Slashdot Mirror
SOCOM Online Cheats Ruin Experience
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."
Why do these people even bother cheating online? They pay for the PS2, pay for the network adapter, pay for the game... and then ruin it all by going and spending more money on a cheat device.
It's just so self defeating as well - when everyone cheats, people stop playing. This means no more games for the cheaters to join. They destroyed PSO on the Dreamcast, and they STILL haven't learned their lesson yet...?
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
So maybe Microsoft is right. Controling and centralizing the online infrastrucutre can limit abuses like this.
The problem is, that cheats come out daily that aren't detected by PB and it's ilk.
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.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
I have been playing Socom online since day 1. I love the game, but it has become nearly unplayable because of the excessive cheating. The only wayto get a fair game is to play in locked rooms with people that you know. Sony claims that this problem ahs been fixed for Socom 2, but I'll believe it when I see it. I suppose it's tough to complain when Sony doesnt charge for it's online games (yet), but I would be more than willing to pay a monthly fee as long as the game was cheater free.
My cats breath smells like cat food.
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.