Well, well, well... i have nothing to contribute to your question,
Humanlightningrod, as the only way of cheating here that i can imagine
is Double-Accounting.
@Joshua: I don't understand why " Accounts created after 5/27/2011 are not eligible for this feature." If you want people to pay for your products, you should obey their wishes. @Humanlightningrod That
being said, Joshua also has to take into account the whishes of the
OTHER kind of paying customers, namly those who oppose the hiding turns.
I
will, from now on, refer to those two kinds of players as "prohiders"
and"contrahiders", being well aware that this is a generalisation (i
personally still opt for a system of Checkboxes, see above.)
@prohiders:
If the turns would be visible, what kind of information IN YOUR TURNS
would you like to have been hidden, in order to accept open turns ?
Like: don't show warpfactors, FriendlyCodes, missions cargotransfers,
armament, and so on.. so only things would be visible, that anyone being
present at that location could see anyway... like the explosions and
maybe the battles.. only that he now can see cloaked ships and ships on
planets, where he doesn't had a Ship of his own.
@contrahiders:
i don't see a way of using the current game-mechanism to cheat, as there
are no magical FC's or such; i actually think hiding orders and such could be a
compromise.
=======================================================================
@prohiders:
You must admit that being able to join games as you like, and opening
accounts as you like, enables doubleaccounting without someone else
noticing it, just like on other hosting-sides.
Even IF the players have to pay for their account, they can currently
change their name as they like, making backtracking difficulty.
They just change the name of one of their accounts, so noone can notice what was going on.
That, of cause, means, they will have to wait for their second account
to drop out of the game, before they can change their name without
someone else noticing it.
@contrahiders:
I think said above tactic can be countered easily:
Just add ID-numbers to Players, and have the game check for they Players
ID where ever his name would be, then display the name stated in his
profile; so even in games he has FINISHED his CURRENT name would appear.
Or you can add a feature, that will show with what other player's a
player did ally so far; even "gsX"-transfers, Basetaking (leaving few
clans and taking the Base by GA) and Ships surrendering could be stated
here; if the numbers are very high, and/or certain players where allied
very often, this can give you a hint.
Also, if the statistic shows if some players changes his names very
often, this should be displayed as well (Player's alias's: *list names here* .... thats why having a unique
Players-ID could be important, so you can actually SEE, what players
tend to ally, and want to hide that.
It might not be a good way to find cheaters, as this might just be 2
players who wants to play together without someone else noticing it.
But if you find 2 players in your game you can check by just taking a
look at their profile if they could be allied, or not (even if there was
no "player X allied player Y - message), or if the new player that just
joined an open race is related to another player in this game.
=======================================================================
@prohiders:
I can almost here you now:
"I want EVERYTHING to be hidden, even if i ally someone, i don't want
them to know that they are in for a nasty surprise; for instance that i
will backstab my current ally ("stupid Empire, thanks for the SSD, now
you are toast !"). You can do that with or without Doubleaccounting.
Just like in real life, you can be betrayed !"
Yes, i would want to do the same and hide my ally for as long as
possible (i am talking about an ally with a real person, not
doubleaccountig), to get a slight advantage. However, if i have an Ally, i don't betray them like that. Keep in mind, that in real life, you KNOW who backstabbed you, and who betrayed you, at
least when you are dealing with someone face to face, which is usually
the case in, for instance, boardgames. In real war this backstabbing-thinks can still happen, but, just to remind you: this is a game. or it should be.
Here you can just change your name and your Profile, and go on without someone else noticing you are related to another player (via Doubleacountig or just being sneaky RL-Friends).
To give a poitive example:
Edidbeduid15 states in his profile, that his RL-Friend is also playing
here, thus allowing other players in the game the possibility to be
better prepared.
Just by browsing his current games you could find out who that would be, he didn't even NEEDS to state that.
So it is a matter of "fair game" or "no fair game".
What do you want ?
You can't except to be treated fair if you don't treat others fair.
I am of the kind that wants to be treated fairly.
Sorry, but if you want to be treated fairly, but dont want to treat
others fairly, you are just a major [insert real harsh swearword here],
imho.
So would i have a constant ally, i wouldn't oppose other players
realizing that, if they take a look at my profile. They would have to
look for that theirself, tho, it's not like im going to shout all over
the place what i am actually going to hide; but they could find it out,
if they'd like to.
Of cause, in such a case they could suspect that i am doubleaccounting:
that wouldn't make a difference, because, just by realizing a
relationship between two players, they will KNOW that cooperation
between the 2 races played by me and my ally WILL happen !
Same as with an option for my ally being able to play my turns when im
absent (a feature that i would really like to see here, it's at least
better then players dropping out because they are on a vacation). Of
cause, if someone is playing the turn for his ally (and imho you MUST be
allied to allow this feature), there should be a general message to the
other players, stating "player x played for player z in this turn".
@contrahiders:
Am i mistaken, or is the issue about showing or hiding turns ... aiming towards having fair play in this game in general ?
I am absolutely with you on that matter, i think RLis unfair enough, and
we play games to have fun, and not a recreation of RL... ok, "The Sims"
aside, maybe... .
I don't think this can't be achieved by simply showing the turns to everyone after the game has finished. So: I don't think any player that choose to hide his turns needs to be
checked, unless another player (that was in the same game as he was)
wants his turns to be checked.
=======================================================================
So, to conclude this: In my eyes this is basically a problem of "Fair Play" vs. "Privacy". The "FairPlayers" suspecting the "Privacy-Guys" to hide that they are cheating. The "Privacy-Guys" are suspecting the "FairPlayers" to steal their secrets. (I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle of this to extremes.) And while we are bashing each others heads, the real Cheaters are laughing at us, countinuing to spoil the game and eliminating trust as a whole.
So i must backup Humanlightningrod's question about "what kind of cheating is there in this game ?" Not to proof a point or to drag someon down, but because i really think we should focus on the problem of getting rid of cheating as good as possible.
Anything you use within a game isn't cheating. Even backstabbing or hiding your ally isn't. Anything you use from outside of the game to get an advantage in the game is cheating. So far i can only imagine DoubleAccounting as a way to cheat here.
Lets grab the evil at its roots !
Getting the roots out will require more work, yes, as you need to digg a lot. But you will only have to do this _once_. If you don't do that, you need to cut off the evil above the ground. And that has to be done _constantly_.
Regards, Shrambot
P.S.: Sorry Joshua for totally ignoring your point of the "Grand Theatre", as i think the "Privacy vs Cheating"-issue is currently more important. I still like the idea of a "Grand Theatre", but a better way for presenting this should be used. The current way isn't as userfriendly as it should be, anyway. (I would contribute my ideas about that if there is a theead regarding this.)
|