A much overdue mass banning

[Hammerskjold]

Perhaps it is nostalgia. Perhaps my memory has become inaccurate due to the amount of time since the event. Whatever the case, I don't remember widespread duping until either just before or just after the release of LoD. I am fully willing to accept that it was there and I was oblivious, or simply do not remember. You are probably right on this point. Do we have an actual timeline for this? How long did it take for the cheats and exploits to come along?

I don't have exact info or memory of the exact timeline, but it was big enough for various websites to catalogue some of the common duped rares. I picked up D2 classic for myself maybe around 1.04, and I definitely remember some cheats were already there and made itself comfortable on the couch. I don't remember the exact time when the infamous duping method really started to circulate.

I know for sure I'm not the only one that remembers it.
http://forum.diii.net/showthread.php?t=342587

What do you think the state of the game would be if Blizzard ran a banscan once a week? I think a large portion of the cheaters are willing to suck it up and pay another thirty bucks every couple of years if their account gets banned, but how many would be willing to do so monthly or weekly? (And I'm not trying to imply that this would fix everything, simply that there are further extremities that Blizzard could have gone to which were not necessarily out of realistic possibility.)

That's just it. To the best of my knowledge, Bliz could run a full RustStorm, with no advanced warning to really clean house. As many times as they want. The question is not of technical prowess. The real question is it in their best -financial- interest to do so?

Back to the main point, it seems to be possible to keep an online game relatively clean. It's simply a matter of the parent company putting the money and man-hours into the system. The back end here is of course developing a good repertoire with the fans. I have seen firsthand that people will sink more money into a company that they feel will maintain their game better.

Maybe it's my cynicism, but I'd contend that bliz or the company that signs their paychecks, already looked at the majority of their fan base. To me bliz's actions does cater to most of them or at least not do anything to drive them off b.net permanently even if they could, because like any company they will listen to the majority.

One look at the general public realm should convince you of the observation that fan base does -not- include us.

[Merlinios]

That's just it. To the best of my knowledge, Bliz could run a full RustStorm, with no advanced warning to really clean house. As many times as they want. The question is not of technical prowess. The real question is it in their best -financial- interest to do so?

I misunderstood here. I thought you were trying to say that the actual process of running RustStorm was a financial drain.

Maybe it's my cynicism, but I'd contend that bliz or the company that signs their paychecks, already looked at the majority of their fan base. To me bliz's actions does cater to most of them or at least not do anything to drive them off b.net permanently even if they could, because like any company they will listen to the majority.

One look at the general public realm should convince you of the observation that fan base does -not- include us.

I think this is partially deceiving. The keyword you use here is public. How many Lurkers play publicly, or hang out in trade channels? How about the folks over at the Basin? In a self-perpetuating cycle, the non-cheaters stop playing public games because an increasing percentage of the remaining players is composed of people they'd rather not play with. While I'm sure not convinced that there are fewer cheaters than non-, I do think that the general perception is inflated.

Mostly, though, I find I agree with you when I think about it, except...why the bannings? Is that a financial move? Were those the several thousand they felt were most likely to buy another copy of the game?

I respect Blizzard as a company and a financial organization even if a lot of their more recent decisions have led me to lose respect for them as game-designers (or perhaps more accurately, game-maintainers). I'm sure they did their homework and found the most lucrative way to run Battle.net. I just don't see the connection sometimes, and I think my brain tries to twist that into some kind of hope that they are actually looking out for those of us who want clean realms.

--me

[Hammerskjold]

While I'm sure not convinced that there are fewer cheaters than non-, I do think that the general perception is inflated.

You could say that you believe the perception of the numbers of cheaters compared to non cheaters to be inflated. I say take a closer, colder and sobering look at what's out there. A company like bliz (or any company that can sign bliz's paychecks) did not get to where it is now without doing the same.

I suggest taking some of the value judgement out of your equation, the only value when we're talking from a business POV, is the value of a dollar. The only time cheating enters into that is if it's affecting their bottom line. You can try to make a case that a more agressive method for a cleaner realm will attract more dollars, but that's assuming many players -want- it. From my own observation and opinion, I say they don't, and IMO bliz has factored that in their revolving door policy.

Saying that Lurkers or Basiners don't always go in public games and therefore are not represented in the larger number, is exactly the point. Lurkers and Basiners in general do not form the majority of what's out there in the public realm. There's no deception in that observation.

edited: And weren't you the one that wrote this?

My claim was that the majority of users in the Annihilus-hunting community were cheaters (and quite open about it).

Then you say the perception might be inflated? Right then. Hey the sky looks blue today. What's that you say? You disagree and claim it might not be so blue looking as it seems? You say it actually looks more cyan? If this is going to be a case of being a contrarian for argument sake, or missing the forest for the twigs, sorry but I got laundry to do.

I respect Blizzard as a company and a financial organization even if a lot of their more recent decisions have led me to lose respect for them as game-designers (or perhaps more accurately, game-maintainers). I'm sure they did their homework and found the most lucrative way to run Battle.net. I just don't see the connection sometimes, and I think my brain tries to twist that into some kind of hope that they are actually looking out for those of us who want clean realms.

My cynical take on that is bliz probably feels they have the porridge for D2's structure juuust right. There's enough threat and follow through of bannings that it will satisfy some fans who don't cheat, while not frequent and serious enough to drive away fans who do cheat and are willing to pay for a new cd key.

My less cynical take on the reality of it is, bliz probably knows there will be cheating, and the more successful they are, the bigger and tempting a target they become. They probably adopted a triage method of dealing with it considering D2's structure. Or at least have cheating happens on their terms, standards and conditions. Not on mine or yours, theirs.

[Taem]

My cynical take on that is bliz probably feels they have the porridge for D2's structure juuust right. There's enough threat and follow through of bannings that it will satisfy some fans who don't cheat, while not frequent and serious enough to drive away fans who do cheat and are willing to pay for a new cd key.

My less cynical take on the reality of it is, bliz probably knows there will be cheating, and the more successful they are, the bigger and tempting a target they become. They probably adopted a triage method of dealing with it considering D2's structure. Or at least have cheating happens on their terms, standards and conditions. Not on mine or yours, theirs.

Warden is currently not banning for maphacks, chantbots, and I know a few people who have since been tppk'd so it would seem only certain programs are being monitored for, supporting your theory Hammerskjold, that Blizzard is targeting specific areas of interest to maximize profit and keep the majority content. One other idea I'd like to factor into this stew here is d2 item shops - they make a killing! Some have 24-hour service with someone in India answering the phone on a toll free number. I bet whoever owns the item shops could pay someone in India less than a dollar a day to have them magic find all day long which is how they can offer such good prices. Anyways, how do you think these item shops factor into Blizzards decision, if at all? It seems to me that some of these item shops have inside connections because to my knowledge, some of them lost nothing during the ban-wave, and I bet they weren't all clean (i.e. I'm sure some of them were running bots and not just hiring poor Indians).

[Hammerskjold]

While I've also heard of similar stories of either inside connections, or someone 'goin rogue' with insider information. Those things are almost impossible to prove, and as juicy as the stories are, some of them are verging too close to conspiracy theories for my taste.

Besides, why go to conspiracy theories when we can look at what we already have.

From the mishmash of accurate info and sometimes entertainingly outdated info brought to you by the Arreat Summit (formerly the Chaos Sanctuary):

What is Blizzard's policy on selling Diablo II Characters or Items for real money or using online auctions sites such as Ebay™?

The selling of characters or items is not a feature supported in Diablo II. Any users that choose to participate in this activity do so at their own risk. Blizzard will not facilitate nor mediate in the sale or trading of characters/items. Further, users should be warned that attempts to transfer items between characters can result in lost items or damaged characters. Blizzard is not responsible for lost items or damaged characters.

What reads loud and clear to me is not so much the 'gameplay ethics' as much as bliz does not want the can of worms if a deal goes bad. A deal that technically happens outside of their control and sandbox for D2. This is almost standard business boilerplate stuff.

What's funnier is the line below, and why for me, bliz is not exactly the first place I look for in the matters of 'legit gameplay'. They're not the last place, but definitely not the first place. And why whenever I hear the familiar battlecry of 'play the game the way it's intended to be (by bliz rules)' I can't take it seriously.

What is Blizzard's policy on transferring items between characters or "muling"?

The transferring of items between Diablo II characters is not supported by Blizzard. Users should be warned that attempts to transfer items between characters online are risky and Blizzard is not responsible for lost items. Storage space is limited in Diablo II both for performance and storage space issues and because the designers wanted players to make decisions as to which items to keep and which items must be thrown away or sold.

The 'designer wanted it that way' bit is IMO made obsolete by the increased stash size, touted as a feature in the expansion pack. To be fair the above was really for D2 classic, and doesn't necessarily apply to LoD. LoD has more items, and class specific items. I'd safely bet that bliz did take muling into account when they designed LoD. If anything, they probably guessed that a large number of players would transfer items between characters.

Again from my own reading, what bliz is more concerned about is if they say they do support muling\self muling, they may be held responsible for items lost to a b.net hiccup or whatever else that can go wrong. No company would want that kind of risk for such little to no reward.

[Merlinios]

You could say that you believe the perception of the numbers of cheaters compared to non cheaters to be inflated. I say take a closer, colder and sobering look at what's out there. A company like bliz (or any company that can sign bliz's paychecks) did not get to where it is now without doing the same.
(...)
Saying that Lurkers or Basiners don't always go in public games and therefore are not represented in the larger number, is exactly the point. Lurkers and Basiners in general do not form the majority of what's out there in the public realm. There's no deception in that observation.

I maintain that perception is inflated. In no way am I trying to state that non-cheaters make up even one percent of Battle.net, but we are not so few as a lot of us believe. The perceived number of cheaters is amplified by the way that most legitimate players simply do not play public games. The best example I can point to here is actually Diablo 1. There are a few hundred people playing at any given time. If one joins only public games, one would be led to believe that all of them cheat. But last time I logged in, I knew five or ten people (so maybe as much as 3% of the total population on that realm) personally, and that they did not cheat. But the casual observer cannot find this portion of the population unless he already knows them.

Cheaters, on the other hand, at least in Diablo II, are quite open about it in my experience. When I was still playing online, I frequented public games and went off to solo high experience yielding areas to try to stay on the ladder. For the most part, at least once people started hitting decent gear (or duping runewords, whichever was more needed by the build in question), you'd see an experience run led by a bot, frequently with two or three others discussing the bot, its origin, the most efficient way to run one, etc. There is no attempt to hide from anyone. The cheaters are the vocal majority, while the clean players are the silent minority, making them seem a smaller percentage than they actually are. Which does not change the fact that they are already an exceedingly small portion of the population.



As for Blizzard's money-making policies, I think we're in agreement for the most part, but I'm bad at expressing it. My major point of contention was that other companies are using other models successfully. I'm sure Blizzard has researched the subject on levels deeper than I can fathom without a marketing background, but letting cheaters run rampant is not the only successful way to run a business. Hence my treatise on respecting Blizzard's ability to make financially successful decisions, but still disagreeing with some of their policies. Yes, they are financially successful decisions, but other models are also successful, and it is to companies that use a specific subset of these other models that will get my future business.

Moreover, almost the entirety of posts in this thread have been based on the following:

1) Blizzard action
2) <my observations and logic>
3) Blizzard profits

We know their actions and ultimate motivation, but we do not know what specific logic is applied to bridge, for example, banning several thousand accounts and making/keeping more money. I can only speculate (poorly, as I have no marketing background).

--me

[Hammerskjold]

Why are you using D1 as an example for D2's situation and structure? This is the shaky analogy thing again IMO. So to the casual observer of D1 public games, there seems to be a lot of cheaters. For people who knows people who don't cheat in D1, they know not everyone cheats, BUT, they have to know those people already.

Therefore, to them, the perception is inflated. Therefore, -D2'-s perception of amount of cheating is inflated. But they might not be, because you then go on saying in D2 cheaters are more open about it.

I'm going to say you might need a coffee break on this one. If you're just going to do a game of 'is so- is not', I'm too old and tired for that. I've seen you display a solid grasp of logic before, but I can't say I see it in that example you gave.

As to your specific D2's example, it seems to me you're basically agreeing to the basic points that has already been brought up by others and myself. So...yeah? D2 online has more cheaters in public realm, and their voices are louder. And you still maintain that perception is inflated by citing the examples of, D1? We're talking about D2 yes?

Now if it's a case of arguing if the sky is blue today, I say it's maybe 90% blue and you claim no it's not blue at all! It's actually 89%-89.999% Cyan. Again, excuse me, but my laundry is piling up.

My major point of contention was that other companies are using other models successfully.

And? We're talking about bliz here, not other companies. Bliz may look at other models of success, their own and others. Judging by their reputation of highly polishing a concept until it shines they most likely do. But I'd safely bet they do that at the creation stage, not after the product has reached the completion stage.

Bluntness time again, D2 has probably reached that stage of 'done', product wise. The fork was stuck in ver. 1.10, and it will be final and official when or if D3 hits the shelves.

I'm sure Blizzard has researched the subject on levels deeper than I can fathom without a marketing background, but letting cheaters run rampant is not the only successful way to run a business.

You're still mostly in the gamer's perspective, throwing around 'cheaters running rampant'. While it does come into play in a business sense, in that if the reputation is so bad and trumpets "all online cheaters welcome!", sales and customer relations will suffer.*

Sales and customer relations could also suffer if the punishment gets in the way of the game, too uneven, or deemed too severe. You might say well chaps, let's take it on the chin like a man and suffer for the greater good if you're a true legit player etc etc. I say bawl-locks, your priorities or mine are not necessarily shared by bliz. For practical and cost reasons in a business context, too many false positives and too agressive methods can just as easily backfire. For those reason I can see bliz deciding they can't afford to have an overly aggresive policy.

To your standard bliz might be too lax. As a gamer, I'd mostly agree. From a business POV, they probably looked at who is the majority of their customer base, looked at their options and -finite- resources, and for both practical and cost reasons I wouldn't be surprised if their current policy is deemed 'working as intended'.

*(During D2's impending release, IIRC one of the big concern was whether or not bliz learned the lessons of D1 online cheating. Wanna bet if the same question pops re: D3 compared to D2? If it hasn't already? Wanna bet that bliz probably did learn, with some lessons from WoW too, but there probably will be new problems that D2\D1 didn't see? All this has happened before, and will again.)

...that will get my future business.

And that, is probably the best line that came out of our jawing so far. That's probably the only meaningful vote you or I have as a consumer. If we're talking strictly business.

Of course it's possible that many people's mindset may change and decide that no, seeking and using a questionable advantage in an online near anonymous environment, even if there's nothing that substantial at stake, well that's just not very sporting or fair no sir! "Holy crap, if I don't cheat in D2 online, hell I just have to pay for a CD key once. So not only do I learn more about the game, it might make economic sense for me not to cheat in b.net!"

When that day come, well let's just say the whole world might be better and not just B.net. I'm not exactly holding my breath on that one though. Cause again, laundry, piling up. (I'd love to be proven wrong with that whole mindset change though. If that happens, we might really advance as a species and I can have my flying car and meal in a pill.)

Feel free to reply, I'll certainly read it. But this is my stop at this train ride before it becomes a merry go round.

[Merlinios]

Recap, as much for my own mental organization as anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong:

Facts we agree upon:
-Diablo2's population on Battle.net is composed primarily of cheaters.
-Blizzard is aware of this.
-Blizzard does little to change it.

My conjecture:
-Most people perceive the ratio of cheaters to non-cheaters to be higher than it actually is (irrelevant to this discussion).
-Blizzard could do/have done something about the cheaters; other companies have shown that a successful anti-cheating policy is not necessarily at odds with profit.
-I would be happier if they would do so, even if it would represent some form of setback.

Your counterpoint:
-There is nothing wrong with my conjecture in the abstract, but in the particular case of Blizzard and Diablo2, it is completely irrelevant. Blizzard has already set up a policy; they are fully aware of the associated "problems", risks, costs, and anything else of that nature and simply choose to let the ecosystem they have created exist.



I think most of our disagreement comes from my disinterest in examining what we already agree on, and your disinterest in examining what will not come to pass. My nit-picking nature probably didn't help matters here.

Regardless, it's always a pleasure to bandy words with someone who likewise understands logic, especially someone who will not hesitate to point out fallacious conclusions. Now I'll probably disappear for a few months as school starts again next week. :(

--me

[Hammerskjold]

Now I'll probably disappear for a few months as school starts again next week. :(

--me

I'm going to cheat here and chime in last time, this time I mean it.;)

First of all, good luck on your studies.

Second, I found this older article that might be of interest.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/200007...rd_pfv.htm

The author has an interesting perpective from a gamer, developer, and some general business angle. In short, his take on the subject has way more weight and insight than I have at present. (Some of the more technical matters are way over my head, but his italicized rules\observations seems to hold true even today.) And even he kinda says he's only scratching the surface.

Again, good luck with your school.