P2P Shooters could get rid of cheaters for a long long time.

Hallo,

Suppose the next generation of shooters uses P2P instead of Server/Client.

Then gamers themselfes can make a ban list of known cheaters and get rid of
them for a long time.

(Until the cheaters changes isp and gets a new ip)

For cheaters that use proxy or routers... their entire ip subnets can be
blocked as well.

Thus gamers can finally enjoy the games as they where went to be =D

Bye,
Skybuck !

Though this idea needs to be worked out a little bit more.

Here is how it could work.

The server acts as a meeting point and to transfer world information.

Anything that can be done p2p gets done that way.

And the p2p is for verification.

Players can only join the server if none of the players on the server are
blocked.

If they cannot connect to blocked players then they cant play.

However if a cheater is already on the server... they fair players can't
connect.

So for this to work... the server must be able to make multiple rooms.

So players can only connect to one room.

When there is a cheater...everybody can leave the room... and leave the
cheater by itself.

Then people who have blocked the cheater make a new room and simply tell or
invite all others to join his room instead.

Therefore the cheater cannot join the new room because he's blocked out of
the new room.

When another cheaters joins the new room the process repeats until all
cheaters blocked.

This is how civilization 3 conquest works and it works very nicely

Bye,
Skybuck.

Now some analysis... why is this method better than the voting method ?

The voting method fails because:

After the cheater is voted off, the cheater is given a timeout, and then
later the cheater can simply re-join.

Practice has shown the world is full of nasty people that never learn their
lesson.

The correct way is to ban them forever and lot them rott in hell.

With my described method... it's power to the players themselfes... if they
truely convinced somebody is a cheater they can ban his sorry ass and start
a room on the server. Therefore... this room will gradually grow to be the
better room to play in because over time the room will be pretty much
cheater free

And it requires no lengthy and stupid voting processess which rarely
succeed.

Bye,
Skybuck.

The admin method fails as well.

Admins can be jerks... and sometimes there is no admin at all.

Some people are admin whores and wanna be admin just to abuse the server.

My method is better again because it lets anybody be admin so to speak and
start a new room.

When people no longer playing and loose interest temporarely, other people
can make new rooms and play in them

Bye,
Skybuck.

So I guess the idea comes down to something like this:

1. I decide who I NOT want to play with and make a ban list.

2. I make a room on the server, the room follows my ban list.

3. Players on the room's ban list (my list) can't enter the room and
therefore can't play.

4. All other players can join my room and play.

5. The server supplies additional bandwith as needed, players upload
capacities are used if needed/possible.

6. If bandwidth allows it then server can host multiple rooms.

7. Multiple servers could even work together as one big staging ground for
rooms.

Thus the room is as good or as bad as my ban list.

If people don't like it they can make their own room and play there if
possible.

This is a simpler solution than described earlier.

It's different in one point:

The idea of multiple ban list comparisions is not done.

If player A hates player B... then if player A is playing on player C's
room... then player B cannot join.

But player B was no real cheater... player A just hates him... but player C
does not hate him.

Therefore the described idea above is simpler.

I am player C and only my ban list is applied... so player's A and player's
B banlist are ignored.

So both can play on my room until I decided to ban one of them if I so
desire.

The disadventage is that my ban list is ignored if I join other people's
room but then I would have to put up with it

Another disadventage is if I start my own room then maybe more bandwidth
required.. or maybe not... since there is simply a limited ammount of
players anyway.

The original describe idea is more complex for multiple ban lists... and
then a trust issue arrises.

At least with this simple idea people only need to trust me... that is one
player who is hosting the room

If people don't trust my ban list then they can make their own rooms simple
as that

Power to the player ! =D LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck.

I wonder why you even think that someone finds your posting even remotly
interesting. This monologue is proving that you are either a moron or just
plain psychotic ... either way, time to put you in the black box again

*ploink*