Re: Cheating in OS games?

[Francesco Orsenigo <xarvh@lombardiacom.it>]

Jiri Svoboda:
[cut]
>  My point is that cheating is difficult do define and impossible to prevent
> (especially with open source).
I agree almost completely.
I'd like just to point out that adding things such 'automap' and 'more 
comfortable controls' is not cheating, is improving the game, something the 
programmer should have considered and did not.
Playing with a bad interface is not more challenging, is just frustrating...
eg: Command&Conquer gives you the minimap only if you build a radar.
That has no 'logical' sense, since there is no change in FogOfWar or in your 
capability to communicate with your troops: that means just you'll have to 
navigate the whole map to get from a corner to another of the map itself.
Worste, if you get lost inside a undiscovered area, you'll need several 
seconds to get back.
Challenging or frustrating?
I suppose i'd hack C&C to always give me the minimap.
As a rule, i try to add everything able to improve the game interface.
Or at least justify somewhat the limitations you give to it:
LightAmplification is not a default mech feature and you have to buy it?
Ok, but at least come out with something like "a standard infrared system may 
be rended useless by mech heat, so we can use only device XYZ, wich is very 
expensive  and thus not a default mech dotation" (well, not very physic, but 
you get the idea....)

>  	As for cheating type 2, it's not a good idea to send information totally
> irrelevant for the player, because of the extra bandwith consumption.
If you send just player commands, each client must have full awareness of the 
whole game, but bandwidth will be cut down to few bytes per second.

> But
> trying to send strictly only what the player can see is just not worth the
> effort.
With any other network system i think it could be.

>  CONCLUSION
[cut]
Agreed.

>  Motivate players not to cheat.
That's the best solution and also the harder one.
Any idea about this?

Regards,
Francesco Orsenigo