Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Please use this forum to set up matches and discuss played games.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
MasterBel2
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03

Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by MasterBel2 » 06 Feb 2017, 02:11

Since there seems to be no other way to effectively block trolls from hosts because of vpns etc. I'd like to propose a system by which autohosts approve/deny joining a battle: instead of waiting for a player to be banned, make them have to gain permission to be allowed to join the hosts. I understand that this could potentially turn away some newer players, because they cannot join the host, but if they were instructed to contact the Autohost maintainer (and given the name) or someone in the host then they could be whitelisted. The way SL currently works it can be somewhat unclear whether you've just not joined the battle or if you have specifically been blocked, but I can't imagine that it would be too hard for people to collaborate in such away that it could be possible in the near future.

Please feel free to challenge this idea/suggest alternatives, because something has to be done. (Reason #1: viewtopic.php?f=16&p=581011#p581011, #2: viewtopic.php?f=44&p=581015#p581015, #3: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=35817) (Please don't talk about whether they are the same player here: honestly that is irrelevant and has already derailed too many serious conversations)
Thank you.
0 x

Senna
Posts: 315
Joined: 17 Mar 2009, 00:20

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by Senna » 06 Feb 2017, 04:18

The best option for this is to make autohost using pw, but for that it will require the autohost owner all the time.

Bibim is making a new version with blocking VPN from autohost, u dont need VPN to play games
0 x

Kapytii
Posts: 64
Joined: 14 Mar 2013, 08:40

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by Kapytii » 06 Feb 2017, 05:30

Plz ban Mando from whitelists.

While at it, stop this silly name changing. How many [DIE]Losbellos are there? One. The rest ten variations are Mandos. Ban Mando. Make him go to the same place Emission went.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14606
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by Forboding Angel » 06 Feb 2017, 08:11

The problem is ease of registering lobby accounts. Fix that, and this issue goes away.
0 x

User avatar
MasterBel2
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by MasterBel2 » 06 Feb 2017, 09:34

Senna wrote:The best option for this is to make autohost using pw, but for that it will require the autohost owner all the time.

Bibim is making a new version with blocking VPN from autohost, u dont need VPN to play games
I am aware of what Bibim is working on, but this may present a short-term alternative. On requiring the autohost owner on all the time… If simple admins can add perma-bans, what's to stop it from being possible from being the opposite, them adding a name to the list to be allowed into the host? To make such a change really wouldn't be hard to make, unless I'm missing some fundamental way about how SPADS works. Autohost maintainers might even be able to configure that themselves!
Forboding Angel wrote:The problem is ease of registering lobby accounts. Fix that, and this issue goes away.
Previously I've suggested email verification. I know that some people didn't like the idea, but that would be an alternative to the suggested process.

Another thing, If I can bring it up, how does SLDB know that Mando is Mando? I mean, when he creates a new account it has his trueskill. What is up with that, and how can hosts not tell it's him even when SLDB can?
0 x

User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 292
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by ThinkSome » 07 Feb 2017, 15:35

@Senna: I disagree. Caring about your privacy/anonimity should not prevent you from playing games.

I propose a different technique instead of password locking / whitelisting. Simply require players to have some experience with N-1 vs N-1 mathces in game X before they are allowed into N vs N matches in game X. This way getting banned and creating a new account will require you to spend ...15h? in small games before you are "allowed" to join and ruin a 8v8 game again.

Of course a player's i vs i (for all i) score should decrease over time/games, so that you are required to periodically renew your e.g. 1v1 score before you can play in 8v8 again.

This will also mean that new players would not get lost in some 8v8 immidiately (we all know what happens with newbies, they join the lobby, see the largest room (and usually by far) and assume it is what they are supposed to join. This works for first person shooters where you can join/leave at your pleasure, but not for strategy games), but get some quality 1v1 tutoring time before they can play in bigger matches.

Spectators doing tutoring (explaining elements of the game to newbies) should also be encouraged and rewarded, and this reward should be more than what would be obtainable by just playing).
0 x

User avatar
MasterBel2
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by MasterBel2 » 08 Feb 2017, 01:29

+1 to ThinkSome's idea
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14606
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by Forboding Angel » 08 Feb 2017, 03:07

That would not work. Why can't I join this game? What the hell, this game sucks, I'mma go write a bad review. *leaves*
0 x

User avatar
MasterBel2
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by MasterBel2 » 08 Feb 2017, 05:28

Forboding Angel wrote:That would not work. Why can't I join this game? What the hell, this game sucks, I'mma go write a bad review. *leaves*
I know I have that concern about both, but we have to do something. Do you have a suggestion for how we might tweak either idea (or the current infrastructure if need be) that it would be possible to lower the chances of that happening? As it is we already have newbies walking away from the game because of the state of the community.

What we need here is not to show the flaws in others' ideas; it is to fix them, or to suggest an alternate idea.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14606
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by Forboding Angel » 08 Feb 2017, 07:21

Well you don't fix a flaw by implementing an even more problematic flaw. The flaw here is that user accounts are too easy to obtain multiples.
0 x

User avatar
MasterBel2
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by MasterBel2 » 08 Feb 2017, 11:03

If I understand correctly, then, you're proposing the idea of email verification? Once upon a time I suggested the idea, but there were a number of people who didn't like it, I think it was connected to the fact that the signup process would discourage noobs. But we have to do something…
Forboding Angel wrote:Well you don't fix a flaw by implementing an even more problematic flaw.
Ideas on how to make sure that a noob won't get pushed away:
  • A wide number of Admins so at least one should be on to permit the user to join
  • Users are sent a PM explaining what is going on the instant they are rejected, and not just a servermessage (so the host itself sends a PM). They should be instructed to a) ask an admin {adminlist} to join, or b) join another host.
  • Autohosts are only on when the Owner is on so that they can always be contacted. Except for one that's permanently on so that people can always join a host.
Please also clarify your issue with ThinkSome's idea so that we can start throwing around ideas to do away with the issue. And if you have any further issues with my idea, please elaborate, and if you have the time suggest something that could fix that issue.
0 x

User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 292
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by ThinkSome » 08 Feb 2017, 13:16

Email verification is a bad idea:
  • as you said, it presents yet another barrier to entry for newbies
  • Obtaining temporary/throwaway email addresses is very easy
However, emails could be made optional for password recovery.
0 x

User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 292
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by ThinkSome » 08 Feb 2017, 13:25

Forboding Angel wrote:That would not work. Why can't I join this game? What the hell, this game sucks, I'mma go write a bad review. *leaves*
A message pops up: "You need more training before you can join this match, consider playing some i vs i matches instead" (lobby substitutes for appropriate numbers for i).

Actually...this could go well together with achievements. Motivate people for achieving the goal of playing in 8v8 by having them complete certain objectives beforehand (in this case smaller games).
0 x

User avatar
MasterBel2
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by MasterBel2 » 08 Feb 2017, 13:32

Hmm… matchmaking would make this all easier, wouldn't it? Does SWL support matchmaking or is it only ZKL and Chobby? Does anyone know how progress on Chobby is going? What would be required for matchmaking in SL?
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1192
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by dansan » 08 Feb 2017, 13:32

ThinkSome wrote:Email verification is a bad idea:
* as you said, it presents yet another barrier to entry for newbies
It is very low barrier. A lower barrier will be useless. Anyone unable to get an email account won't grasp RTS ;D
ThinkSome wrote:* Obtaining temporary/throwaway email addresses is very easy
As is blocking those hosts.

The point is to have to do a few minutes of work, so that creating 10 accounts costs you an hour, while it costs the admins only 5 seconds to ban your account.
1 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1192
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by dansan » 08 Feb 2017, 13:36

ThinkSome wrote:
Forboding Angel wrote:That would not work. Why can't I join this game? What the hell, this game sucks, I'mma go write a bad review. *leaves*
A message pops up: "You need more training before you can join this match, consider playing some i vs i matches instead" (lobby substitutes for appropriate numbers for i).

Actually...this could go well together with achievements. Motivate people for achieving the goal of playing in 8v8 by having them complete certain objectives beforehand (in this case smaller games).
That sounds like it would be desirable to play 8v8.

It also creates the necessity to always have someone willing to play 1v1 against you and also 2v2 and 3v3 and 4v4...

All we need is a time-burner, so creating new accounts isn't for free. A few autohosts with KAIK-bots where you must play at least 1h and win at least once will do the trick.
0 x

dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1192
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by dansan » 08 Feb 2017, 13:50

BTW: I like the idea of rewarding players for helping and tutoring others. I just don't see how we can a) technically reward it and b) don't create disadvantages for others. I'm sorry that my word are so discouraging in that direction :/

IMHO in a sane community ppl will reward nice players with their gratitude and respect. In forums a karma system can work. If a game would connect and use more information from other sources - like ZK does - it could connect those ideas... like getting a nice hat on your com, if you reply to a lot of forum posts or such :)
0 x

User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 292
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by ThinkSome » 08 Feb 2017, 14:03

dansan wrote: The point is to have to do a few minutes of work, so that creating 10 accounts costs you an hour, while it costs the admins only 5 seconds to ban your account.
banning might only take 5 seconds, but does not help with a 45 minute long 8v8 being ruined. FPS game admins usually have a revert command at their disposal for these occasions, but I don't know of such a thing in the spring engine.
dansan wrote: That sounds like it would be desirable to play 8v8.
Is it not? :D

It satisfies the player inside me to play a big game every once in a while (which is 3v3/4v4 in the case of S44). They are usually not that great due to the lack of strong teamwork (which is an issue with both players and the lack of it being easy - voice chat integration, some ingame automated sos system, ...), but that is material for another thread.
dansan wrote: It also creates the necessity to always have someone willing to play 1v1 against you and also 2v2 and 3v3 and 4v4...
Regulars will have to do it both because their score will be falling over matches and because they would want more people for big matches.
Also it does not mean that to play a 8v8 one must play 3* (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, 7v7). Playing e.g. a 5v5 would give you full score for 5v5, 0.66* score for 4v4 and 6v6 and 0.33*score for 3v3, 7v7. These weights would be adjusted according to similarity of i vs i to j vs j matches and to whether you were in the winning or losing team.
dansan wrote: All we need is a time-burner, so creating new accounts isn't for free. A few autohosts with KAIK-bots where you must play at least 1h and win at least once will do the trick.
This would be an easy starting solution. I believe we could implement Normandy invasion or something similar on the side of spring1944 (clean up beach that is controlled by nulla in under 1h).
dansan wrote: BTW: I like the idea of rewarding players for helping and tutoring others. I just don't see how we can a) technically reward it and b) don't create disadvantages for others. I'm sorry that my word are so discouraging in that direction :/

IMHO in a sane community ppl will reward nice players with their gratitude and respect. In forums a karma system can work. If a game would connect and use more information from other sources - like ZK does - it could connect those ideas... like getting a nice hat on your com, if you reply to a lot of forum posts or such :)
Yes, the spectator tutoring awards would be given by autohost admins (if only whitelisted autohosts can be present, then there would be little to no cheating). Another way would be implementing an ask-for-help and thank-you system inside games, but that would likely be too much work.
0 x

User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6109
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by FLOZi » 08 Feb 2017, 18:36

The real solution is for autohosts to go away and relay-hosting to come back, so that all games have a hoster who can implement their own control.

Just imo.
1 x

User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 292
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Whitelists instead of Banlists for hosts

Post by ThinkSome » 08 Feb 2017, 20:03

FLOZi wrote:The real solution is for autohosts to go away and relay-hosting to come back, so that all games have a hoster who can implement their own control.

Just imo.
so... Wild West? How do these hosters protect their games against a flood of "Mandos"?
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Ingame Community”