|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Kristoff Atruin
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2191
   |
Posted - 2014.05.09 18:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Dent's point is that people would start a brand new account (free to play, remember?) and use that to do their banworthy actions, leaving their real character untouchable.
If possible, punkbuster would be good. I've never encountered any blatant cheating in a punkbuster game. Aside from that I see a few design options
1) Limit the effectiveness of a brand new character like that enough that it isn't worth trying to bring them into territory fights to cheat with. Kind of a bad idea, since it really punishes new players.
2) Restrict access to territory battles until a character is a certain age and has participated in enough of structured battles with a certain level of performance. The idea is to make a throwaway alt more work than people are willing to do. If the battles happen in a truly open world area, restriction might have to be through reducing their damage output by 100% or something.
3) Along with client monitoring (Eve has done well in detecting hacked clients), make it so that in order for a new character to participate he has to be sponsored / guaranteed by a much older character. If the young character is a cheat and it is detected, the older character gets punished as if it was him.
4) Roll back the territory ownership effects of any battle where cheating is detected.
|
Kristoff Atruin
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2194
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 18:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Some more rough ideas.
Monitor the statistics of brand new characters and flag them if their stats are *too good*, allowing an invisible GM to follow them around. If a previously unknown hack is being used and got through the anti-cheating systems, refund everyone killed for their losses and zero the cheater's stats. This would reduce the incentive to cheat.
For territorial conquest battles, borrow from Eve's war system. In order to take territory you have to declare that you're going to take territory from the other corp. Anyone not in your corp / alliance does reduced damage within the battle area, but when declaring your intent you can add allies to the combatant list. This excludes npc corp alts from affecting the outcome, but has a risk similar to district locking that would need to be accounted for.
|
Kristoff Atruin
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2211
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 20:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
If the game design isn't set up to counter an SSD it gives a huge advantage to the team who is using it. When PC launched we fought many teams who had SSD players, and while we were still lagging our way out of the MCC, a scout with an SSD (which gave him a 10 second head start before we even started to load the map) was already into the center structure of the map placing links for the rest of the team to spawn on. It meant that they could capture 3 of the 4 points before we even started to hack the point closest to our MCC.
|
|
|
| |
|