Ending fake accounts

[His Lord Uberdude]

I was playing Runescape the other day (good game), and I was thinking about the multiple accounts problem.

Part of how the cut back on fake accounts is that they don't allow transferring of items ("trading," as they call it) unless both parties are logged on. It seems simple, but it does crack down on things. Part of the problem with our system is that you can make bank transfers anytime of anyday to anyone.

The other part of how the cut back is by simply not allowing multiple accounts to be logged in from the same IP. Obviously, this makes it rather difficult to send items to a second account.

So, we can apply this quite well in this game, I think. The most effective part would be not allowing multiple IP's to be logged in simultaneously. I know there are those of you who are on the same router in your office, etc., but we have to think for the good of the game. Fake accounts must be stopped, and while our currents methods may work somewhat, but they're not 100% there, and they're a pain to boot.

And the other part: both parties must be logged on to perform bank transactions. This should REALLY kill transferring items between multiple accounts, when combined with the above rule. I know it'll be a pretty big bother, but I think it's workable.

[Lukepuuk]

But two problems would remain:

1) What about different time zones? There are a few in my alliance that go to sleep when I wake up and visa versa.

2) It is so easy to use software to fake your IP. Or just a proxie. So it might be useless coding for Mickey then.

Though perhaps vBulletin has a simple mod for this.

[shadowdani]

And the other part: both parties must be logged on to perform bank transactions. This should REALLY kill transferring items between multiple accounts, when combined with the above rule. I know it'll be a pretty big bother, but I think it's workable.

That wouldn't solve the problem, because to be online simultaneously you just have to use two different browsers like firefox and ie, one using a proxy. In this case you would avoid two identic ips and both "users" would be online at the same time.

i think the best way to prevent fake accounts should be some restriction in bank transfers, as that is the only way fake accounts are useful to the cheater.

shadowdani

[speedfreak227]

i think getting rid of transfers would be a good idea. while it's nice to help out a teammate sometimes it's also the easiest way to cheat.

speedfreak227

[WaywardTraveller]

i think getting rid of transfers would be a good idea. while it's nice to help out a teammate sometimes it's also the easiest way to cheat.

speedfreak227

I think that transfers are an important part of the game, but maybe with a couple of changes...

I'm thinking limit transfers between individual players to once a day, and allow one of each withdraw/deposit for yourself every 10 minutes. (Separate issue, but same feature set. I mention it because I've twice now lost cities when I deposited money, then got attacked, where I could have beefed up and won if I could have got money back out. Bad timing and probably not all that prevelant.)

[speedfreak227]

well, even once a day doesn't really change anything. if "my girlfriend" starts up an account and sends me her daily earnings once per day or even once per week it's still just as profitable for me.

how about you can only send a certain percentage of you total wealth to someone? say 10 or 20%? and that could only be done once per day.

wow, now i'm thinking of how much fun i could have with calculus working that one out.

speedfreak227

[Lukepuuk]

The bank has also become the greatest feature of the game and is necessary if you want to build up an economy. The game should expand and not go back to what it was when it started.
It's still beta so all the time to get the bugs and holes out in some other way.

[cowtreky]

wow, now i'm thinking of how much fun i could have with calculus working that one out.

speedfreak227

Geez speed I know school is important, but geez:spin:

[MkhitarSparapet]

I think that transfers are an important part of the game, but maybe with a couple of changes...

I'm thinking limit transfers between individual players to once a day, and allow one of each withdraw/deposit for yourself every 10 minutes. (Separate issue, but same feature set. I mention it because I've twice now lost cities when I deposited money, then got attacked, where I could have beefed up and won if I could have got money back out. Bad timing and probably not all that prevelant.)

You must be a paid member to use the services of the bank.

[His Lord Uberdude]

You must be a paid member to use the services of the bank.
ZOING!

But that's too much to reserve for members. The bank is just a basic feature that's too intergrated into the game to take away.

And besides, what's gonna stop the paying people from cheating then?

[PlaysWithWolves]

End money transfers and have a default city defense militia that pops up within minutes of a city being abandoned.

Both of those would hurt people with multiple accounts.

[cowtreky]

End money transfers and have a default city defense militia that pops up within minutes of a city being abandoned.

Both of those would hurt people with multiple accounts.

A default militia, hmmmmmm good idea. However money transfers have become are important part of banking.

[WalterNeff]

Blocking connections from the same IP is a good way to hinder someone from establishing a fake account.

You need only to check these two HTTP-environment variables:
REMOTE_ADDR and HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR

If there are for instance multiple connections from one 'REMOTE_ADDR' you must check the other. If HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR has not a value: zappp!

Example: our alliances 'uses' GEW mainly from work, we share all one IP, but in the HTTP-Header you can find a value in HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR.

REMOTE_ADDR 213.xxx.xxx.xxx
HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR 192.168.2.32 (my local IP)

Coding that feature should be done with a snap of the fingers.

[birq]

Blocking connections from the same IP is a good way to hinder someone from establishing a fake account.

You need only to check these two HTTP-environment variables:
REMOTE_ADDR and HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR

If there are for instance multiple connections from one 'REMOTE_ADDR' you must check the other. If HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR has not a value: zappp!

Example: our alliances 'uses' GEW mainly from work, we share all one IP, but in the HTTP-Header you can find a value in HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR.

REMOTE_ADDR 213.xxx.xxx.xxx
HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR 192.168.2.32 (my local IP)

Coding that feature should be done with a snap of the fingers.

But there a tons of people who share computers. For example, I share a computer with my wife, and we both have accounts.

Also, forcing your browser through an anonymizer or just a normal proxy is a snap. You could have a different proxy for each fake account.

[WalterNeff]

But there a tons of people who share computers. For example, I share a computer with my wife, and we both have accounts.

Also, forcing your browser through an anonymizer or just a normal proxy is a snap. You could have a different proxy for each fake account.

Your point!
Then the procedure should be changed, at least it should gave some warnings which could then be investigated.

But as stated above by Lukepuuk:
"The game should expand and not go back to what it was when it started."
Changing the bank parameters to 'only-once-a-day' is a 'giant leap' backwards.

[Lukepuuk]

Your point!
Then the procedure should be changed, at least it should gave some warnings which could then be investigated.

But as stated above by Lukepuuk:
"The game should expand and not go back to what it was when it started."
Changing the bank parameters to 'only-once-a-day' is a 'giant leap' backwards.

I second that. Totally agree. There has to be another way.
It's hard...how about same IP's not being able to send money to eachother?
Good or bad idea?

[cowtreky]

how about same IP's not being able to send money to eachother?
Good or bad idea?

Good Idea

[birq]

how about same IP's not being able to send money to eachother?
Good or bad idea?

Bad. Very bad. Example: Same as above; me and my wife. It's just not feasible to prevent people using the same IP from working together since there are too many legitimate accounts that use the same IP.

[WalterNeff]

[...]
how about same IP's not being able to send money to eachother?
Good or bad idea?

Bad idea.

Our alliance consists only of collegues, we are all sharing one IP through a Proxy/FW and most of the time we are [whisper] using it while at work.

[Timmetie]

right i say harsh measures, cancell the 10 minute thing (how in hell is this stopping cheating?). only allow inter-alliance trading, dont let people change alliances more then once a week.

At any sign that a "person" in the alliance is just funneling all his money to someone else, its stopped.

This way there'd be much less things to check, and cheaters easyer to catch.

ofcourse it limits helping each other for now, but this should change in time as more features are added (they are going to be added right? Give us a sign mickey! Smithe me! set this bush on fire! flood my house!)

[Brendo]

right i say harsh measures, cancell the 10 minute thing (how in hell is this stopping cheating?). only allow inter-alliance trading, dont let people change alliances more then once a week.

At any sign that a "person" in the alliance is just funneling all his money to someone else, its stopped.

The only problem with this is: How are you going to finance a spy for instance?


Give us a sign mickey! Smithe me! set this bush on fire! flood my house!)
Good one :lol: :clap:

[Lukepuuk]

And why would it stop fake accounts? You can put unlimited people in an alliance. WOuldn't you just invite those fake accounts as well?

[WalterNeff]

[...]
At any sign that a "person" in the alliance is just funneling all his money to someone else, its stopped.

This way there'd be much less things to check, and cheaters easyer to catch.
[...]


Then you can bust all members of our alliance as we concentrated our meager resources in one account.

[PlaysWithWolves]

A default militia, hmmmmmm good idea.

Of course, a default militia still wouldn't stop someone from leaving a 100 man army in the city so his second account could fight it and take over. At least it would cost him something, though.

[SqueaL]

How about only being able to send someone else geos once for every 50 gems collected? Most people with multiple accounts just want to send geos from mining, but not bothering to slog it out to collect gems.

[Timmetie]

well walter, then that would be sorted out, and you'd be cleared to go on.

i'm just saying, cheaters have to be struck down sooner. maby a shortcut on the mods "powers" to just freeze it inmediatly. only THEN determining if he/she is cheating or not, and then unfreezing.

not that important now, cause we're in beta. but when the game comes out of beta, they're going to have to be a lot tougher, and anyone with a large army and giving money away should be froze inmediatly.

im stating this because kable-something- did this, but was completely legit. so he'd be cleared and moving on in a matter of hours. whilst the real cheater was allowed to keep his armies for days.

[WILDCAT1976]

The under 18 people won't like this...but one way that would cut down on multiple accounts is to use a credit card....Maybe charge a $1.00 fee or something like that. I know I would be willing to do this to make the playing field fair. I'm sure many would. If you are under 18 then I'm sure your parents would let you do the $1.00 charge.

I realize that if you have 6 credit cards you could have 6 accounts. It would be waaaaaaaay less and would be easier to keep an eye on this way.

I would guess that it would cost money to set up the secure site...maybe a paypal thing or something....

I dunno...as always I"m just kinda babbling....but something like this would be one of the few things that would actually work.

[araT]

Nice idea wildcat - and it ties neatly in with the donation system, too. :)

T.

[His Lord Uberdude]

Hmm. So, even with the non-paying peoples, they'd be required to make a $1.00 "donation" to ensure that they're not a fake account?

[speedfreak227]

Hmm. So, even with the non-paying peoples, they'd be required to make a $1.00 "donation" to ensure that they're not a fake account?

wouldn't paying a dollar make them a paying member?

and on that note i'd be willing to drop a loonie to play. (it's one of those crazy canadian currency divisions that we make from bird parts). time to go warm up the dog sled team.

speedfreak227

[Timmetie]

Or, if you want to play hard-ball, you get a free account that has no bank transactions and only a 1-time pay will upgrade it to what we have now.

and then the paying mebers get another bonus on top of that.

[WILDCAT1976]

Or, if you want to play hard-ball, you get a free account that has no bank transactions and only a 1-time pay will upgrade it to what we have now.

and then the paying mebers get another bonus on top of that.

Only thing bad about that is people can create tons of free accounts..build up resources....send armies to a city..then the paying account marches in behind it.

You can still cheat without bank transfers.....I would cut it down a ton but it would still happen

[Timmetie]

aah yes, but attacks are easyer to monitor then bank transfers.

if more then 1 new member suddenly attacks me, without being able to win, ill get suspicious already.

well maby they need a 10k troop maximum, and when (not if) larger army bonusses get in the game noone will notice them : )