[MUD-Dev] TECH: Trusting Network Clients

[Sean Kelly]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
> From: Nicolai Hansen
 
>> I would never trust any client to keep control of game sensitive
>> things.  It WILL be hacked, and someone WILL give themselves
>> unlimited hitpoints :)

> Can we re-examine this dogma before it gets too entrenched?  What
> proportion of players don't want to play by the rules, and would
> cheat given half a chance?

This likely depends on the game in question.

> If the majority of players are cheaters, does this imply something
> about players in general, or something about the particular game?
> I'd be suspicious that players who felt slightly miffed at paying
> for a game, may feel justified in rectifying their value for money
> by cheating.

I disagree.  I think the subscription fee for a game determines
whether or not a person will play at all, and how they act in the
game has more to do with maximizing the value of their time in-game.

Players also tend to rationalize their behavior in-game and what
their "cheating" extends to generally has defined bounds.  If a
skill system is too time consuming and repetitive, even a dedicated
player may not feel he is cheating by scripting the actions.  If a
game is reward-based, a player with limited time or who is
status-oriented may feel he is not cheating by scripting something
associated with level or skill-gain.
 
> If the majority of players aren't cheaters, doesn't this then
> imply that the client is not necessarily in the hands of the
> enemy?  The enemy is not the 'fair player', but the reprobate, the
> bitter, the immature, the cheater, etc.

The client is always in the hands of the enemy, so far as security
is concerned.  In MMORPGs even wizards/administrators are not
trusted and generally subject to some sort of oversight.  If not, a
single player/admin can cause quite a large stir.  Remember the
incident where some of the UO GMs were caught creating items and
selling them on eBay or some such?

> Is there a way of creating a game (in the holistic sense) such
> that an extreme majority (90%) of players are fully inclined
> towards fair play, despite opportunities to cheat? Just like the
> problem of creating a housing estate where an extreme majority of
> its residents are disinclined to vandalise it, and even actively
> seek out and reprimand vandals rather than silently tolerate them?

I'd say the first step would be some sort of accountability, as well
as a means of reprisal by the other players of the game.  If a
player builds a reputation for cheating, starting with a clean slate
should not be so simple as creating a new character.  If a player
cheats, other players should also be able to do something aside from
remembering that player's name in an effort to avoid them in the
future.  That is, there should be both immediate and durable
measures available.  The immesiate measures are fairly obvious,
while durable measures could be as simple as, again, ensuring that
there is a way to identify the player account behind a character, so
a known reputation can be associated with that player regardless of
which character they play.  If this appears to eliminate too much of
the immersion, perhaps it could be structured into some sort of
persistent reputation system.

> I'm wondering if all this talk of MMOG community building isn't
> simply a better way of exploiting the players from a profit based
> motive. If a community was truly involved in the game, even to the
> extent that the community owned the game, then I suspect there'd
> be far greater respect for fair play. How much do you think that
> players feel peeved that their work in terms of play and
> socialising (role play, guilding, etc.) is simply being sold back
> to them, i.e. they're not just being sold the infrastructure and
> environment?

Are you saying that players may resent the traditional subscription
model because they aren't involved in the creation of the game
dynamics?  I agree up to a point.  A player's commitment to a world
is proportional to their stake in that world.  In static games like
Asheron's Call, players have no stake in the game aside from guild
associations, stories to tell, and items they've gained from
monsters.  I quit playing for specifically this reason -- as a
player I had no way to make any lasting impact on the game world.  I
had nothing to show for my time there and ultimately felt
disconnected from the world and the people there.  What is a game
that resets 5 minutes after you pass but a carnival funhouse?  The
more a player is actively involved in a game... the more a player
has a real stake in the development of that game the more desire
they will have to see that game prosper.

> All a player has in a virtual world is their identity, the ability
> to be recognised for their achievements, relationships, and
> experiences. To a large extent, this is all we have in the real
> world. When players find no value in identity, that there is more
> value in disruption or introverted activities, then there's
> something lacking in the virtual world.

I don't believe that there is any way to be recognized for your
achievements in the current crop of MMORPGs (though there is in some
MUDs).  Further, I don't think that there ARE any achievements in
the current crop of MMORPGs.  Time spent there is completely
forgettable.
 
> If you can create a game in which at least 90% of players quickly
> desire, and come to cherish their identity, then you have a game
> in which the client is not in the hands of the enemy. You have a
> game with a manageable amount of cheating. You can harness a tenth
> of the power of all of the clients to fully police them all.

I'd say that the client is still in the hands of the enemy, but it
is an enemy that is going to be more committed to the game and, if
the system allows, will actively police it for you.

> I find it difficult to believe that of the people who spend so
> much of their time playing a game that it's only a few who believe
> in fair play.

It doesn't help that the majority of people who have the time to
play MMORPGs are adolescents who haven't developed a firm sense of
morals yet anyway.  Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap3/chap3h.htm) offer an
interesting perspective.  In this light, it may not matter how much
control you give players over a game if the majority of the
playerbase isn't capable of thinking about right and wrong in
abstract terms.  The capricious vigilante justice of current games
may still prevail, only this time it will emply new tools and be in
defense of player-created content.

As it is a failing of most philosophers to carry an unrealistically
optimistic viewpoint of the average person, so I think it may be a
failing of game designers to carry an unrealistically optimistic
viewpoint of the average player.  A better game design may improve
the quality of play, but it is likely that no game design can create
the virtual utopia that game designers tend to strive for.  That
isn't to say that it isn't a worthwhile goal, only that designers
should also realize that it is likely also an impossible one.

IMO this is the great thing about NWN and its (hopefully more
persistent-world-oriented) successors.  It's basically a MUD toolkit
in a box.  If no single game design can keep players honest, perhaps
the next best thing is giving players a way to design their own game
as well as keep unwanted players out.  If a greater community is
desired, servers can always be linked together.


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev