Server that does not tolerate cheating

pagedMov · 2014-04-08 14:10:38

cullman wrote:

I see a lot of people setting up $0 vaults to rob to pump up bounty. If I go hit them, they immediately set them back up. I figure if we make $0 vaults worth $0 bounty they will make $5 vaults. What about finding a way to lower bounty amounts on vaults that aren't hard to break. Ie vault bounty is no longer a fixed $1000. It's maybe calculated on number of unique visitors x $50 and number of deaths x $100. Something like that.

Something that would effectively get rid of 0:0 $0 bounty boosters, is that whenever you rob a house, a fraction of that house's money that you robbed is added to your bounty, so that if you rob, say, a $10 house, only $1 would be added to your bounty, and a $0 house wouldn't add anything. Or something like, based on the total value of all the tiles in the house, when you get to the vault, some of that worth is put into your bounty? I don't know, but I think it's a good idea.

Last edited by pagedMov (2014-04-08 14:17:37)

Lord0fHam · 2014-04-08 14:22:33

Bounty doesn't work that way. You get $500 per vault robbed. I think this is also only 4 times per hour. You get $1000 per family member killed.

cullman · 2014-04-08 14:23:31

pagedMov wrote:

cullman wrote:
I see a lot of people setting up $0 vaults to rob to pump up bounty. If I go hit them, they immediately set them back up. I figure if we make $0 vaults worth $0 bounty they will make $5 vaults. What about finding a way to lower bounty amounts on vaults that aren't hard to break. Ie vault bounty is no longer a fixed $1000. It's maybe calculated on number of unique visitors x $50 and number of deaths x $100. Something like that.
Something that would effectively get rid of 0:0 $0 bounty boosters, is that whenever you rob a house, a fraction of that house's money that you robbed is added to your bounty, so that if you rob, say, a $10 house, only $1 would be added to your bounty, and a $0 house wouldn't add anything. Or something like, based on the total value of all the tiles in the house, when you get to the vault, some of that worth is put into your bounty? I don't know, but I think it's a good idea.

I like that idea too. I was thinking get rid of bounties based on killing or vault touches all together and just make it a percentage of what has been grabbed regardless of how it has been grabbed.

mala · 2014-04-08 16:28:13

cullman wrote:

I like that idea too. I was thinking get rid of bounties based on killing or vault touches all together and just make it a percentage of what has been grabbed regardless of how it has been grabbed.

that will also make a difference between low/high level robbers, i like it

tigey101 · 2014-04-08 21:11:14

I am in!

arrowface · 2014-04-08 22:04:20

Hey cullman,

Starting a new version of the game would be a great idea, I just want to point out a few things first:

-It's rude to discuss the creation of a new (and similar) game, on the forums of the game you're attempting to copy. If you're going to do it, just do it. If you're a developer then just crowd source the ideas from friends and co-workers as you have done already, from your previous developing career. These are just simple ethics that most developers hold between each other. It's not good karma -- especially between developers that understand security infrastructures

-You're main concern is having more than one account. If you decide to block more than one access point from one location, you run into issues such as multiple people in one house hold attempting to play your game. Take for example some college dorms/universities. Also as you may know it would be extremely easy to use various proxies to create an account. This game isn't CPU intensive so this would be an easy task...

-If you decide to assign a player one name through their entire game play + rebirth, you risk your games atmosphere. I imagine that people will eventually start singling out others -- essentially joining forces against one person for whatever reason. This game is about pillaging someones house, this is BOUND to happen if players are tied to one name. The unanimous aspect that the name changing adds to the game prevents such things from happening.

-I realize that on the first couple pages you mentioned that you have security experience and have the power to tackle this issue of dual accounting. I respectfully have to say that you will most likely find no solution to dual accounting, and even if you do it will only be temporary. There will always be a loophole, but you may as well tackle P versus NP while you're at it.

arrowface · 2014-04-08 22:09:28

Also, Hi -- I'm arrowface. I've been playing for a little while and find myself addicted to this game! I've managed to make a couple simple yet impenetrable designs that work off deception of your own eyes

pagedMov · 2014-04-08 22:20:18

arrowface wrote:

Also, Hi -- I'm arrowface. I've been playing for a little while and find myself addicted to this game! I've managed to make a couple simple yet impenetrable designs that work off deception of your own eyes

Welcome to the forums.

StefanLindskog · 2014-04-08 22:36:17

arrowface wrote:

Also, Hi -- I'm arrowface. I've been playing for a little while and find myself addicted to this game! I've managed to make a couple simple yet impenetrable designs that work off deception of your own eyes

Welcome to the forum and the game, Arrowface! If I read your first post right, you are pointing out things to Cullman that he's either already aware of or is not going to do.

cullman · 2014-04-08 23:01:35

arrowface wrote:

Hey cullman,
Starting a new version of the game would be a great idea, I just want to point out a few things first:
-It's rude to discuss the creation of a new (and similar) game, on the forums of the game you're attempting to copy. If you're going to do it, just do it. If you're a developer then just crowd source the ideas from friends and co-workers as you have done already, from your previous developing career. These are just simple ethics that most developers hold between each other. It's not good karma -- especially between developers that understand security infrastructures
-You're main concern is having more than one account. If you decide to block more than one access point from one location, you run into issues such as multiple people in one house hold attempting to play your game. Take for example some college dorms/universities. Also as you may know it would be extremely easy to use various proxies to create an account. This game isn't CPU intensive so this would be an easy task...
-If you decide to assign a player one name through their entire game play + rebirth, you risk your games atmosphere. I imagine that people will eventually start singling out others -- essentially joining forces against one person for whatever reason. This game is about pillaging someones house, this is BOUND to happen if players are tied to one name. The unanimous aspect that the name changing adds to the game prevents such things from happening.
-I realize that on the first couple pages you mentioned that you have security experience and have the power to tackle this issue of dual accounting. I respectfully have to say that you will most likely find no solution to dual accounting, and even if you do it will only be temporary. There will always be a loophole, but you may as well tackle P versus NP while you're at it.

I get that it normally may be "bad form" to discuss copying a game on the very forum it is played on. However, I have talked to Jason about it via email and he was very encouraging with me and my ideas going forward. I would not go forward with this idea, on his board or not if he was not ok with what I am proposing to do. Frankly, there is no better place to discuss this right now. In fact, this board almost doesn't even have enough traffic to support a new rev, much less starting from scratch somewhere else.

As for the rest of your points, I think I have already addressed most of them before, but to recap: I will allow dual accounts, that means 2 people can play from the same IP or location. I will try to prevent dual account abuse. The one name thing is tricky, cause I like the random name thing. However, one name would really fix a lot of the problems with dual accounts, and frankly I think the problem could be solved with a combination of that and a good abuse reporting system with a little bit of manual intervention. That would be my last resort to solve the problem though. Other ideas, I've had is porting the game to mobile, and only allow people to play from an account that's tied to an app store. That would cut down on dual accounts abuse at least coming from most individuals. Anyway, if we go forward with this it will be a process to figure out what works and doesn't work. I have done a few things in the past that people told me were impossible...P/NP, however, was not one of them Though, basically I agree with you, a motivated cheater/hacker will always find away, but I am confident we can reduce 95%+ of the cheating with some thought and focus on the subject.

A couple of other thoughts I've had since I've last posted :

- I would hold security tape, even if the cops come to help people reliable tell when they've been scouted.
- I would also record when someone zero steps in a house, just looks in the door.
- I think bounties definitely need to fundamentally change in how they are calculated
- I will not send the whole map down. The nice thing is that player will always have 4 or less valid move directions and and 4 different sets of tiles that will be revealed. I will change the client and server to likely grab 4^2 or less possible tiles that they could see in any 2 valid moves. This means that the server is sending data 2 moves ahead, so hopefully lag won't be too bad, but the whole map is only actually revealed if the user gets close and the tiles are actually accessible, or worst case the person can get 2 moves ahead but cannot grab the whole map by sticking their head in the door.

Last edited by cullman (2014-04-08 23:02:10)

Lord0fHam · 2014-04-08 23:06:14

cullman wrote:

but cannot grab the whole map by sticking their head in the door.

I think this is already fixed. I just checked my recorded games file, and I couldn't find anything resembling a map file except for my own house. Other houses are a bunch of encrypted gibberish (unless I'm not looking at the right thing). And no, I wasn't trying to cheat, just checking cause you mentioned it.

cullman · 2014-04-08 23:10:06

Lord0fHam wrote:

cullman wrote:
but cannot grab the whole map by sticking their head in the door.
I think this is already fixed. I just checked my recorded games file, and I couldn't find anything resembling a map file except for my own house. Other houses are a bunch of encrypted gibberish (unless I'm not looking at the right thing). And no, I wasn't trying to cheat, just checking cause you mentioned it.

I have information that says otherwise.

Lord0fHam · 2014-04-08 23:13:15

well ok then *cowers in fear cause I told you my name*

cullman · 2014-04-11 15:39:35

Ok guys I only got 17 people saying they would play this, it's frankly not worth my time. I love this game, and I have been trying to help Jason lock it down a little, but a major rewrite and running a dedicated server for 17 people while I have a day job just doesn't make sense. Maybe we can revisit in a few months if this game continues to slow down enough that the people who enjoy and defend cheating now finally get what Jason said, "that they are robbing themselves". Until then I am shelving this idea. Sorry, thanks all who supported it.

Cylence · 2014-04-28 10:22:04

Hi Cullman,

Welcome back

You're posts have been in a bunch of different threads, but they mostly have to do with this topic, so I'm gonna reply here. For the vision of your server, where do you stand on map information? i.e. Would you allow or try to prevent sharing of maps, and if so, any ideas on implementation?

cullman · 2014-04-28 10:45:09

Cylence wrote:

Hi Cullman,
Welcome back
You're posts have been in a bunch of different threads, but they mostly have to do with this topic, so I'm gonna reply here. For the vision of your server, where do you stand on map information? i.e. Would you allow or try to prevent sharing of maps, and if so, any ideas on implementation?

Well I would prevent map stealing by making the game logic completely server side, making it so the client doesn't have the whole map. Also, this would also fix the DC scouting issue. Also, I am more and more leaning towards you get one name per account. So if you are William Michael Lewis when that account is created, then that's the name on that account forever. That way it would be very easy for people to know on the boards who's accounts are linked, pretty quickly. I would also likely add a reporting mechanism to the security tape screen where you could check multiple names and submit them on the suspicion of collaborating. Get enough complaints tying the same accounts together, and an admin investigates then bans the account if necessary.

Cylence · 2014-04-28 10:52:16

cullman wrote:

Well I would prevent map stealing by making the game logic completely server side, making it so the client doesn't have the whole map... Get enough complaints tying the same accounts together, and an admin investigates then bans the account if necessary.

I was only asking about sharing, but thanks for sharing your ideas against hacking maps through the client.

If I understand your post correctly, that means your stance would be to prevent map sharing. i.e. People who decide to rob collaboratively will eventually get reported and banned. Is this correct? Also, would that mean anyone who shares a map on the forums or anyone who streams (maps would be revealed) would also get banned?

Edit: made the quote smaller

Last edited by Cylence (2014-04-28 10:53:39)

cullman · 2014-04-28 10:55:33

Cylence wrote:

cullman wrote:
Well I would prevent map stealing by making the game logic completely server side, making it so the client doesn't have the whole map... Get enough complaints tying the same accounts together, and an admin investigates then bans the account if necessary.
I was only asking about sharing, but thanks for sharing your ideas against hacking maps through the client.
If I understand your post correctly, that means your stance would be to prevent map sharing. i.e. People who decide to rob collaboratively will eventually get reported and banned. Is this correct? Also, would that mean anyone who shares a map on the forums or anyone who streams (maps would be revealed) would also get banned?
Edit: made the quote smaller

I think it's the major abuse of map sharing that would be really not allowed. If someone shared some tips on a broken house and the broken house owner doesn't complain or the person streaming doesn't complain, then it's a non issue.

Cylence · 2014-04-28 11:12:14

cullman wrote:

I think it's the major abuse of map sharing that would be really not allowed. If someone shared some tips on a broken house and the broken house owner doesn't complain or the person streaming doesn't complain, then it's a non issue.

"Major abuse" is so general that I'm not sure what you mean by it. The line for what your server considers an offense to result in banning should be very specific and clear.

In your provided example, if the owner of a house that got broken returns after a 3 week vacation and reports everyone who walked straight to the vault with no prior visits, (got the map from a friend to get to the vault), then they would get banned, even though it seemed like an abandoned house for people who were in there?

And my thoughts on streaming wasn't for the streamer to complain about his house getting broken into. It's about the houses he reveals when he robs other people. If those people complain that their houses are being revealed on his stream, would the streamer get banned?

cullman · 2014-04-28 12:08:26

Cylence wrote:

cullman wrote:
I think it's the major abuse of map sharing that would be really not allowed. If someone shared some tips on a broken house and the broken house owner doesn't complain or the person streaming doesn't complain, then it's a non issue.
"Major abuse" is so general that I'm not sure what you mean by it. The line for what your server considers an offense to result in banning should be very specific and clear.
In your provided example, if the owner of a house that got broken returns after a 3 week vacation and reports everyone who walked straight to the vault with no prior visits, (got the map from a friend to get to the vault), then they would get banned, even though it seemed like an abandoned house for people who were in there?
And my thoughts on streaming wasn't for the streamer to complain about his house getting broken into. It's about the houses he reveals when he robs other people. If those people complain that their houses are being revealed on his stream, would the streamer get banned?

The streaming one is tricky. This is one reason I like the idea of different neighborhoods. At the highest level, we could have much stricter rules including, you will get banned if you stream while playing in that particular neighborhood.

Cylence · 2014-04-28 12:42:21

cullman wrote:

The streaming one is tricky. This is one reason I like the idea of different neighborhoods. At the highest level, we could have much stricter rules including, you will get banned if you stream while playing in that particular neighborhood.

You haven't responded to the broken house scenario where it seemed ok, but then wasn't.

It sounds like you want to have different rule sets pertaining to each neighborhood.
For each one, I urge you to make it clear what the rules are for each server.

What would the rules be for the server you would want to play in the most? Please be as specific as possible, and I'll try to help by letting you know of any cases that I can think of. Right now, you don't have anything specific or a living list that defines what a "Server that does not tolerate cheating" actually means. That's the biggest hole right now.

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#76 2014-04-08 14:10:38

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#77 2014-04-08 14:22:33

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#78 2014-04-08 14:23:31

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#79 2014-04-08 16:28:13

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#80 2014-04-08 21:11:14

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#81 2014-04-08 22:04:20

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#82 2014-04-08 22:09:28

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#83 2014-04-08 22:20:18

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#84 2014-04-08 22:36:17

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#85 2014-04-08 23:01:35

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#86 2014-04-08 23:06:14

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#87 2014-04-08 23:10:06

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#88 2014-04-08 23:13:15

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#89 2014-04-11 15:39:35

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#90 2014-04-28 10:22:04

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#91 2014-04-28 10:45:09

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#92 2014-04-28 10:52:16

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#93 2014-04-28 10:55:33

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#94 2014-04-28 11:12:14

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#95 2014-04-28 12:08:26

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

#96 2014-04-28 12:42:21

Re: Server that does not tolerate cheating

Board footer