Jump to content


Got an idea about how to crack down on illegal mods


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

HassenderZerhacker #1 Posted 04 July 2017 - 08:52 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 25579 battles
  • 2,257
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

The problem about illegal mods is the manpower required to check the battles, right?

 

So why doesn't WG temporarily store selected replays on a server, for any other player to download?

Then any player could check these replays and flag where appropriate.

 

Replays could be stored for some days and selected from those where players are doing especially well.



Spurtung #2 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:01 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61592 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

Great idea.

I want to start a business with volunteer slaves free labor, got some friends?



AvengerOrion #3 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25351 battles
  • 1,037
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

Considering the amount of "OMG HAX!!!!!1!!!one!!!" threads this forum has, you've got an aweful lot of faith in WoT players' capacity to identify legit cheaters.

What can possibly go wrong?


Edited by AvengerOrion, 04 July 2017 - 09:04 AM.


Aikl #4 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:03 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 04 July 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

(...) got some friends?

 

Everyone who's lack of ability is obviously affected by illegal mods? 

 

(Yeah, everyone who suggest that your source of above-average winrate has to be hacking.)



Eaglax #5 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:26 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18973 battles
  • 3,481
  • Member since:
    01-12-2012

:facepalm:

 

you wanna give such "power" to people who don't even understand simple WOT mechanics? just look at all those "HAX!!! an invisible tank shot me" or "he hit my ammorack two times, ban this cheater!!" threads....No, just NO!!



Slargmann #6 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:29 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 27566 battles
  • 102
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostEaglax, on 04 July 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

:facepalm:

 

you wanna give such "power" to people who don't even understand simple WOT mechanics? just look at all those "HAX!!! an invisible tank shot me" or "he hit my ammorack two times, ban this cheater!!" threads....No, just NO!!

 

It's not really a problem. With enough people you will weed out that kind of distortion from the signal. Then you take the likely candidates and review them by professionals.

 

Whether this is practical is questionable.

 

Whether it's doable I suspect is simply answered with "yes".



HassenderZerhacker #7 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:39 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 25579 battles
  • 2,257
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostEaglax, on 04 July 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

:facepalm:

 

you wanna give such "power" to people who don't even understand simple WOT mechanics? just look at all those "HAX!!! an invisible tank shot me" or "he hit my ammorack two times, ban this cheater!!" threads....No, just NO!!

 

no "power" ... just flagging for further review by WG, as they do already for some battles, I am sure.

it would just help to find more potential cheaters, up to WG then to confirm or not.

 

By the way, it could be a great way to learn and be better at the game.

 

P.S.

cheaters really get on my nerves.

the "laser beams" are horrible, and the aimbots that in close range aim for weakspots are even more disgusting.


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 04 July 2017 - 09:45 AM.


imendars #8 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10958 battles
  • 1,086
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-17-2014

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 04 July 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

 

no "power" ... just flagging for further review by WG, as they do already for some games, I am sure.

it would just help to find more potential cheaters, up to WG then to confirm or not.

 

By the way, it could be a great way to learn and be better at the game.

 

Ability to ban flag everyone i dont like... I mean how many people ALLWAY follow rules? everyone breaks something sometimes.  :trollface:

HassenderZerhacker #9 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:45 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 25579 battles
  • 2,257
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View Postimendars, on 04 July 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

Ability to ban flag everyone i dont like... I mean how many people ALLWAY follow rules? everyone breaks something sometimes.  :trollface:

 

huh?

with using illegal mods?

nope.

 

and someone has to flag suspected cheaters, otherwise they won't be investigated.


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 04 July 2017 - 09:47 AM.


imendars #10 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:49 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10958 battles
  • 1,086
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-17-2014

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 04 July 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

 

huh?

with using illegal mods?

nope.

 

When WG reviews player it can check its general chat logs too. They might find that 1 racist word.. Or perhaps lots of people have been reporting this guy for bot even thought that guy is a super bad player and now this guy have that nice flag too... They can just solve problem by a good old ban.. :trollface:

They should have some advanced tools to make it super easy to see everything about player.



Slargmann #11 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:51 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 27566 battles
  • 102
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

Oh, it's actually very simple.

 

Make a mini game out of it.

 

- Flagging a suspected offender gives you nothing. However, if you flag a suspected offender that turns out to be reviews and found to be breaking the rules, you get a merit point.

- If you flag a suspected offender that turns out to be innocent, you get a demerit point.

- Successfully identifying a cheater can result in a pool of say credits or gold divided between the people who identified the cheater.

- As you achieve merits or demerits, your flags change power. Let's say that WG sets the flag rate at an arbitrary X number. You have successfully identified 5 cheaters before so now every one of your flags is worth say 2 or 3 or 5 and you get a commensurate increase of the value of the cheater pool.

 

This way, they will incentivize the hunt by making it a challenge and giving compensation.

 

Grief flaggers will be quickly weeded out, and good observers will rise to the top.

 

The system is more than doable.



Aikl #12 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:56 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Oh, and the last attempt at a community-driven feedback system (the report system banning people for getting a few 'Unsportsmanlike conduct' reports) worked so darn well:rolleyes:

 

Seriously, I wouldn't trust the general userbase to take care of a fly anyway, and particularly not after the shitstorm that was "report every arty you see" and "report every unicum" (or whatever).


Edited by Aikl, 04 July 2017 - 09:58 AM.


Slargmann #13 Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:59 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 27566 battles
  • 102
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostAikl, on 04 July 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

Oh, and the last attempt at a community-driven feedback system (the report system banning people for getting a few 'Unsportsmanlike conduct' reports) worked so darn well:rolleyes:

 

Seriously, I wouldn't trust the general userbase to take care of a fly anyway, and particularly not after the shitstorm that was "report every arty you see" and "report every unicum" (or whatever).

 

Did you read what I wrote?

 

Sometimes I wonder if people just gloss over everything in order to be able to spew their pre-conceived bile.



ZlatanArKung #14 Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:03 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostAikl, on 04 July 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

Oh, and the last attempt at a community-driven feedback system (the report system banning people for getting a few 'Unsportsmanlike conduct' reports) worked so darn well:rolleyes:

 

Seriously, I wouldn't trust the general userbase to take care of a fly anyway, and particularly not after the shitstorm that was "report every arty you see" and "report every unicum" (or whatever).

 

You have to know that every UC ban was based on anumber thorough investimation by WG personal which took place after enough reports where had... right?

 

 



Spurtung #15 Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:05 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61592 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostSlargmann, on 04 July 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

Whether it's doable I suspect is simply answered with "yes".

If you want to spend your own free time cracking down on cheaters so the rest of us can play, by all means, go ahead.



ZlatanArKung #16 Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:06 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostSlargmann, on 04 July 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

 

Did you read what I wrote?

 

Sometimes I wonder if people just gloss over everything in order to be able to spew their pre-conceived bile.

 

 

WG had a UC system where enough reports rendered a ban. WG claimed they investigated reports which was obviously wrong.

 

This kind of system will lead to same results.

People reporting or claiming cheat based on other things than gameplay (stats/tank choice/clan membership) WG will then just not care to watch replays and automate the banning.  And then you have a problem.



Fighto #17 Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:08 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34498 battles
  • 846
  • [TAC] TAC
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 04 July 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

The problem about illegal mods is the manpower required to check the battles, right?

 

So why doesn't WG temporarily store selected replays on a server, for any other player to download?

Then any player could check these replays and flag where appropriate.

 

Replays could be stored for some days and selected from those where players are doing especially well.

 

I'd rather they banned the 20k 200 wn8 players, they ruin my game time more than any cheat mods. 

Slargmann #18 Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:10 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 27566 battles
  • 102
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 04 July 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

If you want to spend your own free time cracking down on cheaters so the rest of us can play, by all means, go ahead.

 

It seems you are literate, but then again, there are indications that you're not.

 

Baffling.



jabster #19 Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:10 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostZlatanArKung, on 04 July 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

 

 

WG had a UC system where enough reports rendered a ban. WG claimed they investigated reports which was obviously wrong.

 

This kind of system will lead to same results.

People reporting or claiming cheat based on other things than gameplay (stats/tank choice/clan membership) WG will then just not care to watch replays and automate the banning.  And then you have a problem.

 

If I remember correctly by that time the how the report system works page had been updated so that pretty much all the details of how they were handled by WG was removed. The more telling part was Ectar saying that no bans were completely automated and there had to be some intervention by a member of staff. I took that to mean someone clicked a button to confirm a ban but no investigation took place.

Slargmann #20 Posted 04 July 2017 - 10:13 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 27566 battles
  • 102
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 04 July 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

 

 

WG had a UC system where enough reports rendered a ban. WG claimed they investigated reports which was obviously wrong.

 

This kind of system will lead to same results.

People reporting or claiming cheat based on other things than gameplay (stats/tank choice/clan membership) WG will then just not care to watch replays and automate the banning.  And then you have a problem.

 

Sure, but my point is that it's possible to set up a system where 90% of the investigation is done by automated systems in conjunction with the community.

 

In essence, you're setting up a pyramid:

 

1. Base weeds out most replays based on nonconformity with pre-determined principles such as for instance abnormal results.

2. The player report system again weeds out most qualifying replays by application of Mark 1 Eye-ball.

3. The final tiny batch of replays get investigated.

 

Using the merit/demerit system, the people who grief-report will get sorted out of the process and what's left will be the people who provide good, actionable reports.

 

This is an example of how such a system could be set up with a high expectation of success if Wargaming wanted to which is the crucial caveat.

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users