[Freeciv] Re: feature request againts pubserver cheats

[Horn Gábor <Horn.Gabor@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pille!

2003-10-08, sze keltez=E9ssel 10:41-kor Thomas Strub ezt =EDrta:
> [...]=20
> > ends, which would restart if an other player changes the endyear. It'=
s
> [...]
> Look at PR#3504

Yes, this is a solution too, i didn't know there's active work on that.
I wrote the countdown because thought that's simpler to implement. I
meant it to be w/o any gui notification, just a fix and known length
empty cycle, while players still can type. But no doubt vote system is
more democratic (actually this is how quake handles these things, and
they have MANY multiplayer experience and it seems it's a good way there
too).

>=20
> [...]
> gangbanging
> [...]
>=20
> my answer in PR#4468 was that it could be a good idea to "add" the powe=
r
> from teammates or allied players to a summarized power. And then you
> wouldn't lose that many points when you got gangbanged.

I agree it'd be a good idea too. It requires alliances to be saved in
savegame, and i dunno if they are currently?


> With the auth-system and after than games which would be only played
> between players with a decent nick that problem wohnonly theneranking h=
t

hm, seems the end of teh sentece is missing, what u wrote about?  Well=20
auth only isn't enough, let me quote what i wrote to nouja in this
topic:

Well authorization is the first step, it's effective if combined=20
w/ a system which works eg on the online chess boards (as i was told).
There if somebody is cought using more (registered) nicks, he's banned
or 'rewarded' somehow. (we should save the ip addresses for the gamers
for this). It's a bit bigger thing to organize this, but i think the
online gamer community could handle that (eg nominate and vote for 4-5
persons who forms a group which would decide in such cases). W/
authorization only it's still possible to register many nicks and use
them mixed to maximize one's point and lower other player's point w/
newbie nicks.

> =20
> > c, is there a chance for implement client authorization on pubservers
> > sometime to stop the multi-nick cheats?
>=20
> Auth is implemented in the cvs-version. But i don't know how it works.

I'll test it i think, thx for info.

> =20
> > d, is there a need for feedback/suggestion for rethink the ranking
> > system to reflect the fact of alliances/gangs? (so if 8 player kills =
a
> > good one in a gangbang the 'winner one' wouldn't get even more points
> > for this than if he'd do it in a duel...which would be MUCH harder an=
d
> > worth of reward than a stupid gang)
>=20
> Most of it isn't a problem of the game. The ranking skript is external.
> But i think it would be helpful to store most of the diplomatic
> relationships in the gamelog.

Sure, the only thing from all the stuff i wrote about it affects the
game itself is the need for save diplo relationships. I'd offered nojua
that i'd have a look at the ranking code and try to provide patches for
that if the community agrees on them. Eg now it's strange that after 200
games in 1 game one can loose 5-6 places in the top20 if he lose or
'lose' in that, and to recover that it needs 2-3 win over a same point
person. (So eg if sy there 'loose' againts a 8 player gangbang to a good
player who uses newbie nick, or simply and endy cheat, he has to kill a
top player in duel for 3 times to recover that...are the two really
reflects same 'work' or 'skill' ?...)

> =20
> > I think these would be a great help to get the players again play for
> > fun not because of the points.
>=20
> This changes would help that players would play more for points than fo=
r
> fun ...
>=20

I think eliminate the possibility for unfair behaviour affects the game
in a positive way. It's no problem if somebody gets points because he
wins in a fair play, but it is if he gets the points by a cheat. I think
if there will be no more place for cheat (at least not this easy as it
is now), people won't try to cheat. If everybody has to play under the
same rules (in the ranking), points will be less a factor i think, as
there will be no sense (and way!) to play for 'only' them.=20

thx, hirisov