OT: Cheaters

[disabled]

You didin't mistake me, but to me it's always that people want to win and win now. I've seen good players turn around and cheat - just to end the game.

Of course, building up Online account stats like those for diablo and everquest then selling on ebay has always kinda seemed interesting to me as a way to make some side cash.

I know MM want's to increase thier fan base with System Wars, but I'm also afraid of the increase in cheating, hacking, and piss-poor copy-cats.

[zen.]

[soapbox mode]
I agree with Sachmo...there are many reasons why people cheat. I can understand it to an extent, for SOLO play. For example, I have a friend who used to just use cheat codes for his games, and I didn't understand why he didn't want the challenge. It wasn't until my life became too busy with a full-time job and two part-time jobs that I realized that he wanted the -experience- without putting in the time, of which he had none. Again, this is for SOLO play.

I absolutely abhor cheaters when it comes to playing other people. It's one thing to inflate your own ego, but not at the expense of others. I play on-line all the time with the FPS Team Fortress Classic, and cheaters pop-up frequently. I'm a pretty decent player, and my main trouble comes when I do a decent job suppressing (clan) players; if I do too well, I am accused of cheating. With the sensitivity of server admins of late, they automatically listen to every plebe who accuses a more skilled player of cheating.

*sigh* I remember a time before all this cheating when skill meant something.
[/soapbox mode]

zen

[Stone Mill]

To "peel the onion," so to speak...

Cheaters want the end result so bad: The prestige and personal satisfaction of being declared "a winner."

They need this and it drives them so that they simply can't enjoy the experience. They can't accept losing because it really makes them feel insecure.

In their own convaluded logic, cheating is just another strategy to employ so they can prove they were smarter, craftier than other people. In a weird sense of denial, their actions are justified. Consider Capt James T Kirk, who altered the rules of the winless game in Starfleet Academy to allow him to win. Amazingly enough, cheaters all seem to fantasize that they are #1 Federation Starfleet Commander as well, and that they must best people any way they can. How many Kirk wannabes are out there? Many.

Not being able to handle losing is insecurity. It is tremendously disrespectful to other pleyers, some of which I am happy to say are friends, although I've never met them.

Personal challenge, comeraderie, and enjoyment take precedence over the simple temptation of cheating, which appeals to us all on some level. Most solid players realize that a victory via cheating is empty. You haven't really tested yourself.

When you are mature enough to handle losing, you don't get mad and curse for the death of the victor. You appreciate them, learn from them, and congratulate them. Well, maybe you swear a little.

This is a game, simply put. Enjoy the experience, good or bad. Revel in what you have done well, and work on what you need to do better. It is ok to lose. Percentages are heavily stacked against you.

When a cheater fantasizes that the game it represents a chance to prove they are not a "loser," they blatantly prove otherwise without really acknowledging it.

[Hank]

First of all, cheating sucks!

In these discussions, it hasnt been pointed out that quite a few cheaters aren't even playing the same game we are. They are playing against the game system itself. They could care less about whether or not they win or lose a particular game, but all that matters is that they beat the system. These are the worst kind of cheaters beacause they are the actual source of cheats that become public. That is winning the game for them. Finding a loophole or hack and posting it onto the web so that everyone can defeat the game system.

One of the biggest problems with cheating is poor game design. A lot of games are designed as a standalone game and then ported to be multiplayer. This is a real problem because when this design is followed, the player is not limited to only the data that the player needs. In games designed as such, the cheater already has 95% of the information they need sitting on their computer already. All they need to do is figure out how to get it.

Proper network game architecture would solve the majority of cheating that is in existance already. Unfortunately, the customer demands of needing to release a game as both single player and multiplayer seems prevents this architecture from being profitable.

[Ragnarok]

I couldn't agree with you more with everything you said Stone Mill.

When you are mature enough to handle losing, you don't get mad and curse for the death of the victor. You appreciate them, learn from them, and congratulate them. Well, maybe you swear a little.

This is a game, simply put. Enjoy the experience, good or bad. Revel in what you have done well, and work on what you need to do better. It is ok to lose. Percentages are heavily stacked against you.

This more so then anything. You may get mad you lost, but you don't as you said "curse the death of the victor", you simply congratulate them and move on, you learn from your loses. I personally enjoy losing, it gives me a chance to look at the way I play, and examine it and see how I could do better; then I look at how the person that beat me played and see how their stratagy worked better then mine and I add it to how I play. But you said it well Stone Mill.

[Pax]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hadrian Tyrael S. Aventine:
Actully, multiplayer testing for cheats would be acceptable in my mind if both parties are involved in the testing.

I also have no problem if people want to test multiplayer cheats in your mind. I just don't want them doing it on PBW.

---

What if they were to arrange it specifically with you beforehand ... ? 8)

If you have a cheat you want to test, and you need someone to play with you (I can't imagine why, because you can play all sides of a simultaneous game on one PC and test this stuff, but for the sake of argument) then do it via PBEM. There is no difference as far as Se4 is concerned between PBW and PBEM.

Geoschmo

Some of the trick might be, "lets see if you can find the right tell-tale signs, to indicate HOW the other player is cheating" ... producing a list of "warning signs" that might indicate possible cheating by an opponent Online.

Also, dare I say it, either you or someone else (approved BY you, ofc) should be semi-regularly "testing" PBW's security; hacking into the server itself is merely another potential form of cheating, after all.

[capnq]

Some of the trick might be, "lets see if you can find the right tell-tale signs, to indicate HOW the other player is cheating" ... producing a list of "warning signs" that might indicate possible cheating by an opponent Online.

Nearly all of the requests the PBW admins get to investigate suspected cheating turn out to be perfectly legit tactics that the accuser hadn't seen used before. A formal list of "warning signs" would just make people paranoid, because most of them would be indistinguishable from other game events.

capnq
PBW admin