f



P2P Shooters could get rid of cheaters for a long long time.

Hallo,

Suppose the next generation of shooters uses P2P instead of Server/Client.

Then gamers themselfes can make a ban list of known cheaters and get rid of 
them for a long time.

(Until the cheaters changes isp and gets a new ip)

For cheaters that use proxy or routers... their entire ip subnets can be 
blocked as well.

Thus gamers can finally enjoy the games as they where went to be =D

Bye,
  Skybuck ! ;) 


0
Skybuck
6/23/2008 1:22:15 AM
comp.games.development.design 1168 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

5 Replies
254 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 20

Though this idea needs to be worked out a little bit more.

Here is how it could work.

The server acts as a meeting point and to transfer world information.

Anything that can be done p2p gets done that way.

And the p2p is for verification.

Players can only join the server if none of the players on the server are 
blocked.

If they cannot connect to blocked players then they cant play.

However if a cheater is already on the server... they fair players can't 
connect.

So for this to work... the server must be able to make multiple rooms.

So players can only connect to one room.

When there is a cheater...everybody can leave the room... and leave the 
cheater by itself.

Then people who have blocked the cheater make a new room and simply tell or 
invite all others to join his room instead.

Therefore the cheater cannot join the new room because he's blocked out of 
the new room.

When another cheaters joins the new room the process repeats until all 
cheaters blocked.

This is how civilization 3 conquest works and it works very nicely :)

Bye,
  Skybuck. 


0
Skybuck
6/23/2008 1:27:32 AM
Now some analysis... why is this method better than the voting method ?

The voting method fails because:

After the cheater is voted off, the cheater is given a timeout, and then 
later the cheater can simply re-join.

Practice has shown the world is full of nasty people that never learn their 
lesson.

The correct way is to ban them forever and lot them rott in hell.

With my described method... it's power to the players themselfes... if they 
truely convinced somebody is a cheater they can ban his sorry ass and start 
a room on the server. Therefore... this room will gradually grow to be the 
better room to play in because over time the room will be pretty much 
cheater free ;) :)

And it requires no lengthy and stupid voting processess which rarely 
succeed.

Bye,
  Skybuck. 


0
Skybuck
6/23/2008 1:31:07 AM
The admin method fails as well.

Admins can be jerks... and sometimes there is no admin at all.

Some people are admin whores and wanna be admin just to abuse the server.

My method is better again because it lets anybody be admin so to speak and 
start a new room.

When people no longer playing and loose interest temporarely, other people 
can make new rooms and play in them :)

Bye,
  Skybuck. 


0
Skybuck
6/23/2008 1:33:28 AM
So I guess the idea comes down to something like this:

1. I decide who I NOT want to play with and make a ban list.

2. I make a room on the server, the room follows my ban list.

3. Players on the room's ban list (my list) can't enter the room and 
therefore can't play.

4. All other players can join my room and play.

5. The server supplies additional bandwith as needed, players upload 
capacities are used if needed/possible.

6. If bandwidth allows it then server can host multiple rooms.

7. Multiple servers could even work together as one big staging ground for 
rooms.

Thus the room is as good or as bad as my ban list.

If people don't like it they can make their own room and play there if 
possible.

This is a simpler solution than described earlier.

It's different in one point:

The idea of multiple ban list comparisions is not done.

If player A hates player B... then if player A is playing on player C's 
room... then player B cannot join.

But player B was no real cheater... player A just hates him... but player C 
does not hate him.

Therefore the described idea above is simpler.

I am player C and only my ban list is applied... so player's A and player's 
B banlist are ignored.

So both can play on my room until I decided to ban one of them if I so 
desire.

The disadventage is that my ban list is ignored if I join other people's 
room but then I would have to put up with it :)

Another disadventage is if I start my own room then maybe more bandwidth 
required.. or maybe not... since there is simply a limited ammount of 
players anyway.

The original describe idea is more complex for multiple ban lists... and 
then a trust issue arrises.

At least with this simple idea people only need to trust me... that is one 
player who is hosting the room :)

If people don't trust my ban list then they can make their own rooms simple 
as that :)

Power to the player ! =D LOL.

Bye,
  Skybuck.



0
Skybuck
6/23/2008 1:52:06 AM
I wonder why you even think that someone finds your posting even remotly 
interesting. This monologue is proving that you are either a moron or just 
plain psychotic ... either way, time to put you in the black box again

*ploink* 


0
TheCroW
6/23/2008 7:05:19 PM
Reply: