So u know how people keep glitching or hacking or glitching in colony. Well how about krin chooses a groupd of people to be glitch and hack police. so everytime someone will glitch they will tell the hack glitch police then they will have to show proof that they were hacking. I got the ideo from this game called power soccer. every time someone cheats or hack they rport to the admins gives proof and they bann them. how about u u get 4 bannes ur kicked. So people will stop glitching or hacking.
You clearly don't play Colony enough to know whats being used.
The number of hacks are all fine and dandy. It explains what the hacks are so you can tell when a hack is taking place. I'm just sort of astonished how you know 80% of us are hacking.
[quote=SoymasterYos]The problem with most of the community is most of them don't know the difference between a hack and a glitch. Plus, 68% (possibly 80%) of the current community glitch to win.[/quote]
This is what I said. Nothing about players hacking. I also stated 68% glitch to win becasue most of the community are smurfs(posers), which are in the form of guest most of the time. I dont know that exact % of players glitching, but I know from experience it's over 60%, which is why most of the community does it. When you tell a person an easy way of doing something they will take it. This also explains why the level of play is so low, excluding the Foxer openning.
Just reporting the person to an Administrator seems fine. I don't think there is a need for a whole bunch of new moderators for a game.
Someone made a thread about a Exit Path hacker that hacked the uniplayer leaderboards and showed a screenshot of it and he was removed short after an Administrator saw it.
I think if you provide a screenshot or video of the person hacking then they could be banned. Also if Krin would fix some of the glitches in the game then I think most of the people would be stopping.
The problem is even banned players can still play under thier username. I don't want people to be IP banned becasue then the hackers and gltichers will become guest spamming the registered players to no end.
@nesanelf: There are ways of modifying flash code live. People have created apps for it (I'm not going to tell anyone where to find them, but I will say I know where to find a few). Having just said this, I must say that I am a firm advocate of legitimate playing in all games (you wouldn't believe how often I run into hackers/glitch exploiters in all the other games I play. Or maybe you would).
Now, for my general post:
I think that having mods specifically assigned to this issue would be a good idea IF the following rules were put in place: - In order to ban a player, two or more moderators must "sign" on the action. This could be implemented by giving each mod a random password that they need to enter. This way, no single person could abuse the power in their hands. - There must be legitimate proof of hacking or abuse of glitches for a ban to occur. This could be implemented hand in hand with the above rule so that moderators get a different password each time they have to "sign" on something. Each moderator would receive a private message containing the password and additional details.
With the "signing" system in place, moderators would not be able to simply ban a player. Here's how I picture the system working in my head: A moderator gets a report of hacking. He creates a "case" for it on some system and includes any details he can, which should include anything submitted by the reporting player, and any other details deemed necessary (has this user been reported before, is the reporting user reporting everyone they play against, etc.). Another moderator who is online receives a notification about the case, and then reviews the case. He then "signs" the case "yes" or "no" (see notes at bottom of post). Another moderator is now notified (this prevents the first signer from signing because they recognize the player and deciding to ban the player out of spite), and goes through the signing process. A third signer might be necessary for a majority rules if one mod signs "yes" and the other signs "no."
Now, signing could mean one of two things: signing "Yes this player should be banned" or "No, this player should not be banned." This could be achieved by use of a radio button or dropdown where they select which they choose. They would also include details of WHY they selected their answer. Another textbox would be for the code they received in their notification.
This could be implemented by giving each mod a random password that they need to enter. This way, no single person could abuse the power in their hands.
Wait....why this rule? The mods are mods, meaning AG has chosen them based on their strict regulations and rules, so I doubt they'll abuse power. Unless of course you meant recruiting new mods.
The multiple mod idea is rather hard....seeing most of the time the mods themselves aren't always online together. Most are busy with their own lives.
anyway um kevin i dont understand wat you meant change 1 line of code you change the whole game. How do you propose you hack into the HTML code??????
Flash games don't run on HTML, and until HTML5 becomes popular a majority of web-based games won't either. Linktopast30 explained the rest.
In my opinion why not just forget about all this BS about controlling mods. If a mod is given powers then it is because they have been trusted in knowing how to use it properly and not abuse it. The thing is the mods in the community forums have not been blatantly banning people just because they don't like them, or are on a power trip(that I know of) so why would it be any different in a game? Regardless I'm not sure where I stand on this idea. I kind of like the idea of having in-game mods, but on the other hand AG's admins tend to not be lenient with their mod requirements, making it difficult to find mods in the first place that could take over these roles, and would be willing to play Raze all the time.(I can only think of one mod off the top of my head that ever played the game in the first place) and special mods with partial powers has already been suggested before, and shot down because if someone is worthy and trusted enough for these smaller powers, then they should also be trusted enough to become a full one. I would really have to look at any other pros and cons concerning the issue overall before taking a real position on it.
