SOCOM Online Cheats Ruin Experience 68
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a GamePro report discussing GameShark cheat provider Fire International's touting of itself as "the first source of cheats for PS2 online title SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs, effectively encouraging gamers to ruin online gameplay for fair SOCOM players." According to Fire's European press release, the cheat "..enables unlimited ammunition and now boasts cheat codes for no recoil, rapid fire, unlimited grenades and a code which allows the player to steal their opponent's ammunition!" This brings to Europe a problem that is already rampant in the States, but which Sony claim they will fix for November's SOCOM 2, which should "..solve these issues and also feature the ability to ban cheaters from online play."
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the XBox Online model is the way to go... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Punkbuster? (Score:4, Insightful)
I admin a rather busy Counterstrike server, and rather than use anti-cheat technologies, the admins simply watch people play. It's not foolproof, but it is certainly more effective than anti-cheat mechanisms.
In time, spotting cheaters becomes second nature. Does the person track through walls, seeming to know where an enemy will come out? Do they normally shoot automatically after every corner, or did they just happen to do it on the one with a terrorist hiding behind the crate? Are their movements smooth, or erratic?
I think one of the problems that consoles have, is that there aren't many admins. People can't set up their own server, it is all dependant on the company that released the game to police, and that is a patently Bad Idea(tm).
Humans are the most effective anti-cheat mechanism.
Re:On cheating... (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of processor power needed to do all these things server-side is nothing. The amount of bandwith consumed by it is what matters.
Netcode (the code that is a compromise between some stuff client-side, some stuff server-side, and blending it together in a seemless and smooth play experience) is tricky stuff. If you let clients decide if their bullet was a hit or not, you can let people cheat by just sending out packets with the right data that tells the server "I hit that guy in the head! Really!"
Letting the server decide for every bullet (hit or miss) requires the knowledge of every player's exact current position. Impossible with latency above 0. So prediction is needed. But prediction can make for sluggish play. So it's really hard to balance.
This rant to just show you that it's almost impossible to write perfect, non-hackable, fair, smooth netcode. No matter how high the predicted sales figures are, or how much money you can spend on making the game. From what you want, every multiplayer game is a mistake, every company can be held accountable.
integrity check (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem with cheats (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
Because as soon as many people are certain it is possible to cheat, they will begin accusing every single person that can beat them of cheating. It's like the camping thing. I used to play Unreal Champ on X-box live, I liked doing base defense, and I got accused of "camping" all the time. What the hell do you expect? I am defending a base, of course I am going to stay inside or near it.
See the problem isn't that its possible to cheat, the problem is that many many gamers are spoiled little brats that can't stand competition. If I win they will accuse me of cheating, or if they can cheat they will do so in order to beat me. In either scenario nobody is happy; even the passive observers on the server have to put up with the name calling and asinine behavior. I don't think this sort of problem will ever go away until someone designs a way of preemptively detecting assholes and kicking them off the server before they ruin the game.