[Freeciv] Re: feature request againts pubserver cheats

[Horn Gábor <Horn.Gabor@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi!

2003-10-08, sze keltez=E9ssel 10:59-kor Per I. Mathisen ezt =EDrta:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Horn G=E1bor wrote:
> > I'd like to ask if it's a big work to implement that after setting
> > endyear a fixed time of countdown would start before the game actuall=
y
> > ends, which would restart if an other player changes the endyear.
>=20
> Maybe: Could it be possible to restrict endyear so that its minimum val=
ue
> is current year + 1 (assuming it ends after endyear and not at endyear)=
?
> This way you always get one turn to change endyear after it is set.

I agree, this is a good solution too. I can see only 1 problem w/ it:
there are some rare cases, when poeple WANTS a draw. Eg last time Donald
D. Dumbsfeld and Iuz played a duel, and it was quite balanced and DDD
had to go, so they agreed on draw. It needed much manual work to
organize workers to have the same point and be sure there won't be city
grow or new techs at any side. But it's a very rare case, and ould be
done too w/ your system, but maybe a bit harder.

>=20
> > he waited while we press turn done, the suddently luxed and set endy.=
..
>=20
> I do not like that it is possible to improve your score merely by
> adjusting the tax rate. I suggest that either, when score is calculated=
,
> everyone's tax is set to the same and specialists are transformed into
> workers, or happiness/luxury is counted with the same weight as science
> output, gold income and shield production.

I absolutely agree. This would be a more fair way to measure a nation's
strength.

>=20
> > a, do the devs care about this? Or is it just me and a few other play=
ers
> > who feels sad to see where pubserver's 'morale' is going to?
>=20
> For our part, I do not think the problem is lack of care, but lack of
> knowledge about how pubserver games work and what problems there might =
be.
> I do not play much on pubserver myself (less than one game a month).

I meant no offense at all here, just wanted to know if it's worth to
write about it, or don't waste your time w/ it. I'm glad to hear you
care, and sure more players would share their experience too if that can
help your work.=20

>=20
> > b, is there a chance to implement that countdown (or any other soluti=
on)
> > to stop endy cheats?
>=20
> If we can agree on a well-designed and simple solution to the problem,
> then I will be happy to implement it.
>=20
> Here is something I have suggested before: We implement a voting mechan=
ism
> for all CTRL level commands done during the game. All players get INFO
> level access instead. It works like this
>=20
>       /vote endyear 500
>=20
> Then _next turn_ all players are notified that a vote is in progress, a=
nd
> can vote yes or no like this
>=20
>       /vote yes
>=20
> or
>=20
>       /vote no
>=20
> If more 'yes' votes are counted than 'no' votes before turn ends, then =
the
> command specified in the vote gets executed by the player who suggested
> the vote as if that player had CTRL access.
>=20
> The only thing I can think of that is not so nice about this is setting
> timeout or a player to AI when there is no timeout, if not all players =
are
> at their keyboard. Then the game cannot continue.
>=20
> Note that it would be possible to
>=20
>       /vote cmdlevel ctrl player1
>=20
> and make player1 a judge for the game, to avoid such situations.
>=20
> What do people think about this idea?

in quake's vote system there's a timeout for all the votes, and needs a
majority of active players. If either the timeout expires (30 secs in
default) or it doesn't get half +1 of votes 'yes', vote is automatically
cancelled.


> > 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 agangbang 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
> Teams members get their scores averaged. We could do the same for
> alliances. This would mean that if you endyear when you are obviously
> outgunned but the enemy alliance consists of many weaker players, you
> could still win...

I think pille's method to add the points of the alliances and count w/
that (so the 'loosers' will loose and the allies will gain much less
points than they'd do it alone) is a bettersolution for this.=20

thx, hirisov