacklisting people, as in reality justice is never perfect. Still I am in a way glad to see you few made a site to adapt to a problem in the community -- that ability to for this game and its community evolve out of nothing more than hobby volunteer-labor has always been something I liked about this community.
<!--quoteo(post=1670770:date=Feb 18 2008, 12:56 AM:name=ChimpZealot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimpZealot @ Feb 18 2008, 12:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no reason to be hostile because someone doesn't share your point of view. I know that I could count on one hand the number of people I would trust to accurately determine whether or not someone is cheating, hence the reason I wouldn't trust a global banlist that lots of people could add to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are they at the site Underwhelmed just posted?
<<no>>
I'd sooner see maximus on that list than see you handing out bans.
How to stop hackers? Recruit avalanche. (lol)
I really like these two ideas but I would like to alter them a tad.
Four ban lists, server adjustable to whether they are used.
<b>Vote list:</b>
Non-admin players can start a vote to kick a player for cheating or abusive behaviour. It takes 70% (server adjustable) of the on line players to execute and the player is band for 30-180min (server adjustable) only. This list is not open for any other server. This way if there is no admin present cheaters get nailed straight away. Abuse would be limited due to the high degree of agreement required and limited to this server only for a short period of time, but enough to stop cheaters.
<b>Admin Private:</b>
New or not so trusted admin's can ban a player for longer e.g. 1day-week (server adjustable) or a trusted admin can add a player if the offence is minor e.g. name calling and does not justify banning from the trusted network. This list is not open for any other server. Any abuse would be limited to this server only.
<b>Admin shared:</b>
Trusted admins only can add players to this list. Banning works the same as <b>Admin Private:</b> except other servers that trust this server can update their "<b>Server limited</b>" list from this server.
<b>Server limited:</b>
Downloaded each map change/day from the "<b>Admin shared</b>" list of trusted servers. This prevents someone getting ban on server <i>A </i>and ending up on server <i>F </i>even though servers <i>A</i> and <i>F </i>do not trust each other or even know each other. Thus, this limits abuse on one server to just its trusted servers network.
This way we have a banning system that does not require constant updates to identify new cheats, any abuse is contained to the server/trust network involved, and players have a way of stopping blatant cheaters from screwing up their day directly when there is no admin present. As soon as admin abuse is determined from one server then the admin’s from those other servers would be able to take that server off their trust network. Also, keep in mind that just because server <i>A</i> trusts <i>B</i> does not mean that <i>B</i> trusts <i>A</i>. So if you are running a server and you don’t like this idea you can always not used it, but at least you have the option.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah that would work. All you have to do is create the infrastructure and you're all set <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> . Seriously though if you're going to start a project I'd be willing to help out with the XML and such. I've been meaning to learn that better anyway.