Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

Buzzerbee · Before February 2015

xRichTofenx wrote:

Omg hwo needs guest bombing I just plane hate it so much. Its used just to get noob levels to the top. :/

Then stop making noob levels. Problem solved.

jemhun · Before February 2015

?tilla wrote:

Or, how about a better idea. Only maximum of 2 of the same IP-Addresses allowed in a single room.
Problem solved.

This might be a good idea for it.

DJDavid98 · Before February 2015

BUMP.

N1KF · Before February 2015

jemhun wrote:

?tilla wrote:
Or, how about a better idea. Only maximum of 2 of the same IP-Addresses allowed in a single room.
Problem solved.
This might be a good idea for it.

Even if there's an awesome level with 1 person, it'll never get to the top without guestbombing unless it's EX Crew Shift or MegaMan Dash...

AsurcH · Before February 2015

Don't ban guest bombing. Chris did it once and people started creating accs like XXX1 XXX2 XXX3 and account bomb. Instead you could do this:

1) Mark the world as spam

Marks the world and adds it to a folder listed as spam. You won't see that world in lobby ever again unless you unmark them.

2) Mark as hot(as you said)

This could also mark your favorite worlds.

3) Mark all worlds including _____ in their name (add to hot/spam)

This would be useful for getting rid of "stairs t0 c0d" and "b055 t0 c0D" levels.

Like mah idea? No? Okay.

Edit: Oh and also if you ban the 2 accs per ip how can i play the game with my brother?
Also people would proxy spam and account bomb or something like that.

Last edited by AsurcH (Jun 9 2012 1:05:17 pm)

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

I like how people keep mentioning that they won't be able to play with their siblings.
Well, two separate Internet Connections
regardless of whether they are connected to the same router as you
will have separate IP Addresses.

This is a fact.

Now, I don't think you can/would play with your siblings on the exact same computer...
The reason why I said specifically '2' IP-Addresses is because some people like to use bots to control their worlds.
By the way, the "bypassing" kind of thing is more into the advanced field :3
I could easily bypass this little solution by using a simple socket list.

But, I don't see a lot of people into the advanced fields of networking too much.. so it'd be fine.

Last edited by ?tilla (Jun 9 2012 5:42:16 pm)

Bash · Before February 2015

I can't see any decent way of preventing guest bombing, unless you don't allow guests. But then that creates the account bomb "issue", which I am a fan of abusing.

=================================

?tilla wrote:

I like how people keep mentioning that they won't be able to play with their siblings.
Well, two separate Internet Connections
regardless of whether they are connected to the same router as you
will have separate IP Addresses.
This is a fact.

Switch or Router, it doesn't matter in this case, but both of those will teach you basic networking (and slightly more advanced), which would definitely be a good read for a large portion of the people on the internet.

A router is designed to route packets to different devices on an internal network. This is why you can plug 4 devices into a router and all be able to connect to the internet at one time. This also means you can have 4 devices on one IP address, just as long as you have enough local addresses to handle it.

If every device had it's own IP address, we would have run out of them earlier with IPv4.

Now, I don't think you can/would play with your siblings on the exact same computer...
The reason why I said specifically '2' IP-Addresses is because some people like to use bots to control their worlds.

Chris already has this implemented, but it's only specific to a single account instead of IP address.

By the way, the "bypassing" kind of thing is more into the advanced field :3
I could easily bypass this little solution by using a simple socket list.
But, I don't see a lot of people into the advanced fields of networking too much.. so it'd be fine.

It can be bypassed quicker with a proxy, which is probably the main reason why Chris would never bother to implement it.

kinggun680 · Before February 2015

Separation of the numbers.

Like Players: #, and then Guests: #.

Zoey2070 · Before February 2015

Okay, I can see where you're coming from, and you do have a lot of really great and interesting ideas, but I personally disagree with limiting guest-bombing.

There are two kinds of basic groups in EE as I see it: Pros and Nubs. Pardon the cliche names, but that's how I divide people, and then there's subcatagories and subsubcatagories, but it's like taxonomic ranking. Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species and also domain above kingdom but that doesn't exist in my world.
So the Kingdoms would simply be 'Admins' and 'Non-admins' and then Pros/nubs as the phylum and I don't have any others yet because I don't want to go into it because it's not needed.

Anyway, the Pros typically guestbomb to get people in their levels for a few minutes and then pull them out as others join and stay because they have high-quality levels.
Nubs typically guestbomb to pretend their levels are popular and keep them untill they're ready to close the level because no one stays in their levels.
But then there are pros who people don't stay in their levels for various reasons.
Guests would want to play a game and see the best of the best levels: levels that are typically by pros. They need to see what EE has to offer at its very best, and therefore, guest worlds and player worlds are not helpful. Limiting guests doesn't give the boost people need to get their level to the top for it to thrive on its own.
A level is like a bird. When it is born (opened), it needs help to learn to stretch its wings and fly. It needs a boost, something to help it take its first steps to learn to fly (Pretty much getting people to come in when it opens -- in this way, a level is also like a business day-to-day). You need people to come in for the bird to fly, and you can't have people come in on their own constantly without lots of friends or guests to give it a little push. Once the bird begins to fly because people are coming in on their own, it will need a constant stream of large numbers of people to continue to thrive/fly. So that's pretty much why levels need guest-bombing unless it's a rare scenerio where they have mass amounts of publicity.

Also, while the highlighting thing is a good idea, I personally disagree because that doesn't mean your level is good, and it seems way too commercial for my tastes. Being able to buy things faster is one thing, getting special, exclusive things for money that give you an unfair advantage is another. (One block and a smiley isn't an unfair advantage, it's a way too leech money)
(Also, I'm pretty much saying that in order to succeed in EE, you've got to have popular levels and compete. It's a competiton of who is the best and who isn't, and having an eyecatching level is just an unfair way to get people to come in because a lot of others couldn't afford the same thing. Guest bombing is fair game since it really doesn't affect anything since it won't get people to stay in a level.)

So, basically, while you have some good ideas, I don't think they'd be right for EE at this time.

Gaming_Guy · Before February 2015

DJDavid98 wrote:

After being on Everybody Edits for a year now, I see guest bombing is a bit too overused to make NOOB levels more popular.

How can a noob even get a guest bomb bot? A "noob" is someone who is new to the game. You wouldn't expect someone new to a game to have bots straight off the bat.

DJDavid98 wrote:

I don't say everyone who guestbombs has a noob level, but in most cases, thus there should be a limitation:

This isn't actually an issue to Chris. He has his eyes on money. Guest-bombing doesn't reduce that money. Actually, it gets him more money. The more people play on his game, the more money he gets.

DJDavid98 wrote:

1st Way: add maximum x number of guests limit & idea (see below)

Horrible idea. Firstly new people that join the game would have a hard time finding levels to play. Secondly Chris would lose money because of this. Less plays means less money.

DJDavid98 wrote:

2nd Way: guest and player worlds could be separated just like beta and normal worlds, also allowing guests to make worlds.

Racist against guests much? That would require a lot of coding that no-one would bother with. Also, guests actually can make worlds.

DJDavid98 wrote:

This way, guests could not play levels, therefore no guest bombing.

That would seriously decrease the money Chris gets. It's not worth it.

DJDavid98 wrote:

You are thinking: "This is bad! Guests won't be able to see what other players created!" In most games, you MUST register to even play.

That's what makes EE unique. You don't have to register to play.

DJDavid98 wrote:

With this limitation guests could try out the game, maybe with most of the blocks, and register to try getting them. This solution is a bit hard and may be considered bad for 75% for the people out there.

Guests can already try out the game. Giving them extra blocks doesn't sound like a good idea. When they create an account they won't see those blocks so they will keep using guests to play.

DJDavid98 wrote:

3rd Way:
?tilla wrote:
Only maximum of 2 of the same IP-Addresses allowed in a single room.

This is the best solution. But it will decrease the money Chris gets so it won't happen.

DJDavid98 wrote:

- THE IDEA -
My general idea is, to make levels ABLE to be highlighted in the level list.
This one idea is about using gems, to get your level a different colored name, or different look on the world list. Even possibly a new tab "Hot" or something like that.

Your first idea is horrible. Who would pay money to get a coloured title name? I'd prefer the second over the first.

DJDavid98 wrote:

Now, I don't care if Chris does not even read this, please keep me away from the posts saying that

I'm not even sure he remembers that there is a forum for his game.

DJDavid98 wrote:

I care about what the community thinks, and not "****" "gay" "this **** suks" "no", if you dare to post anything explain what is the problem, not "your argument is invalid" "just no".
Thanks.

****, gay, this **** suks, no, your argument is invalid, just no.

Buzzerbee · Before February 2015

^You get a cookie

Marios · Before February 2015

BuzzerBee wrote:

Why is this even a problem? If people want to guest bomb then they can guest bomb.
If people want to hack they can hack.
It doesn't really matter it's not like it's affecting anyone in a negative way.

As it says at first post,i quote:

I see guest bombing is a bit too overused to make NOOB levels more popular.

Some noob levels were at like top of the list,and alot of people got tricked in that it is a good level.
I got in some of them,but they... i am not going to say that word that starts with S.

This is why guest bombing is a problem. It is a serious problem where noob levels become famous,and then they get infamous ONLY when the bombs (the guests) get lost.

GamingGuy wrote:

****, gay, this **** suks, no, your argument is invalid, just no. http://i.imgur.com/yQHUl.png

I suppose your playing with the owner of this thread,whilst we discuss about the problem of Guest-bombing.

Last edited by Marios (Jun 10 2012 8:00:37 am)

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#27 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#28 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#29 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#30 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#31 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#32 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#33 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#34 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#35 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#36 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

#37 Before February 2015

Re: Possible solution(s) against Guest-bombing

Board footer