next »

[X3N]

Just a quick 2cents:
Seeing the "Jill shot John with the AK-47" in the corner of your screen - when you JUST saw John run around the corner and heard gunfire gives you a meta-gamey advantage that lets you rethink following John "I'm sure that was just him killing some noobs".
Problem is, Jill doesn't know that you were right behind. So you have a meta-game advantage, she's going oh shit, who saw my kill message?

Proposed alternative (please reference games that have done this.. I'm guessing the Splinter Cell series for example, but never played it online): no kill messages on client. No chatting / voice chat if you're dead and not respawned; "Watch out bro, the guy with the weak pistol has 2 shotgunners backing him up" "Oh thanks, I would have gone in if it was just a pistol" or say_team "SNIPER ON TOWER #5 SHIT SHIT".

Throw a grenade around a corner too far away to hear the death moan? You don't know if you got a kill or not. I think this is a bad meta-game feature to let you know "bammo, ye got one!"

Now, honestly, I quite like the "dink" beeping sounds you can get in some games to confirm that you got a hit - useful when its a tad laggier but you know what? I should be able to aim without those, too.

 

[drChengele]

This deals with age-old problem of realism and immersion versus fun action-paced gameplay. The kill-messages date from the roots of the genre (Quake had them, ergo Half-life had them, ergo Counterstrike had them). The modern games are not concerned with capturing the feel of real world combat, but rather with capturing the feel of the previous iterations in the genre.

"Shooters" are just that, shooters. They are not realistic simulations, they are flashy games with flashy graphics that need to outline to everyone just how awesomely Jill fragged Jack in a multitude of colours.

There are games out there (such as Red Orchestra) that go for brutal realism down to you having to count the number of bullets you fired and of course there are no kill messages. That's not to say the other approach isn't also full of potential. One of the reasons I like Team Fortress 2 is that it doesn't try to be something it isn't. It flat out tells you it is going to be wacky video game hijinks and in that respect the kill/death messages, along with other things, fit right in.

This "genre progenitor" syndrome is one of the things that needs to die, in my humble opinion. It took shooters 10 years just to realize they don't need to let you lug around 10 weapons just because Doom did so. Halo's regenerating shields model and 2 weapon limit was pretty much enough to brand it the OMGZ MOST INNOVATIVE FPS EVAR!!!1111 (yes, I know Halo didn't pioneer either of the two concepts). Another example, if Dune 2 wasn't based on an economy-heavy literary work, then Warcraft 2 and Command and Conquer likely wouldn't have picked up on a resource-based strategy game model and we all know these two games basically launched the genre.

That's why I like indies. It is downright impossible for them to succeed by cloning the latest FPSes because there are professional multi-million dollar studios out there that will do it much better.

[Calabi]

I agree with you drChengele.  A heck load, of ton of development/design is just based on what was done before, even if it never made sense, or doesnt really work anymore.

I played that Insurgency or whatever its called mod for Half Life 2.  That pretty much does what you said OP.  Its very hardcore, most of the time you dont know who killed you, or from where, or whether you even hit them.

[nihilocrat]

Yeah, it basically boils down to this being an intentional design decision.

It's not hard to try this yourself, if you can find players who want to play this way. Most games should allow you to turn off kill messages as a server option. I found a single (one, single, in the entire world) Day of Defeat server a few years back that enabled friendly fire and removed all kill messages. It made the game much more slow-paced and tense, not to mention it required me to squint a lot more to tell if I actually killed what I was shooting at, but I can tell why a lot of people might not like that.

The most common situation was scanning the various windows and cover points in an area when entering. Friendly fire was on, so if I saw something there I couldn't open fire on it the moment I saw it. If I thought there was an enemy there, I could open fire but then it became difficult to confirm a kill; basically I'd either have to hear the death noise or see a death animation / see the corpse. This made windows particularly dangerous, as it was very hard to tell if they were killed or simply ducked or strafed into cover.

Of course, there were always the various other confusing and tense situations you mention above.

[Zaratustra]

No chatting / voice chat if you're dead and not respawned

Why Your Idea To Prevent Multiplayer Cheating Will Not Work

[ ] a good sniper is indistinguishable from an aimbot
[ ] 3d graphics are rendered clientside
[ ] The server does not keep count of that
[X] Players will keep their voice button mashed down so you know when they're -not- alive
[ ] it doesn't account for nonstandard input/output devices
[ ] it can be easily circumvented by youtube
[X] it can be easily circumvented by ventrilo
[ ] 1% false negatives of 1 million players still mean 10 thousand potential cheaters
[X] it can be easily circumvented by a phone line
[ ] everyone hates drm
[ ] everyone hates securom

[J. R. Hill]

Plus there's
[X] Players may physically be in the same room/house

But even so it's more realistic and at least lessens the problem.

[Zenorf]

I'm pretty sure it was a server option in quite a few games no?

[Core Xii]

[X] it can be easily circumvented by ventrilo

This. Though I'd use Mumble, but the point stands.

[shig]

Why Your Idea To Prevent Multiplayer Cheating Will Not Work

[ ] a good sniper is indistinguishable from an aimbot
[ ] 3d graphics are rendered clientside
[ ] The server does not keep count of that
[ ] Players will keep their voice button mashed down so you know when they're -not- alive
[ ] it doesn't account for nonstandard input/output devices
[ ] it can be easily circumvented by youtube
[ ] it can be easily circumvented by ventrilo
[ ] 1% false negatives of 1 million players still mean 10 thousand potential cheaters
[ ] it can be easily circumvented by a phone line
[ ] everyone hates drm
[ ] everyone hates securom

This will be extremely useful when browsing Steamforums.

[X3N]

Yeah, voice chat out of the game circumvents that. That does mean players are working together though (which doesn't always happen in a public game) so, a necessary "evil".
Insurgency mod looks interesting, thanks. I don't understand what you mean by "mash their voice button"..

[TwilightVulpine]

The voice chat only works when you are alive, right? So, if the player uses voice chat continuously, the other players will instantly know that the first player died once the voice chat deactivates. Still, would most players even bother to do that? Maybe ventrilo, but not this.

I'm all for it, not because It Is An Idea To Prevent Multiplayer Cheating, but because that seems to be an interesting way to play.

[X3N]

The voice chat only works when you are alive, right? So, if the player uses voice chat continuously, the other players will instantly know that the first player died once the voice chat deactivates. Still, would most players even bother to do that? Maybe ventrilo, but not this.

I'm all for it, not because It Is An Idea To Prevent Multiplayer Cheating, but because that seems to be an interesting way to play.

Yeah.. I was thinking the same thing. This isn't for preventing cheating Zaratustra. More to make the tactical decisions a bit more interesting.

[SirNiko]

I want to know an example of something that you could use Youtube to circumvent, personally.

-SirNiko

[s0]

Yeah.. I was thinking the same thing. This isn't for preventing cheating Zaratustra. More to make the tactical decisions a bit more interesting.

It doesn't really matter what it's for, it can still be easily circumvented.

[Jolli]

in gears of war mp, when a player is dead it only allows chat with other dead players
(and it works)

[Chaoseed]

Your idea would have merit if FPSes were immersive adventures instead of competitive sports.

[TwilightVulpine]

Not every player is a cheater and not everyone is that obssessed with victory. Besides, there is L4D which may be considered an immersive adventure, when played in co-op. Even then, when you think that this thread spawned a checklist of "Why Your Idea To Prevent Multiplayer Cheating Will Not Work", it is an indication that the existing FPSs aren't too good in avoiding cheating either. As I said, I want to play it because it seems an interesting way to play. I think most people that don't agree with is are still seeing as a way to prevent cheating. Certainly it will not, but it creates an interesting gameplay experience. I don't buy that the idea is bad because it's circumventable. FPSs have cheaters, MMOs have cheaters. Most games have cheats of one kind or another. Should I cheat too or stop playing just because it's easy to cheat? Of course no.

Exploiters will always be exploiters, but in my personal experience, most people don't care much about circumventing online games. I don't seem to find that many cheaters.

The idea has merit, maybe not for some, but it still has merit.

[The Monster King]

hm i think the closest thing to this you could do is make teams totally random and have like "hardcore mode" in some games

and you could put how loud you hear other players voices be relative to how close you are to them

but yeah, it's a game, i don't think it's necessary for it to be fun but it could be a fun mode i guess