Elitism
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Elitism
expect someone like me to get downscored like a mother-fer.
Karma systems become less about actual behavior and more about who says unpopular things.
Karma systems become less about actual behavior and more about who says unpopular things.
Re: Elitism
probably the first order of buisness on trolls would be to get something to filter out naughty words in lobby chat and perhaps ingame chat.
Re: Elitism
Yes because "naughty words" are what cause rage and noobbashing. Excellent point! I agree 100%!yanom wrote:probably the first order of buisness on trolls would be to get something to filter out naughty words in lobby chat and perhaps ingame chat.
Re: Elitism
It's not about "Karma" or anything - it's only about "smurfiness". If you have a gold star account you are not in danger at all.smoth wrote:expect someone like me to get downscored like a mother-fer.
Karma systems become less about actual behavior and more about who says unpopular things.
Re: Elitism
Smurfs are new accounts karma systems work off user history. The moment an account is made it is a clean slate if you follow me.
Re: Elitism
Why not bind accounts to IP? And allow only 2 or 3 accounts per ip?
I know that will not stop all abuse, but it will help a lot. Smurfing will be significantly harder.
I know that will not stop all abuse, but it will help a lot. Smurfing will be significantly harder.
- very_bad_soldier
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10
Re: Elitism
Because there are connections that do not use a static IP. Most internet connections in germany for example (DSL) use dynamic IPs which means you get every 24h a new IP (from the same (big) pool though) by a forced disconnect. You probably wont see me twice with the same IP.
Cable works similar, you wont be forced to disconnect but you will still get another IP every time you connect.
Cable works similar, you wont be forced to disconnect but you will still get another IP every time you connect.
Re: Elitism
smoth this is more about how an acidic, uber competitive and negative playerbase erodes away noobs, not forum truthsaying :Dsmoth wrote:Smurfs are new accounts karma systems work off user history. The moment an account is made it is a clean slate if you follow me.
if smurfing was dealt with properly, it would be easier to give noobs closed noob-only servers, ingame bonuses or at least more rewarding ingame positions.
Re: Elitism
Huh? I didn't say diddle about the forums.
You want to stop smurfs then you need a solid method
The best we had was when !smurfs worked. Even then transient users like university students or people using proxies could dodge.
You guys want antismurf then it has to be solid.
IMO probably the best way would be if autohosts required registration to play on them. That registration would bind that account to an ip. If the ip changes the user has to rebind.
Even then I can just go do a new account under my proxy. Or just register a new account using a different lab computer.
So we have no real way to track beyond speed bumps.
In a commercial title you have your cd key and that is an expensive speed bump but I can buy all the keys I want.
There is no easy way and just saying we need a better way doesn't cut it.
IMO zk's unlock system has been the best deterrent to date
You want to stop smurfs then you need a solid method
The best we had was when !smurfs worked. Even then transient users like university students or people using proxies could dodge.
You guys want antismurf then it has to be solid.
IMO probably the best way would be if autohosts required registration to play on them. That registration would bind that account to an ip. If the ip changes the user has to rebind.
Even then I can just go do a new account under my proxy. Or just register a new account using a different lab computer.
So we have no real way to track beyond speed bumps.
In a commercial title you have your cd key and that is an expensive speed bump but I can buy all the keys I want.
There is no easy way and just saying we need a better way doesn't cut it.
IMO zk's unlock system has been the best deterrent to date
Re: Elitism
Or you could have your lobby client generate a unique id based on some kind of hardware identifier and bind all accounts on that pc to one user. :D
Re: Elitism
What happens on hardware upgrade? I have been through 5 major over hauls own 2 laptops and 2 pcs. For example if you see me online as smoth2 that is my laptop
Re: Elitism
I want to explain my idea with different words, because I think smoth misunderstood it:
1. I see a rank<4 and think "hmm... let's see". At this point I cannot do anything against it if it's a smurf.
2. I play/spec a game with the player and after that in the lobby (or during game in chat) I yell out "you bad bad smurf" and raise his smurfiness-value with "!smurfblame yellowsubmarine123".
3. If 10 other players do the same this account will be auto-spec'd on all autohosts for the next 24h and its "/ingame"-time will not rise during that period.
1. I see a rank<4 and think "hmm... let's see". At this point I cannot do anything against it if it's a smurf.
2. I play/spec a game with the player and after that in the lobby (or during game in chat) I yell out "you bad bad smurf" and raise his smurfiness-value with "!smurfblame yellowsubmarine123".
3. If 10 other players do the same this account will be auto-spec'd on all autohosts for the next 24h and its "/ingame"-time will not rise during that period.
Re: Elitism
It takes linger to flag a smurf than it does to make one.
Re: Elitism
IMO 1 account per PC is not a problem (I hope spring runs slow in VMs :).smoth wrote:What happens on hardware upgrade? I have been through 5 major over hauls own 2 laptops and 2 pcs. For example if you see me online as smoth2 that is my laptop
To generate HW-identifiers you could hash Win-serial, Linux: HDD-serials, MacOS - no idea :)
If you must reinstall your OS / change all HDDs to change your user-account: mission accomplished.
Re: Elitism
True :(smoth wrote:It takes longer to flag a smurf than it does to make one.
- very_bad_soldier
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10
Re: Elitism
Thats something I also thought about and I think it might be a viable solution. In addition to a hardware hash we could also take other settings into account like browsers do with their supercookies.BaNa wrote:Or you could have your lobby client generate a unique id based on some kind of hardware identifier and bind all accounts on that pc to one user. :D
We could generate a hash from some spring settings and/or we could take into account which widgets are active and their configuration. We could need to find some paramters that change seldom and make sense to build a hash from.
@smoth:
The problem is not that people that DONT want to smurf get a new hash every now and then (they can rebind as you call it). The trick is that people who DO want to smurf are stick to their hash and have a hard time to change it. Thats why IP-based solutions fail for all people that have dynamic IPs (as explained above).
Re: Elitism
IMO it is. So you are saying I should gone through 5 accounts by now? that isn't right.dansan wrote:IMO 1 account per PC is not a problemsmoth wrote:What happens on hardware upgrade? I have been through 5 major over hauls own 2 laptops and 2 pcs. For example if you see me online as smoth2 that is my laptop
The hash solution is interesting but the problem is that we have an open source environment so people can figure out how to trick the hash system. Security by obscurity won't work here.
- very_bad_soldier
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: 20 Feb 2007, 01:10
Re: Elitism
Why do we have to keep it secret? You mean manipulated lobby/engine? Of couse they can circumvent the system. But if you want to go that way then spring itself has the same problem (LOS cheat for example).smoth wrote: The hash solution is interesting but the problem is that we have an open source environment so people can figure out how to trick the hash system. Security by obscurity won't work here.
And if you put alot of effort in it you can surely trick the system in other ways too, but that would still be quite a good solution IMO. If we wait for a 1000% secure solution then we can wait until eternity because that will probably never happen.
Re: Elitism
1 account per pc does not mean you cannot have same account bound to multiple pcs, it just means you cannot use different accounts from 1 pc.
Imo people who have both the skill and the will to circumvent measures like this are rare as the invested time and knowledge barrier would be too big compared to the return. As vbs says, there are many ways to exploit the engine but the knowledge is not shared readily with people.
Imo people who have both the skill and the will to circumvent measures like this are rare as the invested time and knowledge barrier would be too big compared to the return. As vbs says, there are many ways to exploit the engine but the knowledge is not shared readily with people.
Re: Elitism
I am saying that the key to a sort of hash system is that people do not know how to spoof it. Part of security sometimes is by obscurity.. not saying it needs to be secret, eventually secret or not people WILL find out.very_bad_soldier wrote:Why do we have to keep it secret? You mean manipulated lobby/engine?smoth wrote: The hash solution is interesting but the problem is that we have an open source environment so people can figure out how to trick the hash system. Security by obscurity won't work here.
Bana, it sounds cool. So what hardware are we going to use? will lobby accounts finally be linked to the site? that way we can update our pc licenses to our pcs via the ucp?