Hypothetical: You discover 5% of your players cheating

[Furiously]

Situation: You are in charge of EQ.

Your network security guy comes running up to you one morning, and says, "We'll, I've think I've found a way to detect who is running ShowEQ!"

"Great, lets nail those bastards," You say back.

"Actually I already put the hook in, I found out there are 7,500 users who are running it," they reply.

Your bean counter then comes rushing up, "Sir, we can't ban 7,500 accounts, in fact it would likely be 10,000 accounts that cancel, because I ran all the user names and it turns out a lot of these accounts have a 2nd account for dual-boxing."

You do the math in your head. 10,000 accounts at $14.95 a month is $150,000 a month and 1.8 Million per year.

You general manager comes in "Sir, the bean counter is right, you can't afford to lose that much revenue."

"But I can't afford to have cheaters ruining the game for everyone else," you reply.

What do you do.....

[Rasix]

That's $1.8 mill or the integrity of an already 5 year old game.  I don't even think it's an issue.   I doubt too many people are leaving the game because ShowEQ is ruining it for them (I could be wrong, I haven't played since early PoP).

It would be cheaper to hire a full headcount or even a small team to attempt to break ShowEQ functionality continuously.

[Nebu]

If it were me, I'd ban the little fuckers and move on. But...  

Since this is a business situation, I think the most prudent thing to do would be to ban 10% of the known cheaters immediately and check the numbers again in a week.  After word had spread, the original 5% of cheaters would have diminished to a point where a global ban may be more financially feasible.  If not, ban a larger percentage (say 25%) the following week and continue monitoring.  

Of course, I'm assuming that there is some return on investment (company image, etc.) and the cost of monitoring cheaters is low.  I'll also assume that the method of catching cheaters is sufficiently flawless that no lawsuits would result.

[geldonyetich]

Only 5% of my players?  Wow, I should lower my subscription costs to retain these trustworthy guys.

I estimate about 80% of the players in a playerbase will take the path of least resistance if it were offered... by accident or not.    Personally, I wouldn't, but I like to think I'm one of the few players who actually understand the importance of not cheating in a MMORPG.

[SirBruce]

It depends on what ShowEQ does.

I would examine the features of ShowEQ and break them into 3 categories:

1. Bad stuff I can block.  This would be those features that we don't want players having no matter what; i.e. "cheating" stuff, and which my coders can stop ShowEQ from accessing.  I'd immediately have them coming up with code to stop those cheats.  Normally I would then punish the offenders, but I would not in this case, since we've got a long-term and entrenched program.  (There may also be some good stuff on this list I want to block anyway in the interests of time, money, etc.)

2. Good stuff I should have implemented myself.  These are features that are really nice which ShowEQ has and which, while maybe alien to my original design intent, are nevertheless good and which players obviously want.  Some of this may be blockable if I want, but if it's not bad, then I probably should go ahead and implement it.

3. Bad stuff I can't block.  These are the killer bugs, the ones where you simply have to share info with the client and there's little you can do to stop the player from cheating with it.  You have no choice but to punish people if you wind up with items in this 3rd category.

So, then I'd post something saying we know ShowEQ is popular, but we consider it cheating and a bannable offense.  I'd announce the new features from the 2nd category we are implementing, and offer an amnesty for previous ShowEQ users if they stop using the program.

Once I release the patch, I start banning ShowEQ users and their credit cards and addresses.  This will have to be monitored constantly, of course, and checks made to ensure that I can still detect newer versions of ShowEQ that will no doubt come out in response.

Bruce

[Alkiera]

It depends on what ShowEQ does.

I would examine the features of ShowEQ and break them into 3 categories:

1. Bad stuff I can block.  This would be those features that we don't want players having no matter what; i.e. "cheating" stuff, and which my coders can stop ShowEQ from accessing.  I'd immediately have them coming up with code to stop those cheats.  Normally I would then punish the offenders, but I would not in this case, since we've got a long-term and entrenched program.  (There may also be some good stuff on this list I want to block anyway in the interests of time, money, etc.)

Bad stuff showEQ does...  It is a packetsniffer.  It shows locations of mobs/players in zone, even invisible ones/ones too far from you, and gives absolute level, hitpoint count, and when killed, lists the exp gained by the character for the kill.  Basically, you can zone into Lower Guk and see which named are up, which areas are camped, without exploring or asking.  Basically, the EQ client knows about every mob and player in the zone.  It only receives updates for things that are nearby, but is given absolute data when you zone, so you know where everything was at that point in time.  Most dungeons, and many overland areas, mobs don't move a whole lot.  Especially named mobs, tho there are some zones where they do, Rathe Mtns, Frontier Mtns, The Grey, etc.  Still, if you know they are up, and a general location, it doesn't take much to track them down... and when you get close, your client starts getting regular updates on location/movement,  basically giving anyone a very powerful tracking skill.

2. Good stuff I should have implemented myself.  These are features that are really nice which ShowEQ has and which, while maybe alien to my original design intent, are nevertheless good and which players obviously want.  Some of this may be blockable if I want, but if it's not bad, then I probably should go ahead and implement it.

Already been done.  The only 'good' feature of ShowEQ is the map system.  Shows you exactly where you are in the zone, and has a set of maps for all zones, which are produced by fellow users.  This was put in, iirc, Legacy of Ykesha.  There was also a way to see your total mana pool, which was added to the standard client very recently after the 'guild summit' thing.

Heck, alot of the funtionality is similar to what rangers and to a lesser degree druids and bards can do with tracking, since the scrollbar update to the tracking window.

3. Bad stuff I can't block.  These are the killer bugs, the ones where you simply have to share info with the client and there's little you can do to stop the player from cheating with it.  You have no choice but to punish people if you wind up with items in this 3rd category.

The way they do things now is probably pretty much not gonna change.  While they really "shouldn't" give all that information to the client, it does have uses, and as for seeing invisible mobs, there really are very few mobs that use invis, can only think of one off the top of my head...  Invis mobs are also part of how they catch users, since they can see guides/gms who are using the guide invis...  Rename yourself as a named mob while guide-invis, and see who takes the bait.  8)

Having info on all the mobs is also part of how EQ avoids mobs 'popping' like they do in SWG.  Even under high speed with a bard, mobs appear at the clipping plane... you just have less time to avoid them if you're moving that fast.  Of course, there's also less chance of you being nearby when the AI actually ticks, so it's fairly unlikely you'll have an issue even if you just run right thru.

They've tried changing the encryption keys every patch, and even the system used on a semi-regular basis...  I think the time they made it dependant on some Windows system calls it took them a little while to work around it, changing encryption keys meant about an 8-24 hour block between serverup and new patch and binaries becoming available.

Really, if they have a reliable way to detect those using it, I like Nebu's method.  Ban a small number of them, especially hitting high profile people/guilds, heaviest abusers, etc.  Post a list of account names or character names of those banned, with why they were banned.  Wait a bit, and either do a global ban or a larger percentage, and repeat.

--
Alkiera

[SirBruce]

Bad stuff showEQ does...  It is a packetsniffer.  It shows locations of mobs/players in zone, even invisible ones/ones too far from you, and gives absolute level, hitpoint count, and when killed, lists the exp gained by the character for the kill.  Basically, you can zone into Lower Guk and see which named are up, which areas are camped, without exploring or asking.  Basically, the EQ client knows about every mob and player in the zone.  It only receives updates for things that are nearby, but is given absolute data when you zone, so you know where everything was at that point in time.  Most dungeons, and many overland areas, mobs don't move a whole lot.  Especially named mobs, tho there are some zones where they do, Rathe Mtns, Frontier Mtns, The Grey, etc.  Still, if you know they are up, and a general location, it doesn't take much to track them down... and when you get close, your client starts getting regular updates on location/movement,  basically giving anyone a very powerful tracking skill.

Much of this doesn't sound like bad stuff on the face of it.  One could make an argument that including much of this in the client would be fine and would not ruin the gameplay experience.
 

Already been done.  The only 'good' feature of ShowEQ is the map system.  Shows you exactly where you are in the zone, and has a set of maps for all zones, which are produced by fellow users.  This was put in, iirc, Legacy of Ykesha.  There was also a way to see your total mana pool, which was added to the standard client very recently after the 'guild summit' thing.

Well, again, I think there might be other things that you might want to include.  But my rundown was not meant to be a historical overview, but a general plan of response that could apply to any similar situation.

They've tried changing the encryption keys every patch, and even the system used on a semi-regular basis...  I think the time they made it dependant on some Windows system calls it took them a little while to work around it, changing encryption keys meant about an 8-24 hour block between serverup and new patch and binaries becoming available.

They probably need to concoct a better method, then.  But detection is more important here than actual prevention, so I don't really see it as a problem so long as you are banning users you can now detect.

Really, if they have a reliable way to detect those using it, I like Nebu's method.  Ban a small number of them, especially hitting high profile people/guilds, heaviest abusers, etc.  Post a list of account names or character names of those banned, with why they were banned.  Wait a bit, and either do a global ban or a larger percentage, and repeat.

I don't like this at all, because it is fundamentally unfair, and will only result in a larger percentage of people in your game whom are more likely to abuse again in some new way.  I would instead offer the one-time amnesty, then make the patch, but I would not start banning people right away.  After about a week then I'd notify users that after that date they'd get banned if they were caught using it.  But agian, I would not start banning people right away, because savvy ShowEQ users will wait to see if others get caught first.  Once enough time has passed and ShowEQ users who have not heeded the warnings think they can use their new versoin without being caught, and I've accumulated a good number of them, then I'd do the bannings.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

What do you do.....

Ban them, make sure the moment they try to login on a banned character a great big laughing clown face comes onscreen shouting "CHEATERS NEVER WIN!" and then post on all the boards I can find that "Cheaters should be locked in a cage with a rabid hamster named Leon who will proceed to fuck them in the ass nightly while whispering the words to Burt Baccart songs in their head."

But I don't run a company, mind you.

[Furiously]

If you didn't have to worry about profits and expenses and subscription numbers and hiding the body of that hooker - I'd totally agree with you Haemish. Course, I'd go one step further and put it in the EULA that I could go to your house and break your kneecaps if you get caught cheating - I think that would be a wonderful way to spend my time.

Would sending an email be effective? Would showing your customers their "Black Marks" and rational for each be helpful? Would showing those to other players as well be helpful?

I'd go for the make a patch announcement you have been and will continue to monitor for 3rd party utilities that give an unfair advantage, send an email to each users account who has been monitored to date, and then ban whoever is still using it one week later. Then mock the person who does the "Wah Wah I was unfairly banned. I only used it once."

[Alluvian]

Bad stuff showEQ does... It is a packetsniffer. It shows locations of mobs/players in zone, even invisible ones/ones too far from you, and gives absolute level, hitpoint count, and when killed, lists the exp gained by the character for the kill.

I dont' think ShowEQ has been able to show mob hitpoints since velious.  There was a problem in kunark where mobs hit a hipoint cap.  The integer variable sent to the client no longer could keep up with current equipment and the new levels.  So a very simple change was made, the server sent percentage of hp instead, and all hp deductions were done server side and sent back to the clients as percentages.  Actually I think it was the original maker of show EQ who thought up and implemented that change after Verant (I think they were still verant at the time) hired him.

Somewhat off topic, but oh well.

I would probably put up a message upon login to everyone in the game that there is a new method of detecting showEQ users.  Set a date about a week or two away, and then state that anyone logging on with showEQ after that date will be banned, no questions asked.  So get your shit together, make sure your brother, father, son, sister, dog does not have access to your account.  You are responsible for your account and their actions are your responsibility.  You have been warned.

Keep this message coming up for every login until the date in question.  Then just start banning.

[HaemishM]

Fuck the warning. Just ban them outright and do everything you can to make sure they never come back.

Cheaters in an MMOG are a complete and total waste of time, a parasitic canker on the ass of what passes for communities. Kneecaps are too good for them.

If your game is such ass that enough people feel the need to cheat that banning them all would cause a major revenue shift, your game has much bigger problems than cheaters.

[Furiously]

Would your employees, landlord and utility company be willing to accept a 5% decrease in pay from you?

[Miscreant]

You're ethically bound to ban cheaters.   No question.  That's a big part of the service you're charging 13 bucks a month for. Anyway, I think stopping cheating is always good for business long-term.

A laughing clown face would be a nice bonus.  Better yet, let cheaters log in, then after a few minutes bring up a shrieking clown screaming "CHEATER!!!" like the old what's wrong with this picture gag.

[SirBruce]

A bunch of your users might not know ShowEQ is cheating, though.  It is counterproductive to cost yourself revenue from a customer who is otherwise good but whose buddy at school showed him this cool thing to make EQ better.  Or maybe he only tried it a couple of times, and hasn't used it again for the past 6 months.

Bruce

[Miscreant]

Yeah, ok, you could warn first or something before releasing the shrieking clowns.  But if you know who's cheating, you can't pretend you don't and justify it as a business decision.  Good faith effort to stop cheating when possible is your responsibility as a service provider.

You're also right that it's not always clear what's cheating.  Some people honestly felt COH hover-snipers were cheating.  But a packet-sniffing stand-alone is a pretty easy call.  

So after the warning come shrieking clowns.

[daveNYC]

A bunch of your users might not know ShowEQ is cheating, though.

Fuck them.  Fuck them in their stupid goat asses.

The financial issues are something to worry over, but the intent of the people using the cheating program isn't.

[Shavnir]

Actually I once wandered towards the ShowEQ site.  It requires a very specific hardware setup that includes a second computer and a router (iirc of course).  Now the thing is they quite clearly say that if you get caught talking  about something you've seen with it or sosuch that SOE will ban you.

In fact, apparently SOE made an invisible mob named 'ShowEQ users are losers" on some Plane (?) just to annoy them.  Because as the program works now it is perfectly undetectable.

[Alrindel]

You don't have to ban 7500 accounts, you just have to ban 50 or so and make a big deal about it.  Then wait a month and ban 50 more.  The point is to create an atmosphere of visible enforcement sufficient to keep the majority of your player base on the straight and level.  See also: "broken windows".

The argument that some poor innocent players might not understand that ShowEQ is cheating is bunk.  Nobody could put it into place without knowing exactly what they're doing.

I'll also assume that the method of catching cheaters is sufficiently flawless that no lawsuits would result.

I think you'll find their EULA permits them to close anybody's account for any reason at any time and they have no recourse - and that it will stand up just fine in court.

[Shavnir]

Sorry to throw a bit of realism in a hypothetical discussion....but I happened to wander across http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=10131">the download statistics for all versions of ShowEQ.

Just to throw a monkey into the wrench.

[SirBruce]

You don't have to ban 7500 accounts, you just have to ban 50 or so and make a big deal about it.  Then wait a month and ban 50 more.  The point is to create an atmosphere of visible enforcement sufficient to keep the majority of your player base on the straight and level.  See also: "broken windows".

Unfortunately I do not like this approach.  Amnesty provides people the chance they need to clean up their act voluntarily, which makes them better customers.  Your approach doesn't eliminate the cheaters; instead it simply supresses them, allowing them to continue to play your game and try to find other ways to cheat.

While it's theoretically possible a "smart cheater" would take the amnesty and then attempt to cheat in other ways, my professional opinion having dealt with abusers and the like in the past is that this is a small problem.  The vast majority of your abusers are those who did it, did it often, and will do it again or in another way.  You've got to get rid of these people.  The second class are those who dabbled in the first class before, but will change if caught, chastised, and given another chance.  And the third class are the genuinely unharmful or innocent, people who were hacked themselves or who broke the rules unknowingly, unintentionally, or unmaliciously.

The argument that some poor innocent players might not understand that ShowEQ is cheating is bunk.  Nobody could put it into place without knowing exactly what they're doing.

That may be technically true with ShowEQ specifically, but there's always a chance a friend installed the software and showed them how to use it.  ("Nah, it's not cheating; I've been using it for years and Sony doesn't care.")  But again, I am hoping to offer some principles of action that can be applied beyond the scope of any specific cheat.

Bruce

[Alrindel]

Amnesty provides people the chance they need to clean up their act voluntarily

So does a public (limited) crackdown, that's the point.

Your approach doesn't eliminate the cheaters; instead it simply supresses them, allowing them to continue to play your game and try to find other ways to cheat.

I don't believe that "eliminate the cheaters" is a realistic goal.  There will always be new ways to cheat and exploit, and the hardcore will be back anyways with new accounts.  The goal should be to shoot for that perception of enforcement which keeps the majority of players honest.  If your player base feels that cheating is getting rampant, or that the devs aren't being tough on players caught cheating, retention will suffer.  Remember back in the early days of Anarchy Online when the devs were taking the soft approach of "we won't punish players for exploiting bugs because it's really our fault for introducing those bugs in the first place"?  They learned their lesson soon enough.

Mythic are probably the best example of this in action.  Cheat programs like Odin's Eye and the like have always been around, but because Mythic has steadily caught and banned people for using it, that's been enough to deter the majority of DAOC players from using it, causing it to evolve into a major issue.  And whatever DAOC's other problems, "rampant cheating" isn't one of the things people tend to complain about.

[SirBruce]

Amnesty provides people the chance they need to clean up their act voluntarily

So does a public (limited) crackdown, that's the point.

Ah, but my point is it does not.  Only banning a few accounts leaves the cheaters around to cheat again another day via a different method.  An amnesty as I described COULD, but generally WON'T, because the cheaters will try to cheat again via the same method (which you are monitoring), and then you ban them all.  The only cheaters that remain would be those who genuinely changed heart, or who were smart enough to not continue using the old cheat.  Either way, you have far fewer cheaters.

I don't believe that "eliminate the cheaters" is a realistic goal.  There will always be new ways to cheat and exploit, and the hardcore will be back anyways with new accounts.

No, they won't, if you tie the banning to their credit cards, their names, and their addresses, and do regular crosschecks.  It's kind-of pointless to kick people off and then let them back on with new accounts.

The goal should be to shoot for that perception of enforcement which keeps the majority of players honest.

We're getting into the realm of politcs here.  Your suggestion is to basically "lie" to users to make them think you are doing more than you actually are, to keep you from having to do more than you actually are.

If your player base feels that cheating is getting rampant, or that the devs aren't being tough on players caught cheating, retention will suffer.

I think you're just proving my point.  My method prevents that from happening by getting rid of lots of troublemakers.  Your method only tries to prevent that by getting rid of a enough troublemakers to appear effective.  Eventually people will wise up and then you'll have an even bigger problem of reputation on your hands.

Bruce

[Alrindel]

Your suggestion is to basically "lie" to users to make them think you are doing more than you actually are, to keep you from having to do more than you actually are.

That's how society works, Bruce.  Or do you really think that one day the police will manage to put every single criminal in the United States in prison and then there will be no more crime whatsoever?

[HaemishM]

A bunch of your users might not know ShowEQ is cheating

This is a specious argument at best.

It is a program using the name EQ that is not produced by the company that makes the game, yet is quite clearly intended to run beside it. Whether someone's intent is to cheat or not to cheat, the end result is the same. As a service provider, if you try to get into intent with cheaters, you'll never ban anyone and might as just well allow everything under the sun, because you are a patsy.

Cable TV providers don't try to get into the mind of anyone who has ever received free HBO, whether accidental or intentional. They just remove the HBO. If they can find evidence of actionable intent, such as a household receiving the entire lineup of cable channels without ever being a customer, then they prosecute. Otherwise, just remove the offending service.

Customers are paying for a service, and cheaters hinder that service for everyone who isn't a cheater. The non-cheating customers deserve a cheat-free (or close to it) environment.

No, they won't, if you tie the banning to their credit cards, their names, and their addresses, and do regular crosschecks. It's kind-of pointless to kick people off and then let them back on with new accounts.

But do any MMOG's do this currently? That is and always has been one of my biggest gripes about MMOG service, they do not keep a good enough accounting of who is paying for how many accounts. Accountability of the player or the character means dick unless you do the above.

[SirBruce]

Your suggestion is to basically "lie" to users to make them think you are doing more than you actually are, to keep you from having to do more than you actually are.

That's how society works, Bruce.  Or do you really think that one day the police will manage to put every single criminal in the United States in prison and then there will be no more crime whatsoever?

That may be how you think society works in your dystopian fantasy, but the rest of us out here are still fighting the good fight.  We didn't surrender our values of right and wrong simply because others decided it was expediant to do so.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

A bunch of your users might not know ShowEQ is cheating

This is a specious argument at best.

No, it's not at all.

It is a program using the name EQ that is not produced by the company that makes the game, yet is quite clearly intended to run beside it. Whether someone's intent is to cheat or not to cheat, the end result is the same. As a service provider, if you try to get into intent with cheaters, you'll never ban anyone and might as just well allow everything under the sun, because you are a patsy.

No, you're just being a good service provider.  All cheaters are not equal.  Everyone who telnetted to port 25 is not a hacker.  Of course, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to just ban first and never ask questions at all.

Cable TV providers don't try to get into the mind of anyone who has ever received free HBO, whether accidental or intentional. They just remove the HBO. If they can find evidence of actionable intent, such as a household receiving the entire lineup of cable channels without ever being a customer, then they prosecute. Otherwise, just remove the offending service.

Your analogy may be true for HBO but it's not true for general cable service.  Many companies offer "amnesties" for illegal cable users to get turned legal, and they don't ban then from subscribing to HBO, etc. when they do.
 

Customers are paying for a service, and cheaters hinder that service for everyone who isn't a cheater. The non-cheating customers deserve a cheat-free (or close to it) environment.

We agree there.  My approach gets rid of the most cheaters while still allowing for the greaster number of non-cheater subscribers to be retained.

No, they won't, if you tie the banning to their credit cards, their names, and their addresses, and do regular crosschecks. It's kind-of pointless to kick people off and then let them back on with new accounts.

But do any MMOG's do this currently? That is and always has been one of my biggest gripes about MMOG service, they do not keep a good enough accounting of who is paying for how many accounts. Accountability of the player or the character means dick unless you do the above.

WW2 Online does a modified version of this.  I know at least one other MMOG designer mentioned "banning their (credit) card" to me before, but it could be that their billing people didn't really implement that.  I would say some MMOGs do a version of this, but certainly not all of them.

Bruce

[daveNYC]

It is a program using the name EQ that is not produced by the company that makes the game, yet is quite clearly intended to run beside it. Whether someone's intent is to cheat or not to cheat, the end result is the same. As a service provider, if you try to get into intent with cheaters, you'll never ban anyone and might as just well allow everything under the sun, because you are a patsy.

No, you're just being a good service provider.  All cheaters are not equal.  

In this instance they are, they are using an illegal program to give themselves an unfair advantage in the game.

Hell, even if this were a more generic 'what if' I'd still say ban them.  Short term bans won't have an effect because the offender can just take a weekend off.  You want cheater gone, you have to kick them out.

[HaemishM]

A bunch of your users might not know ShowEQ is cheating

This is a specious argument at best.

No, it's not at all.

Yes, yes it is. To get semantical, along with Brucey on you...

spe·cious    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (spshs)
adj.
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
Deceptively attractive.  

Your argument sounds good (i.e. all cheaters are not equal) but in reality, it takes a conscious effort to cheat. Thus, all cheaters on an MMOG, at least in the case of what you suggested, i.e. ShowEQ, consciously decide to take an action that they know is wrong. So while it is deceptively attractive to think that some of your cheaters really are good guys at heart, it is incorrect. A cheater is a dirty, fucking cheater at least when it comes to how you administer a service.

Thus, specious.
 

It is a program using the name EQ that is not produced by the company that makes the game, yet is quite clearly intended to run beside it. Whether someone's intent is to cheat or not to cheat, the end result is the same. As a service provider, if you try to get into intent with cheaters, you'll never ban anyone and might as just well allow everything under the sun, because you are a patsy.

No, you're just being a good service provider.  All cheaters are not equal.  Everyone who telnetted to port 25 is not a hacker.  Of course, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to just ban first and never ask questions at all.

Easier and cheaper = double plus gud for both the provider and clients who do not cheat. The clients who do not cheat outnumber the cheaters, want a cheat-free service and pay the same amount of money. It isn't fair to those customers, who are the majority, to incur and thus charge extra expense (or have to shift resources away from new content to deal with cheaters in an amnesty program) just because the provider doesn't want to ban all the cheaters equally.

I will just note that I'm glad WWII Online does the tracking of credit cards, though it's probably easier when you are talking about such a small service. I'd rather instead of wasting resources on an amnesty program that the provider puts those resources into player/cc/address accountability.

[Dark Vengeance]

And with that post, Haemish discovered the pitfalls of trying to out-sirbruce SirBruce.

Not surprisingly, it involved the use of quote tags, as opposed to countering a well-reasoned argument.

Bring the noise.
Cheers........

[HaemishM]

Yep, went back and edited the post to unfuck the quotes.

[Furiously]

Hmmm - looks like DAOC recently dealt with this same issue. (Link to articles about the bannings).

Fairly decent numbers for the initial one week ban and subsequent bye-bye.

It's really too bad money plays a part in this and that they couldn't outright ban all the cheaters. Using a cheat for PvP seems a bit more ugly then for finding a monster for some reason.

[koboshi]

That may be how you think society works in your dystopian fantasy, but the rest of us out here are still fighting the good fight. We didn't surrender our values of right and wrong simply because others decided it was expediant to do so.

Bruce  

I knew bruce was a bleeding heart liberal deep down. say it with me bruce DOWN WITH BUSH, down with the patriot act, down with unilateralisim. yay.

[Ironwood]

Surely Battle.net has proved the whole 'ban a few, the rest will learn' argument SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK ?

[Sky]

Ban the crap out of them. Exploitive behaviour simply must not be tolerated in online gaming, any more than keeping an ace up one's sleeve is in poker. Sure, it's a chunk of money, but look at the other 95% of your income.

How many people got fed up with the rampant cheating in UO and left? UOE? I quit UO when I found a guy stealing things through the back wall of my house, and CS didn't do squat besides the fact that I had screenshots of the entire event.

Oh wait, they did tell me I needed to move my house.

Tossing out integrity in favor of profits sends a clear message to me, that I do not need to be involved with the company.

[Rof]

The ideal way of doing it would be to find those players who wouldn't play if they couldn't cheat anyway, and ban them as examples to the rest of the cheaters. That maximises the effect while minimising the impact on your profit.

Mythic's recent actions seem about right:
1. Announce that you can now detect cheaters (without doing any process or disk scanning of the client). This scares off some of the more casual cheaters, but lots/most of them say, "shyeah, right!" and carry on,

2. Suspend some fraction of the cheaters for 1 day (maybe just the ones who use the cheats all the time). This scares of a whole bunch more who realize you're not bluffing. Some hardcore will keep cheating, believing the cheat they use is undetectable and/or that you'll never accept the loss of revenue from banning all the cheats.

3. Suspend all the continuing cheaters for 1 week. This is your last warning shot. Now they know they can be detected, and some fraction will either give up cheating or quit the game.

4. Ban anyone who still cheats after this. If they can't cheat, they wouldn't play, so there's no margin in keeping them around.