Staff actions regarding world management

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 15:53:53

There have been so many reports of spammers, flamers, cheaters. And why? Because it seems that new players can't manage their own worlds.

I have a feel that the current world management system will turn to a point where we won't even be able to change any of our world settings without a moderator approving each one of our decisions.

What am I talking about? Simple, I am talking about the new server-side anti-cheat system.

I find it illogical that moderators must now take the actions that world owners are supposed to. The objective of moderators by doing their job is to teach players how to manage their worlds, not to do it themselves. If that is the case, what's the sense of being the world owner then?

We perfectly know that cheat clients are against the rules, but it's the world owner's responsibility if something happens on their world (a cheater hitting keys) and they must be aware of whoever cheats.

I have a bot-assisted level and I keep implementing anti-break systems so that a cheater can't come and break my world. And if they do, I can find what happened and fix it instantly. Cheaters instead, help me develop my bot. It's sad to have a new server system that does all this by you. Because then, what's the sense of having these anti-cheat implementations on my bot?

I want to be able to manage my world how I want, not the game to do it itself. I don't need a moderator telling me how to manage my world, and much less, to manage it. The staff seems to be making it easier for new players to manage their worlds, but that then prejudices me and some other BAL-makers which have been working on these implementations for years.

Now, we've talked of how this anti-cheat system would affect world management (at least for me), but not about why it was added.

The reason of this is simple. There has lately been a site with a hacked client (won't post link) shared across the game, and many people have started to use it. Of course, the anti-cheat system on campaign worlds prevents them from gaining free resources. But this is the only objective of it. What about public worlds where you don't gain anything from?
If it's a simple mini-game world without cooperative add-ins (keys, global switches), then cheating is simply useless. They can teleport to the trophy or to random locations on the map, but they simply can't affect other players game-play, because they don't change anything on the world.
If it's a multi-player global-switches based world, then they can mess up with the game-play for other players. Who must then make sure this doesn't happen is the world owner, because they made the world. They must know that someone can come and break the system, and make it so nobody can break it instead.

Bot-assisted levels would not be possible without these cheaters. Imagine a BAL that works with global-switches and someone comes and tries to mess with them.

A perfect example of a BAL like this is EE Arena, my PvP BAL where 2 players fight with different methods of attack and defend to win. Each method uses a global switch. To prevent cheaters from trying to break the global switches, the bot first checks for the usernames of the match players. If you're not playing, you can hit the switches but that won't affect the match for the players. then it checks for turns. If you're playing, but it's not your turn, you can hit the switches but you are not doing anything.

I wouldn't have been able to finally make my bot unbreakable, if it weren't because of those cheaters that kept messing with the switches. They can mess with them, but not with how them affect the game. Those cheaters helped me make my BAL functional.
And it's sad to now have this server system that does basically all what took me weeks to develop, for me. I feel like I have wasted all my time with this system.

After all, this is just my opinion. I would like to know what you think about this system and how it would affect world management.

▼Related topics

Gosha, Raphe9000, XxAtillaxX, Master1

Zumza · 2017-02-05 16:25:45

You've implemented an anti-cheat in your bot because you don't want people cheat in your world.
And now this "new server-side anti-cheat system" took the burden out of your shoulders.
I don't see any problem here?

mrjawapa

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 16:32:46

Zumza wrote:

You've implemented an anti-cheat in your bot because you don't want people cheat in your world.
And now this "new server-side anti-cheat system" took the burden out of your shoulders.

That's the problem. What's the sense of being the world owner if there is a system that manages it for me?

I want to manage my world. It's my world.

Imagine you train to be a plane pilot in the future, but then there's the new "automatic pilot" mode which pilots the plane for you. What are you doing then? Nothing. A waste of time for useless knowledge.

Master1

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 16:32:48

HG wrote:

If it's a multi-player global-switches based world, then they can mess up with the game-play for other players. Who must then make sure this doesn't happen is the world owner, because they made the world. They must know that someone can come and break the system, and make it so nobody can break it instead.

Unless you're making a BAL, you can't exactly make your system hack-proof... unless they add an anti-cheat in to prevent hitting the switches/keys/curse/zombie/crown/prot in the first place.

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 16:44:41

12345678908642 wrote:

HG wrote:
If it's a multi-player global-switches based world, then they can mess up with the game-play for other players. Who must then make sure this doesn't happen is the world owner, because they made the world. They must know that someone can come and break the system, and make it so nobody can break it instead.
Unless you're making a BAL, you can't exactly make your system hack-proof... unless they add an anti-cheat in to prevent hitting the switches/keys/curse/zombie/crown/prot in the first place.

Then you're the responsible for making that anti-cheat system, because again, it's your world.

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 16:46:58

HG wrote:

12345678908642 wrote:
HG wrote:
If it's a multi-player global-switches based world, then they can mess up with the game-play for other players. Who must then make sure this doesn't happen is the world owner, because they made the world. They must know that someone can come and break the system, and make it so nobody can break it instead.
Unless you're making a BAL, you can't exactly make your system hack-proof... unless they add an anti-cheat in to prevent hitting the switches/keys/curse/zombie/crown/prot in the first place.
Then you're the responsible for making that anti-cheat system, because again, it's your world.

but there's no way to keep a bot running 24/7 on my world

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 16:48:21

12345678908642 wrote:

HG wrote:
12345678908642 wrote:
HG wrote:
If it's a multi-player global-switches based world, then they can mess up with the game-play for other players. Who must then make sure this doesn't happen is the world owner, because they made the world. They must know that someone can come and break the system, and make it so nobody can break it instead.
Unless you're making a BAL, you can't exactly make your system hack-proof... unless they add an anti-cheat in to prevent hitting the switches/keys/curse/zombie/crown/prot in the first place.
Then you're the responsible for making that anti-cheat system, because again, it's your world.
but there's no way to keep a bot running 24/7 on my world

Then buy a server and host the bot there. It's part of the responsibility you have to take for your world.

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 16:49:39

by that point you'd might as well put a sign saying "if someone hacks just leave the world" with a bunch of extra spots in the system leading to a world portal (which would only be possible to get to if someone hacked)

but everyone will complain anyway because of the hacker and how they lost all of their progress when they were on the last mini

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 16:53:56

12345678908642 wrote:

by that point you'd might as well put a sign saying "if someone hacks just leave the world" with a bunch of extra spots in the system leading to a world portal (which would only be possible to get to if someone hacked)
but everyone will complain anyway because of the hacker and how they lost all of their progress when they were on the last mini

They will complain about the hacker but the fault resides on the world owner that by then wasn't there to make sure the hacker would not mess with game-play. If you're going to make a world with global mechanisms you need to know that there will be players that will try to break the system, and that you must make sure that they can't break it.

You can't make a simple key-minigame world and expect to have a moderator that will make sure that nobody can break it.

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 16:59:17

HG wrote:

12345678908642 wrote:
by that point you'd might as well put a sign saying "if someone hacks just leave the world" with a bunch of extra spots in the system leading to a world portal (which would only be possible to get to if someone hacked)
but everyone will complain anyway because of the hacker and how they lost all of their progress when they were on the last mini
They will complain about the hacker but the fault resides on the world owner that by then wasn't there to make sure the hacker would not mess with game-play. If you're going to make a world with global mechanisms you need to know that there will be players that will try to break the system, and that you must make sure that they can't break it.
You can't make a simple key-minigame world and expect to have a moderator that will make sure that nobody can break it.

Ok so let's say i made a multiplayer monopoly game. A hacker would be able to easily give a player $5000 by hitting the switches that track money gain/loss on their turn, have someone's turn before the previous turn finished, etc. and there's literally no way to fix it without hacking yourself (bots).

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 17:00:41

12345678908642 wrote:

HG wrote:
12345678908642 wrote:
by that point you'd might as well put a sign saying "if someone hacks just leave the world" with a bunch of extra spots in the system leading to a world portal (which would only be possible to get to if someone hacked)
but everyone will complain anyway because of the hacker and how they lost all of their progress when they were on the last mini
They will complain about the hacker but the fault resides on the world owner that by then wasn't there to make sure the hacker would not mess with game-play. If you're going to make a world with global mechanisms you need to know that there will be players that will try to break the system, and that you must make sure that they can't break it.
You can't make a simple key-minigame world and expect to have a moderator that will make sure that nobody can break it.
Ok so let's say i made a multiplayer monopoly game. A hacker would be able to easily give a player $5000 by hitting the switches that track money gain/loss on their turn and there's literally no way to fix it without hacking yourself (bots).

That's because you made a bad system since the start.

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 17:01:48

HG wrote:

12345678908642 wrote:
HG wrote:
12345678908642 wrote:
by that point you'd might as well put a sign saying "if someone hacks just leave the world" with a bunch of extra spots in the system leading to a world portal (which would only be possible to get to if someone hacked)
but everyone will complain anyway because of the hacker and how they lost all of their progress when they were on the last mini
They will complain about the hacker but the fault resides on the world owner that by then wasn't there to make sure the hacker would not mess with game-play. If you're going to make a world with global mechanisms you need to know that there will be players that will try to break the system, and that you must make sure that they can't break it.
You can't make a simple key-minigame world and expect to have a moderator that will make sure that nobody can break it.
Ok so let's say i made a multiplayer monopoly game. A hacker would be able to easily give a player $5000 by hitting the switches that track money gain/loss on their turn and there's literally no way to fix it without hacking yourself (bots).
That's because you made a bad system since the start.

then tell me a system that would be hackproof. no bots allowed (obviously), must be within ee.

there'd need to be an orange switch at SOME point for when you land on a bought property so that you know how much money to lose, and for another person to know how much to gain. But a hacker can break it by just hitting a few switches at the right timing.

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 17:05:23

12345678908642 wrote:

HG wrote:
12345678908642 wrote:
HG wrote:
12345678908642 wrote:
by that point you'd might as well put a sign saying "if someone hacks just leave the world" with a bunch of extra spots in the system leading to a world portal (which would only be possible to get to if someone hacked)
but everyone will complain anyway because of the hacker and how they lost all of their progress when they were on the last mini
They will complain about the hacker but the fault resides on the world owner that by then wasn't there to make sure the hacker would not mess with game-play. If you're going to make a world with global mechanisms you need to know that there will be players that will try to break the system, and that you must make sure that they can't break it.
You can't make a simple key-minigame world and expect to have a moderator that will make sure that nobody can break it.
Ok so let's say i made a multiplayer monopoly game. A hacker would be able to easily give a player $5000 by hitting the switches that track money gain/loss on their turn and there's literally no way to fix it without hacking yourself (bots).
That's because you made a bad system since the start.
then tell me a system that would be hackproof. no bots allowed (obviously), must be within ee.

That's what bots are for. To complement your game system security.

There is no hack-proof switch system, but it's not hard to make a bot for that. If you're too lazy to make it, then accept it (which you clearly won't, go make the bot then).

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 17:07:27

the thing about a bot is that if i'm gonna use a bot, why don't i just program the game i'm making outside of EE? that would be a lot easier and also remove the entire challenge of making it inside EE in the first place.

drunkbnu · 2017-02-05 17:09:15

Then Everybody Edits isn't the game that meets the needs of your planned game (world).

LukeM · 2017-02-05 17:56:06

Ok... So your suggesting that the EE admins should stop developing the game, so that the players have to do everything themselves... And that we should pay for a server to run a bot to stay constantly connected to our worlds, so that are worlds arent hacked...

Im all for a challenge, but that seems like a slightly pointless thing to do, the whole point of switches is so that things can be automated without needing bots, so why should you then have to use a bot (and run it 24/7) so that they work.

If EE automatically kicked hackers, then that would mean you could spend your time working on (the more interesting) features of your bot or switch system, rather than having to constantly fix problems caused by cheaters.

The point of being a world owner is so that you can do what you want with the world, whether it be bots, or switch systems, or minigames, not so that you are the one who has to spend time fixing bugs caused by other players cheating.

Just because a switch system, or minigame isnt hack-proof doesnt mean its bad, because almost any complicated system will have ways to hack it if you dont use bots to kick people who are cheating.

P.S. There will never be a way to have a bot that can detect hackers perfectly. Because of the way PlayerIO works (or any internet game for that matter), you never know if a message was dropped, or a player briefly lost connection, etc. so even if you check every single movement, then there is no way to find out if a player is where they should be.

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 18:11:49

HG wrote:

Then Everybody Edits isn't the game that meets the needs of your planned game (world).

Everybody Edits isn't the game that meets the needs of "EE Arena".
EDIT: fixed capitalization

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-05 18:17:14

This is what happens when the staff get the bright idea to turn a sandbox game into a MMORPG.

Evilbunny · 2017-02-05 18:43:47

You're complaining that there is anti-cheat in EE to stop hackers because it makes owning a level in EE too easy.

what

capasha · 2017-02-05 19:14:09

I have heard that none have got a ban yet when they have been cheating in non campaign worlds.
Even if none have got a ban, doesn't mean that the anti-cheat is off.

Gosha · 2017-02-05 19:20:42

Evilbunny wrote:

You're complaining that there is anti-cheat in EE to stop hackers because it makes owning a level in EE too easy.
what

Koya ones told me that he will ban me if I cheat in my own world
Like wtf, I should be able to do anything in my world

XxAtillaxX, Master1, Zumza, Pingohits, Evilbunny, xJeex

capasha · 2017-02-05 19:59:05

Gosha wrote:

Evilbunny wrote:
You're complaining that there is anti-cheat in EE to stop hackers because it makes owning a level in EE too easy.
what
Koya ones told me that he will ban me if I cheat in my own world
Like wtf, I should be able to do anything in my world

He banned my alt account because I talked about WPE and CE. So wouldn't be surprised.

Zumza

Master1 · 2017-02-05 20:17:33

Gosha wrote:

Koya ones told me that he will ban me if I cheat in my own world
Like wtf, I should be able to do anything in my world

I was also once told that I couldn't spam the chat in my own world. Interesting.

I agree, it's pretty dumb that world owners basically have no say in what happens in their maps anymore. This needs to change, or the game will continue to get worse and worse.

Zumza

Tomahawk · 2017-02-05 20:31:49

I need a TL;DR for the original post, because it sounds like OP's saying that serverside anti-cheat for all worlds shouldn't be implemented because players should police their own worlds, and because the work he's done to make his BALs cheat-proof will otherwise be for nothing.

I must have read it wrong, because that's so incredibly illogical that I'm getting brain damage just considering all the ways in which it's stupid.

Evilbunny, LukeM, 21Twelve, Zumza, xJeex

Slabdrill · 2017-02-05 20:36:53

Tomahawk wrote:

I need a TL;DR for the original post, because it sounds like OP's saying that serverside anti-cheat for all worlds shouldn't be implemented because players should police their own worlds, and because the work he's done to make his BALs cheat-proof will otherwise be for nothing.
I must have read it wrong, because that's so incredibly illogical that I'm getting brain damage just considering all the ways in which it's stupid.

you got that right.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-02-05 15:53:53, last edited by drunkbnu (2017-02-05 16:18:19)

Staff actions regarding world management

#2 2017-02-05 16:25:45

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#3 2017-02-05 16:32:46, last edited by drunkbnu (2017-02-05 16:46:09)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#4 2017-02-05 16:32:48, last edited by Slabdrill (2017-02-05 16:34:13)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#5 2017-02-05 16:44:41

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#6 2017-02-05 16:46:58

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#7 2017-02-05 16:48:21

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#8 2017-02-05 16:49:39, last edited by Slabdrill (2017-02-05 16:50:40)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#9 2017-02-05 16:53:56, last edited by drunkbnu (2017-02-05 16:55:17)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#10 2017-02-05 16:59:17, last edited by Slabdrill (2017-02-05 16:59:58)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#11 2017-02-05 17:00:41

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#12 2017-02-05 17:01:48, last edited by Slabdrill (2017-02-05 17:04:25)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#13 2017-02-05 17:05:23

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#14 2017-02-05 17:07:27

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#15 2017-02-05 17:09:15, last edited by drunkbnu (2017-02-05 17:09:58)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#16 2017-02-05 17:56:06

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#17 2017-02-05 18:11:49, last edited by Slabdrill (2017-02-05 18:12:12)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#18 2017-02-05 18:17:14

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#19 2017-02-05 18:43:47

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#20 2017-02-05 19:14:09

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#21 2017-02-05 19:20:42

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#22 2017-02-05 19:59:05

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#23 2017-02-05 20:17:33, last edited by Master1 (2017-02-05 20:17:52)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#24 2017-02-05 20:31:49, last edited by Tomahawk (2017-02-05 20:32:20)

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

#25 2017-02-05 20:36:53

Re: Staff actions regarding world management

Board footer