Multiplayer Cheating With TeamSpeak

from Sins Forums
This isn't a huge problem, but nonetheless it is a problem. The developers may want to consider changing this. Currently, if you surrender then you can see everyone's planets, structures, fleets, etc.

If a team is using TeamSpeak then the player that surrendered can tell his teammates vital information about the enemy.

This may not be a major deal since the cheating team is now 1 player less and will probably lose the game anyway.

A game option to prevent quiters from seeing the enemy units may be beneficial.



22,803 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
Another option would be to send the surrendering player to a neutral spectators team so only other spectators would be able to hear them.
I don't play online and the last game I did was counter-strike:source, and this was the method used.
This exploit would mostly be used it seems, by the first person to be beaten. They would simply need to to simply "surrender" right before being defeated, thus giving the team a sort of "telephone radar".
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

Another option would be to send the surrendering player to a neutral spectators team so only other spectators would be able to hear them.
End of quote

You, ah, do realize that the OP was talking about TeamSpeak, which is an external tool to Sins and, as such, the game ap has no control over, right?

My guess would be the best solution would be to leave team affinity for dead empires; simply keep the same visibility as they had when they died. This will probably be insufficient in a game with unlocked teams where ship/planet visibility is in flux and changes, but the alternative is to simply boot them out altogether, and that’s just not fun for them.

Actually, on consideration, the options may should shake down like this:

    • Both locked and unlocked teams should default to keep dead players’ views the same as when they died.*

    Again, this might be an issue if they had vision pacts with AI races but it’s an overall best-case.

  • Multiplayer games need an option to set the post-death vision to one of the following:

    • Retain: View after death same as before.
    • All: Post-mortem omniscience.
    • None: No post-mortem observation at all.

    The option needs to be retained as the default setting between games for pure convenience sake.

I think this covers the best set of requirements. An all-friends’ game might go for All as their usual option because they’re comfortable with the post-mortem kibbutzing. The hardcore tourney folk can have None to be absolutely sure (as much as they can in-game, anyway) that there’s no info leak. Retain exists as a soft middle ground.


Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
Since you want the host to stay in the game even after he already lost, you better make it worth his time ...
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
Patch 1.04 notes:

MULTIPLAYER:

A giant red-hot piece of metal has been included with the Sins game package. Plug it into any USB port. When a game is lost, the metal will slam into your eyeballs preventing you from seeing the other player's units. You can change it to slam into your jaw preventing you from speaking as well in Game Options. Pre 1.04 buyers or digital download customers can get the add-on free of charge.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Patch 1.04 notes:MULTIPLAYER:A giant red-hot piece of metal has been included with the Sins game package. Plug it into any USB port. When a game is lost, the metal will slam into your eyeballs preventing you from seeing the other player's units. You can change it to slam into your jaw preventing you from speaking as well in Game Options. Pre 1.04 buyers or digital download customers can get the add-on free of charge.
End of quote


Made me lol, but the OP has a good point. They could simply disallow global viewing to a neutralized player, giving them views of their allies only or something.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
This could just be as exploited by putting two people playing in the same room...
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
I think the easiest solution is to restrict view to previous allies only (like SquidLord suggested?) but keep updating it so they can watch their allies kick ass or get beaten.

The downed player can still offer backseat strategy advice ("Concentrate LRM fire on the Akkan!", etc.), but as long as they're not able to see everything and feed info on all enemy fleet movements and planet statuses I don't see why they should be entirely neutralized.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Or perhaps all spectators could have a delay of 30-seconds. Of course that means a losing player would have to stare at the defeat screen for half-a-minute if he wanted to observe the rest of the game, but it would effectively make it impossible for them to provide free intel for their former allies.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Yes, it seems simplest in a team game to reassign defeated players so they view what one of their live allies views. In games with unlocked teams or no teams at all there are complications and it is simplest to give no view at all.

Keeping a losing host in the game is a very difficult proposition. Allowing them to "cheat" for their team is certainly going to be the most effective incentive. With anything less it is probably more effective to transfer hosting responsibility to another player... which is a moderately complicated computer science problem in theory. In practice the real world throws up inconvenient obstacles like firewalls, crummy net connections and so on and handling them gracefully requires a lot of cunning and a fair amount of extra work.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
Yes, it seems simplest in a team game to reassign defeated players so they view what one of their live allies views. In games with unlocked teams or no teams at all there are complications and it is simplest to give no view at all.Keeping a losing host in the game is a very difficult proposition. Allowing them to "cheat" for their team is certainly going to be the most effective incentive. With anything less it is probably more effective to transfer hosting responsibility to another player... which is a moderately complicated computer science problem in theory. In practice the real world throws up inconvenient obstacles like firewalls, crummy net connections and so on and handling them gracefully requires a lot of cunning and a fair amount of extra work.
End of quote


There was a game called Sudden Strike where all players were interconnected, and there was no official host, and there was not master server. That would seem like a logical approach to fixing the current problem with hosts quiting.