Cheating in Monopoly City Streets is almost legendary. For days the leader boards were dominated by cheaters, perhaps many of the players still there are cheating to some degree.
Initially I was put off by this, but as the weaknesses of the game became apparent, the cheaters provided an interesting and entertaining element to the otherwise boring game play.
Obviously, any serious game must deal with cheating players much better than MCS did. Being an open source project, the general "will" towards the game would be much friendlier and I believe the number of cheaters would be much, much lower. Still, there are always some who enjoy bending the rules.
Open source projects have the advantage of many eyes on the source. Hopefully this would lead to better design and easier to fix bugs. The lack of any real validation during registration is one problem that would be simple to correct. Many of the "cheating" bots are simply fixing problems in the game (Auto building, defending against hazards, etc). I'm sure some of this stems from how boring the MCS game is as well. Many people created multiple accounts simply because a single account provided little entertainment, especially in the first few days of the game. Another reason for multiple accounts and other cheating was "keeping up with the neighbors".. if one group of players gets away with it, the only way to compete is to do it as well.
In summary, I think an Open City Streets game would have less trouble with cheating and an easier time dealing with it. The devs would need to be watchful in the beginning, but it may be that when bugs are actually fixed, they are less prone to being exploited.. who knows? :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi-I think calling multi-accounters "cheaters", is a BIG part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteWhy work so hard & put so much effort towards stopping something that the game NATURALLY lends itself to?
As I pointed-out in the official blog, BINGO is an example of a game where a player can have as many "cards" as they are able to handle.
IF the "seven-day rule", for trades, and the "two-week rule" for inactive accounts actually worked, the impact of multi-accounts that have been created and abandoned, to other players & the game, would be a positive one. (it adds to the game).
The cry of "cheaters"! is what RUINED this game.
(uh-ok, it is buggy, but the "cheating"-problem took-away from resources that could be better used fixing the game)
Attempts to deal with the complaints and the mechanics of it are what is KILLING the game.
I support the effort to FIX Monopolycitystreets©, but only if there is a version where multi-accounting is considered a STRATEGY, and the word "cheating" is not associated with multi-accounts.
Next problem-SCRIPTING!. Are they hurting or helping the game?
Some of those scripts could be very useful to MONOPOLY CITY STREETS© 2.0.
My last request is that SOUND-EFFECTS are needed.
We may never agree on the multi-account issue, so I propose that BOTH versions be implemented.
Hi Anne,
ReplyDeleteI think you are right about multi accounts in the sense of Bingo being absolutely fine. But, just as you cannot use a B52 on one card and a B14 on another to win, you should not be able to use assets of one account to promote another.
Unfortunately this is very hard to implement, at least in the sense of allowing multiple accounts by a single player. On the other hand, perhaps the spirit of playing more than one bingo card can be implemented under the scope of a single account, just as all the bingo cards, no matter how many, must be bought and played by only a single person.
for instance, the reason to create additional accounts in MCS right after opening or the reset is so you can grab more streets than your 3 mil allows. this can be addressed in other ways, for instance a bid/lottery system on initial opening or a controlled rollout of new areas on the map.
you could also allow each player account to have as many "sub accounts" as they like. the only restriction is that sub accounts cannot trade with each other.
im sure there is a way to implement a reasonable solution. thanks for commenting! if we get an alternative game started, this will be an important issue to think through.
Sub-accounts can't trade with each other?
ReplyDeleteThat would spawn alot of TTP accounts created for enabling trades between sub-accounts...
Personally, I think that multi-accounters are kind of "gaming the system" even if the rules technically allow it.
ReplyDeleteThere is no feasible technical way to prevent people from registering multiple accounts in a free (or essentially free game). Right now, you have 99% of the players with a single account, and 1% gaming with multiple accounts. Any tech-based solution will just remove 99% of the existing multi-accounters. There will still be 1% OF THOSE that will circumvent the requirements.
So, the only feasible way to eliminate multi-accounting is to remove the economic advantage of it. As far as I understand it, multi-accounters play this way for 3 reasons:
1) To grab up real estate (hog as much property to keep out competitors)
2) To sell high value streets to their main account for rock bottom prices (transfer high value real estate to main account)
3) To sell low value streets to their multi accounts for inflated prices (transfer cash to main account)
The solution is to remove the economic advantages of each.
1) Reduce the amount of cashflow in the game so that everyone is really starting with around $200,000, buying some small streets and slowly building up to being able to afford bigger streets. It should take weeks not days to be able to afford a million dollar street. This means no immediate rush and land grab.
2) Implement a 7-day bid system on all properties valued over $500,000 including bank-owned properties. List this properties as "purple for sale" in the streets list (it really doesn't matter who is selling them). When the first bid is placed on a property, the owner must choose to allow the auction. The bank always allows the auction on properties it owns. When the auction closes, the highest bid (subject to point 3 below) wins the property.
3) Implement a market-multiple value on all bids based on historical sales of the last 100 sales in that particular country. For example, if the last 100 sales completed in USA averaged 5 times the "base monopoly value" of the properties sold, then set the minimum sell price at 75% of that (i.e. the minimum bid needed to begin an auction) and the "buy it now" price at 125% of the multiple (i.e. the price at which the property is automatically sold and the auction ended). Do not allow bids below 75% or above 125%. This means that there is governing force limiting the ability to move cash back to the main account at the beginning of the game, and it means that over time the prices of all properties will gradually inflate, meaning that multi-accounters won't be able to sell high-value properties at a bargain to their main accounts.
This in effect defines an arms length transaction in the game (which is needed) and ensures that other players can jump in and compete fairly in any transaction being considered.
Bjorn, I was thinking of something like the way MMOs allow multiple characters under a single login. But you are right, a simple way around any limitations would be a third party.
ReplyDeleteIf all property trades are required to be open public auctions with a minimum time period of say 24 hours, then perhaps this could be reduced since an outside person could always outbid the third party designated to perform the transaction. But still there would be much abuse I am sure.
Some simple algorithms could detect suspicious transfers (A.1 -> B -> A.2) but again abuse would be possible, just more difficult. This is something that should be explored prior to much coding, because a good solution here will improve gameplay.
@TNT
ReplyDeleteWhile it is not possible to prevent multiple accounts, it is possible to make it much more of a pain in the ass :) OpenID or email registration is a start. Sure, it can easily be gamed, but at least it isn't so easy as MCS.
I totally agree that the best solution is simply to remove the incentive. I like your ideas. Of course we need to slow down the game as you mention in #1. I was thinking of doing a special auction/silent bidding system on initial roll out, so that you cannot grab a ton of streets. You have to bid high on the streets you want, and the only way to ensure a chance is to bid 100% of your starting money on a single street. Also possible would be a staged opening of areas, so that only maybe 10% of the map was open in the beginning and more properties became available every day for the first 10 days. Or something like that :)
Im sure were all aware of it but there is another form of cheating that is perhapes more disruptive than unequal wealth transfer.
ReplyDeleteThat is the 'Attack of the clones' style where a number of multi's are used to attack and overwealm a specific individual.
There has already been discussion in the blogosphere about introducing some sort of upper limit for the number of attacks a player can sustain...personally I dont think you should be able to hazard someone elses property!
In what universe do you live where you are able to build a factory/prison/sewerage works on someoone elses property?...but that little gripe has nothing to do with the cheating.
I would like to see an element of success introduced into attacking another player, so that the frst attack has good chances but the second (from any account) has reduced chances against that property.
I would also like to see penalties for failed attacks introduced...go to Jail, do not collect rent next rollover....that sort of thing.
Finally one element that could control attacks from multi-accounters is to make it so that you have to have a property in the local area in order to attack another property (a safe base to work from so to say)
Players should also be able to pay for protection, either to increase the chance of catching a would be attacker, or perhapes even paying off an attacker for the day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Scion
ReplyDeleteYou've got some good ideas. I think maybe the concept of "hazarding" someone else's properties does not even belong in the game. If the goal is to become a real estate mogul, what does griefing other players have to do with it? We are working on some much more interesting ways to provide competitive play without the simple minded sabotage tactics of MCS. You might want to copy your post onto the new forums at http://www.opencitystreets.com/forum
perhaps more in the spirit of the original game would be if drawing a hazard card meant it was YOUR street that got the hazard placed on it. that would also prevent the carpet bombing of other peoples streets
ReplyDeleteto keep the interactive aspect the demolish cards could still be usable on other peoples streets and there could perhaps be some kind of marketplace where you can offer money for someone to come and remove hazards off your street for you
i also like the idea of making all trades go up for public auction for x days which would stifle artificially cheap trades tho not paying too much as a way of moving money into a main account - although even there the delay in completing the trade is probably enough to remove any monetary advantage.
There are various other methods of making life difficult for those trying to manipulate the system - prevent trading between accounts on the same IP or restrict number of interactions between the same accounts - but there are always ways around them and innocents can get caught up in them too.
Possibly the biggest tool against cheating tho is the community - people can be much better at spotting patterns than computers, if a history of a users recent activities was made available from their profile and a means of reporting suspect behavior was available then many potential cheaters could be identified for investigation