Study Finds Online Cheating Is Infectious

Freddybear writes "A study of online gamers in the Steam community finds that those who are friends with cheaters are more likely to begin cheating themselves. From the article: 'First up, cheats stick together. The data shows that cheaters are much more likely to be friends with other cheaters. Cheating also appears to be infectious. The likelihood of a fair player becoming labelled as a cheater in future is directly correlated with this person's number of friends who are cheaters. So if you know cheaters, you are more likely to become one yourself. Cheating spreads like flu through this community. Finally, being labelled as a cheat seems to significantly affect social standing. Once a person is labelled as a cheat, they tend to lose friends. Some even cut themselves off from friends by increasing their privacy settings.'"

Comments

So....

[ak_hepcat]

This isn't about my ex-wife....

Awkward post then.

Makes sense

[backslashdot]

Not just in online gaming, but in other things too.

Re:Makes sense

[Ethanol-fueled]

There are 2 major types of cheating:

The acceptable kind, which serves to spare the user the expense of unnecessary tedium. They include using a bot to automate grinding in WoW and unfairly receiving help during tests for mandatory fluff classes that will have no effect on your future.

The unacceptable kind, which are blatant misrepresentation of true skill. Those include exploiting a bug in WoW to make you invincible and a prospective structural engineer cheating their engineering classes.

Re:Makes sense

[Gaygirlie]

The acceptable kind, which serves to spare the user the expense of unnecessary tedium. They include using a bot to automate grinding in WoW and unfairly receiving help during tests for mandatory fluff classes that will have no effect on your future.

Why is it "acceptable" then? I atleast do not find it acceptable to use a bot to do anything like that, it still gives you an edge over those people who stay completely honest.

Re:Makes sense

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why is it "acceptable" then?

Generally, when someone speaks of the "acceptable" forms of cheating, they mean "the forms of cheating I use"....

And I'm pleased to see that someone managed to start justifying cheating within a handful of posts. When I read online gaming forums discussing cheating, it generally takes not more than six comments to find someone justifying cheating....

Re:Makes sense

[10101001 10101001]

I want him to formulate proper arguments for why one form of cheating is good while another form of cheating isn't. I mean, it IS still cheating, it wouldn't be called cheating if it was acceptable and within granted limits, so it's kind of an oxymoron in and of itself.

Well, how about a silly example of a form of cheating I see as acceptable. I like the game Mega Man X3 a good bit. I've played through it plenty of times. There's a certain spot in the game where a bot with two morning stars for arms sits fully blocking the path. However, it is the case that the hit detection is a bit off, so it's actually possible to, if timed right, do an air dash through the very upper part of the bot without taking damage and proceeding forward. Now, as I see it, this is acceptable because it both exploits a glitch in the game (questionable hit detection) while simultaneously being a rather moot point (it's a single player game and the action is done more to make the play every so slightly faster and more enjoyable--the very fact that one can glitch is part of what makes it enjoyable).

Now, the best argument I can hear against doing the above is that to exploit the glitch cheats oneself. One could say the same about intentionally getting hit so one can stand on otherwise instant kill spikes. Perhaps at some point the designers intended for this to be an acceptable part of play, but even then it's clearly a cheaper act to ever intentionally get hit. So, every time one plays a game without trying one's best (ie, to accept that one can survive taking many hits so may choose to never exert more effort to learn the game than the amount needed to survive), they could be said to be cheating themself. And maybe that's true as well.

But it's also true that one plays a game for enjoyment and playing at one's best isn't always enjoyable; I certainly enjoy one-hit-kill games, but I don't play them all the time and for games that offer the mode I wish to play that in addition to the multi-hit-kill mode. So, given that the core issue is a matter of enjoyment, it'd seem clearer that for friends to "cheat" together would be acceptable but that cheating in the wild with people who don't know if one is "cheating" or not.

So, does that help explain why it's an unclear issue and it's not simply a matter of being an oxymoron?

Re:Makes sense

[Goat of Death]

And I'm pleased to see that someone managed to start justifying cheating within a handful of posts. When I read online gaming forums discussing cheating, it generally takes not more than six comments to find someone justifying cheating....

Context is important. I never cheat in online multiplayer and find it pathetic the people who do. To me playing multiplayer online is about challenging myself and my abilities, especially fps. Cheating degrades the experience for others and that's weak.

However, for single player campaigns like rpgs I don't see the problem with modding the game however I want. I'm generally not playing to challenge myself, I'm playing to enjoy the game and the story. I liked Icewind Dale but found it too difficult. So I modded my characters up and found it more enjoyable. Dragon Age, I didn't like the tactic slot limits, especially for mages, so I modded the game. It's single player so what's the harm if I want to enjoy the game how I want to enjoy it?

Starcraft ][ they apparently banned people for cheating in the single player campaign. I find that deplorable. What right of it is Blizzards to deny people access to all of Starcraft ][ because someone doesn't play single player the way Blizzard wants. I won't be buying future Blizzard games because of this.

On the other hand I probably won't buy further Battlefield games because of how little EA/Dice is doing about cheating in BF3 which is currently pretty rampant there.

Multiplayer, ban away, ban and burn them across all multiplayer games if you can. However, single player, that's completely nonsensical, because you are affecting no on else and only modifying your own enjoyment of the game.

Labels

[The Archon V2.0]

The likelihood of a fair player becoming labelled as a cheater in future is directly correlated with this person's number of friends who are cheaters.

Whereas the likelihood of a fair player being labelled as a noob, faggot, or the son of a whore is directly correlated to both their opponent's self-perceived skills and their opponent's lack of actual skills.

What about the wrongly accused?

[Anonymous Coward]

What could be even more lame than cheating?

N00bs joining a game standing still and moving predictably running their mouths with endless accusations of auto-aim cheats as they are mercilessly sweet spotted and head shotted.

Friends of non n00bs are likely to not suck either and before you know it the whole team is "cheating".

Re:What about the wrongly accused?

[Kurrel]

Back in the Counter-strike heyday, my friend would commonly get banned from a server after a few rounds for cheating. All he had was surround-sound headphones and the fast-twitch accuracy of a Korean but I'd get banned by association. Being labelled a cheater doesn't prove guilt; why wouldn't they use VAC analysis rather than hearsay?

Re:What about the wrongly accused?

[icebike]

Actually this happens more than you might think. Anyone who spends a LOT of time on specific games
can achieve a skill level that looks like cheating to the newbie player.

The solution to that problem is easy. Go find a better group of opponents instead of beating up on newbies.

Really good players don't enjoy waxing a newbie 100 to 0 time after time. It takes a pretty juvenile mentality to do that,
and playing against the bots ends up being more fun. Many really good players will start offering
tips to newbies to help build their skills. It makes game play more fun for all.

Just asking, "wow cool, how do you do that move" on the chat will get you a lesson from an honest GOOD player
and a taunt or "just practice" from the cheater.

But all too often good players will spot actual cheating, and hacked clients which evade server detection, etc.
The better you are at any given game the more likely you will see things which you know to be impossible.
Recording movies of this (if you have the computer horsepower) will actually allow you to replay
something enough times to see rockets coming out of a guys ass and going thru walls etc.

And cheaters often come in pairs. Lurk long and quiet like you are away from the machine and you will
often catch them chatting about the cheat.

Re:What about the wrongly accused?

[Scorch_Mechanic]

You're quite right, of course. Mod parent up and whatnot.

I played a lot of TF2 for a very long time, up until I was exiled from my favorite community for reasons that don't deserve airing. I even played some competitive, and I saw and learned things about classes, maps, and moves that would make the average "pub" player's hair stand on end. I knew soldiers who had perfected the art of the rocket, snipers who almost never missed, scouts who executed heavy classes and were impossible to hit, and spies who are so sneaky they could literally hide in plain sight. Playing with and against these people honed my skills so much that I can tell the difference between skill and cheating with ease. It's all about the attitude. Despite the public perception, few if any competitive players are assholes. Being part of a "comp" team necessitates a good attitude and an instinct for rapport that belies the usual arrogance and casual asshattery of a cheater. As you said, an honest to goodness GOOD player will give tips and be courteous. A cheater will respond with insults.

In all my literal thousands of hours of TF2, I only saw a handful of cheaters. I could count the number on two hands. You know why? It's the community. If you don't want to deal with cheaters, find a server that has a boisterous community and a conclave of attentive admins. Good players will gravitate towards servers with other good players, and as long as there's enough friendly admins around to keep a lid on the jerks the server will remain pure and enjoyable.

cheating is a bit more complex

[Trepidity]

There are some black-and-white cases of what constitutes "cheating" in online games, but a lot of gray-area ones as well, especially when it comes to when players will accuse other players of cheating (this book is an interesting study). Sometimes it's violating technical mechanisms, like installing a modified video driver or aimbot, but there are a lot of social rules of what constitutes cheating as well, and some mixed cases like using technical features in the "wrong" way. Some tournaments even have to very precisely specify what constitutes "cheating" with legalistic rules, like some of the Starcraft 1 tournaments' rules about which edge cases of unit behavior (mutalisk stacking, etc.) were cheating (banned) versus just edge-case behavior (ok to use).

Re:Before you say, "So what?"

[Samantha Wright]

The incentive to cheat in moneyless games like Valve's FPSes is unfortunately quite simple and immune to your logic. It's a desire to torture and torment non-cheaters. Most people who are simply bad at the game don't download aimbots and wallhacks, because that would be admitting defeat. Putting up a "trolls OK here!" sign doesn't generally stop trolls from attempting to troll other communities.

school

[bcrowell]

There are obvious analogies to be made with cheating in school, doping in sports, government bureaucracies where bribery is universal, ... and obvious caveats about whether those analogies are really valid (online games aren't real, so cheating doesn't hurt people in the tangible way that a bribe-taking Russian cop does).

I teach physics at a community college. It certainly makes sense that students are more likely to cheat if they see their friends getting away with it, or if they see that cheating is so rampant that they start to believe that they have to cheat or else they'll be at an unfair disadvantage. The obvious fix for that would be to take it very seriously if students cheat. Suspend them, expel them, give them an F in the course with a note on their transcript saying why. But it seems to be a nearly universal thing at schools in the US these days that none of that happens. My school's lawyers have advised the administration that they can't allow faculty to give anything beyond an F on the assignment -- which is typically not a penalty at all, since usually the reason students cheat is that they're already failing, so they have nothing to lose.