next »

[rejwan]

Hi guys,
My name is Ron, I've developed and run an online game called WarGames 2.0.

The game has been online for about 3 years now, and recently a nasty problem was discovered - players cheating by creating more than 1 account and assisting their other accounts.

I have tried looking for a solution online, found the following solutions - and unfortunately they did not work:
 - Logging IPs (Very easily changed via program/proxy)
 - Saving cookies (Very easily bypassed)

Has anyone else run into this problem or has an idea how to fix this issue?

Thanks!

P.S. If I posted this in the wrong section please move my thread, thank you.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

If they assist each other at the same time, you could make it so that only one instance of the game can be run at once, rather than multiple instances of the same program.

Also, even though cookies and proxies can be "easily" bypassed, most of the time people won't know how to do it or won't bother. So you'd stop the casual cheaters but not the hardcore cheaters. You might be surprised just how many people those simple methods stop: just because something seems easy to you (as a programmer/techie) to bypass doesn't mean it's easy for most players (who often have much less technical knowledge) to bypass.

[Core Xii]

You could ban open proxies. I'm not sure about the details but I know Quakenet (IRC network) somehow checks if a client is connecting via proxy. I'm guessing the server attempts to use the proxy itself, and if it succeeds, it bans it.

[bateleur]

Has anyone else run into this problem or has an idea how to fix this issue?

Solutions to this problem are not generic, they have to be designed into the game.

So far as I can tell from the Wargames 2.0 site the real problem you have is that accounts are free to create and come with free in-game resource. This is always going to be a huge problem even if you could somehow ban multiple accounts, because people can persuade friends to create accounts just to transfer resource to them.

The usual fix for this kind of problem is the make sure that the resources held by a starting position are of no value (or insignificant value) to an established player. For example, I cannot improve my 30th level Diablo II character by having my first level character give him all his equipment.

I don't mean this as a criticism of your game, but the problem you have here really needed to be caught at the design stage. The chances are you will need to make significant changes to the game rules if you really want to stamp out cheating.

Alternatively one workaround you could employ which would get rid of the worst of it would be to write an analysis routine to detect blatant collusion and then ban any accounts involved.

[rejwan]

First of all, thank you for all of your replies.

I'll try to answer all of the topics you've touched:
1. Currently there is a automatic IP blocker & cookie method to try and catch multiplayers.
2. WarGames is a browser based, non-real time game - meaning players can log on, send resources to other players and then log off (While the 2nd account is offline).
3. Currently the problem is with a hand-full of hard-core cheaters - Around 2-3 players who run more than 10 accounts at once.
These players actually improve all accounts and co-ordinate attacks with all accounts on regular players, thus ruining the fun for them and making more and more people quit the game.

Please post any more solutions/ideas/comments you might have, I really need your help

[bateleur]

Well, the first thing to do is make it very clear that this is against the terms and conditions of a game and make sure all players have agreed to the T&C before playing.

That way when you're sure this is happening you can ban the relevant accounts.

[rejwan]

Well, the first thing to do is make it very clear that this is against the terms and conditions of a game and make sure all players have agreed to the T&C before playing.

That way when you're sure this is happening you can ban the relevant accounts.

It's already very clear and players do have to accept it.
However, since players can very easily change IPs - banning someone has no real effect.

[Jonathan Whiting]

Well, this is difficult stuff all round.  There's basically no technical solution that will be able to remove the possibility of multi-accounters completely.  The most determined cheaters will still be able to find a way to cheat.

As far as I know there's only a few real approaches that have merit in your sort of situation.  Both have their problems.  I suspect a careful mixture of them all is likely to be most effective.

1) Inconvinience - Essentially, find ways of making the process of setting up and managing multiple accounts as annoying as possible.  Systematically destroy discovered multi-accounts (enlist the help of your non-cheater players if possible).  Add activation delays and/or mandatory semi-lengthy 'warmup' periods for new accounts.  Implement as much anti-multi account tech as possible etc.  None of it will stop the most determined, but it might just be enough to put less motivated cheaters off bothering, maybe they'll find some other game that's more fun to break

2) Damage Limitation - Make changes to the game balance that limit the effectiveness of multi-accounts.  Limit starting resources.  Place daily caps on resource transfers.  Move in a direction that places more weight on players time than game time (i.e. player-to-player diplomacy is far more consuming than pressing the "moneys plez!" button, so give it more weight) and so on.

Either way, the major issues with both approaches are they'll be irritating to implement, and liable to piss off as many established players as cheaters.  Which sucks.  It's no easy issue, and there's no easy solution, which is why all massively multiplayer games end up suffering such things at some point.  Fun! 

[rejwan]

Well, this is difficult stuff all round.  There's basically no technical solution that will be able to remove the possibility of multi-accounters completely.  The most determined cheaters will still be able to find a way to cheat.

As far as I know there's only a few real approaches that have merit in your sort of situation.  Both have their problems.  I suspect a careful mixture of them all is likely to be most effective.

1) Inconvinience - Essentially, find ways of making the process of setting up and managing multiple accounts as annoying as possible.  Systematically destroy discovered multi-accounts (enlist the help of your non-cheater players if possible).  Add activation delays and/or mandatory semi-lengthy 'warmup' periods for new accounts.  Implement as much anti-multi account tech as possible etc.  None of it will stop the most determined, but it might just be enough to put less motivated cheaters off bothering, maybe they'll find some other game that's more fun to break

2) Damage Limitation - Make changes to the game balance that limit the effectiveness of multi-accounts.  Limit starting resources.  Place daily caps on resource transfers.  Move in a direction that places more weight on players time than game time (i.e. player-to-player diplomacy is far more consuming than pressing the "moneys plez!" button, so give it more weight) and so on.

Either way, the major issues with both approaches are they'll be irritating to implement, and liable to piss off as many established players as cheaters.  Which sucks.  It's no easy issue, and there's no easy solution, which is why all massively multiplayer games end up suffering such things at some point.  Fun! 

No doubt this is a problematic issue

Problem is, this will probably deter more actual legit players than the cheaters. Currently it's 2-3 people with over a combined force of 30-40 accounts that do the most damage.
And unfortunately, those 2-3 people apparently have no life whatsoever and have made it their life goal to destroy my game
They don't just aid their other accounts, they also build all their multi accounts up and gang up on a single target.

Also players have become so suspicious of each other, there's a game-wide witch hunt going on, where players accuse each other of multiplaying.

Thanks for the suggestions, I think I'll start scouring the web for a proxy IP list or something of the sort.

Keep posting ideas guys, still need help

[bateleur]

However, since players can very easily change IPs - banning someone has no real effect.

Oh, right, so your entire game runs off anonymous play? In that case you need to add named accounts. Then have separate "new player" games, with players only able to log in to these until they have a certain amount of play experience. That way every time you ban someone they're back to square one and can't play in games with established players.

[rejwan]

However, since players can very easily change IPs - banning someone has no real effect.

Oh, right, so your entire game runs off anonymous play? In that case you need to add named accounts. Then have separate "new player" games, with players only able to log in to these until they have a certain amount of play experience. That way every time you ban someone they're back to square one and can't play in games with established players.

I didn't explain myself well enough.
What I meant was that players do need to register, but IP checks can be very, very easily bypassed - thus making IP banning completely useless.

[Ivan]

I'd say that most people wouldn't know how to do that, so it's a good idea to add that stuff in. I agree with Paul that IP checks and cookies will deter all but the most hardcore, which they're probably not.

But yeah, whatever your real solution will be, it should be a gameplay/game balance solution and not a technical one. Other than that, I think that if anything this is a good thing for you and will help create a more balanced game in the end.

[jordanday]

I used to play a browser-based game called "CyberNations" that also had this problem, although it seemed to be "general knowledge" that if you cheated, you *WOULD* be caught. I believe CyberNations basically logged all activity, especially trades/deals between accounts, and then did some sort of ip-checking to verify things were on the up-and-up. I'm sure it faced the same issues with people using proxies, so I don't know if it had some super-AI analyzing the logs or what. You might consider contacting the guy who runs that game and asking for his advice on the issue (I don't know that he'd offer it up... but who knows, he could be feeling generous).
www.cybernations.net

[bateleur]

What I meant was that players do need to register, but IP checks can be very, very easily bypassed - thus making IP banning completely useless.

Sure, but I wasn't proposing IP banning, I was proposing account banning.

The idea is that if you give accounts some (non-monetary) value, then every time you ban one it sets that player back. At which point this pattern of cheating ceases to be worthwhile.

Basically you need to make it so that longer lived accounts are in some sense worth having.

[rejwan]

What I meant was that players do need to register, but IP checks can be very, very easily bypassed - thus making IP banning completely useless.

Sure, but I wasn't proposing IP banning, I was proposing account banning.

The idea is that if you give accounts some (non-monetary) value, then every time you ban one it sets that player back. At which point this pattern of cheating ceases to be worthwhile.

Basically you need to make it so that longer lived accounts are in some sense worth having.

I've banned more multies than I can count.. They just keep popping up.

And I'll swing by CN's forum and ask their admin, maybe he will feel generous

[jessejohhavoc]

I know this one's old but I found it through google and it would be a shame if there was no answer to a unique-yet-oddly common question...

This one's simple although slightly inconvenient. The solution is to require email validation.

To take it even a step further, ban free email accounts from being used (Gmail, Yahoo, Mail.com etc.) Users that have absolutely no way to acquire the address should be able to arrange with the admin by email.

I've seen this used to great success with games like Graal.

[Chromanoid]

you could set up an ingame federation that doesn't allow players to be attacked by more than one enemy at a time or by superior enemies who got a significant amount of resources from other accounts. joining the federation is optional so the players could separate theirself into groups of player types.

You could introduce factions like Communists, Facists, Theocrats and Capitalists (or fantasy factions like blue moon, green earth, red sun...). If you are a member of such a faction you can only attack opposing factions and only support/get support by players of your own faction. When you decide to join such a faction you join a random faction (the player can't decide which). You only can join a faction when you have a certain level. You cannot cancel your membership.
This way multi accounting is a bit more difficult when you want to take part in the war of factions because your membership is randomly determined and it is a matter of luck to get all your accounts into the same faction...