Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Preventing Cheat in team play


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
13 replies to this topic

#1 Unduli   Members   -  Reputation: 937

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 October 2013 - 09:56 AM

Hello there o/

 

As title suggests , I am trying to find a viable way to regulate gameplay preventing cheat.

 

In my game, for the sake of simplicity, there will be two teams , Red Team and Blue Team.

 

And since it is not feasible to put tens of people into same map for a FPS match, I'll put them into different rooms (4 vs 4, 8 vs 8 etc doesn't matter)

 

And points will not be personal but of team. In that case,

 

a - How can I prevent someone from infiltrating to a team and sabotage it? (I think I can give penalty for friendly fire, and kick by vote option for room)

 

b- How can I prevent a set game? ( ie some of red acts like blue and comes against red in a room and lose intentionally )

 

Thanks in advance.


Edited by Unduli, 25 October 2013 - 09:57 AM.


Sponsor:

#2 ActiveUnique   Members   -  Reputation: 835

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 26 October 2013 - 09:40 AM

If you're talking about random teams then there's no possible way to force players to want to win, other than maybe some prizes and rewards they'll retain across games.

Friendly fire will always happen; team members can even walk directly from behind you to the front of you at all times, then they can even die; if you don't want friendly fire to happen, simply do not include friendly fire in your game.

 

If you include a kick by vote then I cannot stress this more: Use logic in your vote enabling system. If there is an option, it should not be automatically available; a player who just joined has not shot their teammates yet, or hacked, or traded, etc. Big multiplayer games FAIL because they allow any random player (or even a player on the same team) to vote a player who just joined out of the game, and thus players will vote for the sake of voting and trying to control or grief or whatever. Simple as that, someone's game experience just got ruined this second because of a grief voter and a bunch of other players who didn't care what the vote was about.


I've read about the idea guy. It's a serious misnomer. You really want to avoid the lazy team.


#3 Unduli   Members   -  Reputation: 937

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:37 AM

Thanks for sound advices, ActiveUnique. It is far better not to implement friendly fire and make voting for extreme cases.

 

But I still have problem of intentionally losing people and I doubt if there's an elegant way to prevent it.



#4 mippy   Members   -  Reputation: 1002

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:06 AM

Perhaps you could make it more expensive to farm prizes. Lets say each player has a global red score, as well as a global blue score.

  • When a player gains red score you will also loose the same amount of blue score (minimum is 0). 
  • When a player kills a player in the same team he looses a score of the same color. 
  • When a player kills a enemy he will gain a basic score in addition to bonus, based on the enemy players level. 

These rules might prevent players from toggling back and forth between blue and red. It will be more profitable to stay invested in one color all the time. 

 

The other problem was the farming games where the player creates games and plays to harvest score. To make it more expensive to farm like this you could add a multiplier that stacks up if the player is moving/jumping or doing some other action while getting shot, while getting almost nothing if the player is standing still. 

 

A third method is to add a multiplier that reduces score depending on how many times you have killed a certain player. So first time you get 100% of score, next time 100%*0.8 = 80%   and so forth. If you have killed a player 20 times you will get close to nothing in bonus. 

 

These rules are quite complicated, but at their core they are based on bonuses and multipliers. The more active the players are and the more dedicated they are to a certain color/fraction the more bonus they will get. 



#5 Unduli   Members   -  Reputation: 937

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 October 2013 - 04:28 AM

Thanks for input, mippy.

 

I don't want to take people's right to choose which team they'll fight for, they may change idea after all. So it is ok if they toggle.

 

What scares me more is Red team having a group in Blue and intentionally losing to create artificial points for them.

 

But I think there is merit in calculating point given based on opponent "quality" , this way killing a noob or so called enemy gets less point and vice versa, killing a champion gives substantial bonus.

 

Now have to think how abuse-proof this concept is :)



#6 wintertime   Members   -  Reputation: 1713

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:17 AM

I once occasionally watched people inside a MMO use a PvP arena a few times, which gave points for participating and more for winning.

At first it was all fun with 20 vs 20 or however many(dont remember the exact number) fighting, but then the farming started and people wanting to use it as intended found often they were in a team with lazy afk people who only clicked to enter and once after the match to grab points, later dual-cliented afk accounts from people playing at the other side. Then it got so bad normal people would have no more chance of winning cause of rigged matches when they landed in the team with the afk people and stopped going to the arena cause of no more fun. Later again it got even worse when there were only 1 or 2 organized farming parties a week, because all regular people didnt go there anymore, with quadruple-clienting and the few people joining randomly got flamed out for taking up a space or "worse" actively playing on the afk team prolonging the point farming.

 

You better check for people not actively playing and kick them out early, also put some heuristics to check for people doing stupid things like only running one direction into a wall from putting a book on their keyboard or worse using bot programs (if unsure wait with kick but lower points immediately as that could be newbie players).

Also you could lower points by multiplying the fraction of activity/playtime of that match, both for people killing and people being killed. Checking activity at time of kill and factoring it in, like suggested above, seems a good thing to me as well.

Factoring in longtime success too much could be dangerous if people intentionally start putting their "champion" account to use as a dummy for farming.



#7 Unduli   Members   -  Reputation: 937

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 October 2013 - 06:41 AM

wintertime, thanks for horror story smile.png

 

and well , a quite good point. although I'll not offer incentive merely to participate , still seems I'll have to think of measures to keep "good apples".

 

also seems it is a constant battle with bots :/



#8 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:06 PM

Maybe you 'll have to think about why somebody would do that,

i mean, in the example wintertime gave, the game clearly was all about scoring points, and about participating/experiencing the game,

and if the creators set it up that way, it's gonna be played that way.

 

How do people know they 'r gonna be in team blue or red ?

can they choose this ?
can they make their own teams ?

this last one, making own teams, usually solves it for most games;

sure, people get teamed with crappy team-mates now and then, but after a while they 've made some friends,

and then, when an important game is about to played, they choose their friends to play with them in a team.



#9 Mratthew   Members   -  Reputation: 1542

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:01 PM

This is along the same lines as what Mippy suggested for global scoring system. I would suggest giving a personal goal as well as team goals that coincide, that way a player is gaining points for themselves and by happenstance they are winning for their team. That way if they are losing it is a personal loss. I would suggest objective based play over plain team death match as well since it keeps players focused. It also gives narrative to a needless conflict and problem solving lasts longer then blood lust.

 

You can't control players but you can keep them busy and reward them for following the learning curve as well as make it less fun when a player is changing the rules. However the best way to keep these players playing is to anticipate the common "rule changing" situation and design game play around those possible outcomes.

 

For example, if someone decides they are going to change the rules(friendly fire, voted off the team, etc), change that character's color from red or blue to purple. Enemy of all, friend to no one, yet. The team that kills the purple player has that player respawn as their color with no friendly fire for X amount of time. This keeps the player's head in the game but requires them to reorient their perspective of how they play. Since the game becomes complicated (purple) then regimented (respawn with team). Add objectives to this and a player should be kept in the game even after they decide to screw around for a bit.

 

Just a theory.



#10 Unduli   Members   -  Reputation: 937

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:57 AM

Maybe you 'll have to think about why somebody would do that,

i mean, in the example wintertime gave, the game clearly was all about scoring points, and about participating/experiencing the game,

and if the creators set it up that way, it's gonna be played that way.

 

How do people know they 'r gonna be in team blue or red ?

can they choose this ?
can they make their own teams ?

this last one, making own teams, usually solves it for most games;

sure, people get teamed with crappy team-mates now and then, but after a while they 've made some friends,

and then, when an important game is about to played, they choose their friends to play with them in a team.

 

well, then think red/blue as human/orc and let's say (I have zero MMORPG experience so no idea what to say) winner "team" gets something they all benefit or just for sake of victory for some.



#11 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:33 PM

edit my last post: *and NOT about experiencing the game*

(something i, and others with me, consider a bad game design)

 

So, in your (example-?)game players would choose red or blue sometime while signing up, and then from that point on, they would play for that side whenever battling ?

Important question: are both sides different ?

if the answer is no, then i see no reason why not let them make their own teams and have teams play each other.

(this can be done through teams-for-this-one-game or a longer existing team that play many many games, or both)

If both sides are different, then players will naturally want to enjoy the other side as well,

i suggest giving them a character for both sides at the beginning(one account, two characters, easy to monitor, obviously only one character may be active at a time)
having a certain level-up/unlock system that will take a lot of time(making it hard to level-up a character on a second account, make sure this does not interfere with gameplay for newer players, make it some kind of newbie-protection)

One game i played, (it did not have two big teams) people could farm wins as much they wanted.

Ranked games showed their winrate, and some people had a 80-90% winrate, yet, most players in the community would recognize the "good" players by their winrate,

which was usually around 70%.

Now, i think most players with a 90% winratio didn't use multiaccounts, since there were plenty of other ways of screwing around
(make game, only allow people with less then 100 games finished join) but that's not the point.

Those farmers were looked down upon, which meant that they did their things to get their winrate up, and instead of fame they got shame



#12 Unduli   Members   -  Reputation: 937

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 November 2013 - 03:54 AM

edit my last post: *and NOT about experiencing the game*

(something i, and others with me, consider a bad game design)

 

So, in your (example-?)game players would choose red or blue sometime while signing up, and then from that point on, they would play for that side whenever battling ?

Important question: are both sides different ?

if the answer is no, then i see no reason why not let them make their own teams and have teams play each other.

(this can be done through teams-for-this-one-game or a longer existing team that play many many games, or both)

If both sides are different, then players will naturally want to enjoy the other side as well,

i suggest giving them a character for both sides at the beginning(one account, two characters, easy to monitor, obviously only one character may be active at a time)
having a certain level-up/unlock system that will take a lot of time(making it hard to level-up a character on a second account, make sure this does not interfere with gameplay for newer players, make it some kind of newbie-protection)

One game i played, (it did not have two big teams) people could farm wins as much they wanted.

Ranked games showed their winrate, and some people had a 80-90% winrate, yet, most players in the community would recognize the "good" players by their winrate,

which was usually around 70%.

Now, i think most players with a 90% winratio didn't use multiaccounts, since there were plenty of other ways of screwing around
(make game, only allow people with less then 100 games finished join) but that's not the point.

Those farmers were looked down upon, which meant that they did their things to get their winrate up, and instead of fame they got shame

 

Sorry for late reply :/

 

And seems human/orc was a terrible example as unlike it implies, people are free to choose which team they want to fight for. so better think as for example Americans vs Russians. A Russian is expected to fight for Russia but may choose US either, also becomes even more complicated when other country like UK involves matter, they may stay neutral or join one side or so.

 

Pity multiple characters and farming are not options :/



#13 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:14 PM

So what realy is a side then ? aka what benefit does one side bring, and what are the players fighting for ?
in the example i gave, the players mainly fought for glory, and even though they could *cheat*, cheating didn't give the same reward because of how the community worked,
so there was no need to create (potentially game disrupting) counters to that cheating.



#14 Unduli   Members   -  Reputation: 937

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:24 PM

So what realy is a side then ? aka what benefit does one side bring, and what are the players fighting for ?
in the example i gave, the players mainly fought for glory, and even though they could *cheat*, cheating didn't give the same reward because of how the community worked,
so there was no need to create (potentially game disrupting) counters to that cheating.

 

Well, let's say they fight for New York, side winning "battle" (more sum of points at the end) gets New York. So its not just for glory but to get strategic advances as a nation






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS