[DISCUSSION]What is justified?
Comments
-
you're talking about being justified when not to long ago you and some other ESL staff made the decision to ban someone from ESL because of a bust video on Youtube and certain statements on these forums?
first you should work on making an anti cheat that you can actually depend on, then we can discuss ban durations. Just do what ESEA does:
- 6 month bans
- bans based off of client detections of hacks that are INJECTED into the game
here's the problem though, ESL isn't capable of this. That, and we have moderators on Z8games that are also ESL administrators. This is a ticket to trouble as the majority of staff aren't even sophisticated and ethical enough to control their urges of abusing their powers (that they shouldn't have in the first place) Sorry, but everything is too personal within the staff and community for any good eSports players to even think about playing ESL. A month or two ago I had Iceman (I believe) tell me on these forums after an argument that their anti cheat caught me with cheats (I laughed as I have never touched that leauge in any way) which already told me that this is going to be a poorly managed league as it's infested with administrators that can't control their urges of making up lies and abusing powers. -
TASTELIMESS wrote: »you're talking about being justified when not to long ago you and some other ESL staff made the decision to ban someone from ESL because of a bust video on Youtube and certain statements on these forums?
first you should work on making an anti cheat that you can actually depend on, then we can discuss ban durations. Just do what ESEA does:
- 6 month bans
- bans based off of client detections of hacks that are INJECTED into the game
here's the problem though, ESL isn't capable of this. That, and we have moderators on Z8games that are also ESL administrators. This is a ticket to trouble as the majority of staff aren't even sophisticated and ethical enough to control their urges of abusing their powers (that they shouldn't have in the first place) Sorry, but everything is too personal within the staff and community for any good eSports players to even think about playing ESL. A month or two ago I had Iceman (I believe) tell me on these forums after an argument that their anti cheat caught me with cheats (I laughed as I have never touched that leauge in any way) which already told me that this is going to be a poorly managed league as it's infested with administrators that can't control their urges of making up lies and abusing powers.
couldnt agree more. -
TASTELIMESS wrote: »you're talking about being justified when not to long ago you and some other ESL staff made the decision to ban someone from ESL because of a bust video on Youtube and certain statements on these forums?
first you should work on making an anti cheat that you can actually depend on, then we can discuss ban durations. Just do what ESEA does:
- 6 month bans
- bans based off of client detections of hacks that are INJECTED into the game
here's the problem though, ESL isn't capable of this. That, and we have moderators on Z8games that are also ESL administrators. This is a ticket to trouble as the majority of staff aren't even sophisticated and ethical enough to control their urges of abusing their powers (that they shouldn't have in the first place) Sorry, but everything is too personal within the staff and community for any good eSports players to even think about playing ESL. A month or two ago I had Iceman (I believe) tell me on these forums after an argument that their anti cheat caught me with cheats (I laughed as I have never touched that leauge in any way) which already told me that this is going to be a poorly managed league as it's infested with administrators that can't control their urges of making up lies and abusing powers.
For one, I'm not ESL staff, so that doesn't apply to me. Two, I actually agree with you on your opinion about the cheats, "bans based off of client detections of hacks that are INJECTED into the game". Three, I'm pretty sure in that situation that Iceman actually DID go back and check those accounts and that it wasn't you. Your sparkling name is cleared. Four, who's abusing powers? Iceman (not speaking for anyone else), is doing a pretty darn good job with what he has to work with, as you said, you must have software that can be relied on. All in all, I do agree with what you say, about the anti-cheat and the comment about Administrators in general. Admins should be sophisticated and ethical in their decisions. All Admins should. Good post. -
TASTELIMESS wrote: »Glad that you agree with me. Looking forward to any other ideas about what a justified punishment system would be.
I'm curious though. You only think 6 month bans should be issued? Doesn't that just defeat the purpose? They just come back and try again don't they? How does that set an example that cheating is wrong if you encourage only a temporary ban? Not arguing, just curious to see what you mean on the subject. -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »I'm curious though. You only think 6 month bans should be issued? Doesn't that just defeat the purpose? They just come back and try again don't they? How does that set an example that cheating is wrong if you encourage only a temporary ban? Not arguing, just curious to see what you mean on the subject.
I wouldn't call 6 months exactly temporary. If the anti cheat is good enough and management is tip top, the user will be banned within a few days, followed by the matches he played automatically being overturned. If people aren't actually trying to bypass and just randomly cheating in matches, then let them waste their time.
Crossfire leagues should start charging players to play in their seasons as it raises the prize pot (if people actually decide to pay and play) and attracts a wider variety of eSport players. Not only that, it will substantially decrease any attempts of cheating in official matches. Leagues will also start obtaining some sort of income unlike when they were hosting their services for free. More income means more opportunity to improve their services, as in a better developer team and better management. -
TASTELIMESS wrote: »I wouldn't call 6 months exactly temporary. If the anti cheat is good enough and management is tip top, the user will be banned within a few days, followed by the matches he played automatically being overturned. If people aren't actually trying to bypass and just randomly cheating in matches, then let them waste their time.
Crossfire leagues should start charging players to play in their seasons as it raises the prize pot (if people actually decide to pay and play) and attracts a wider variety of eSport players. Not only that, it will substantially decrease any attempts of cheating in official matches. Leagues will also start obtaining some sort of income unlike when they were hosting their services for free. More income means more opportunity to improve their services, as in a better developer team and better management.
Definitely agree. However, I'm sure we would both agree that the SERVICE would have to be good enough to be worth being paid for. Can't just slap down events and charge for them. The players should be assured that the service is on that level to warrant paying for events. Interesting theory on the bans too.
While I agree 6 months isn't exactly a slap on the wrist, would that really work in Cross Fire for example? Wouldn't most just shrug it off and come back to attempt it again? Consider the current population of players for that situation. -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »
While I agree 6 months isn't exactly a slap on the wrist, would that really work in Cross Fire for example? Wouldn't most just shrug it off and come back to attempt it again? Consider the current population of players for that situation.
People can change a lot in 6 months. 6-12 month duration is what a lot of big leagues used, and the reason is this: They want the profit. They want to give the cheater another chance in the future, and at the same time collect his money. This applies to the leagues that charged the players, of course.
Most people that you find on the WOGL ban list for cheating weren't banned for cheating in any matches, but because they apparently had cheats on their computer. I think there is a marginal difference between the people that have cheats on their computer and occasionally use them in non-league matches, compared to people that actually set out and attempt to cheat in a league match. I think maybe 1/5 of every people that occasionaly cheat in competitive Crossfire would actually attempt to bypass or just cheat in a league. Just throwing up some rough numbers. The anti cheat should be ready to catch those 1/5 people and give them a timeout. -
TASTELIMESS wrote: »People can change a lot in 6 months. 6-12 month duration is what a lot of big leagues used, and the reason is this: They want the profit. They want to give the cheater another chance in the future, and at the same time collect his money. This applies to the leagues that charged the players, of course.
Most people that you find on the WOGL ban list for cheating weren't banned for cheating in any matches, but because they apparently had cheats on their computer. I think there is a marginal difference between the people that have cheats on their computer and occasionally use them in non-league matches, compared to people that actually set out and attempt to cheat in a league match. I think maybe 1/5 of every people that occasionaly cheat in competitive Crossfire would actually attempt to bypass or just cheat in a league. Just throwing up some rough numbers. The anti cheat should be ready to catch those 1/5 people and give them a timeout.
I see your point. But again, that banks on the Anti-Cheat being good enough to do that, haha
I was trying to convey that to people last night, but apparently what you have on your computer is the Organization's business. I was getting called an idiot because I felt that the only bans that should be enforced are ones that prove cheating at the time you are playing in-game, or prove the injection of the cheats during that league match. What you have on your computer doesn't prove cheating in a league match. I'm not saying cheating is RIGHT, but I'm saying having certain things on your computer for unrelated games doesn't prove cheating in the league match for a title game. -
TASTELIMESS wrote: »I wouldn't call 6 months exactly temporary. If the anti cheat is good enough and management is tip top, the user will be banned within a few days, followed by the matches he played automatically being overturned. If people aren't actually trying to bypass and just randomly cheating in matches, then let them waste their time.
Crossfire leagues should start charging players to play in their seasons as it raises the prize pot (if people actually decide to pay and play) and attracts a wider variety of eSport players. Not only that, it will substantially decrease any attempts of cheating in official matches. Leagues will also start obtaining some sort of income unlike when they were hosting their services for free. More income means more opportunity to improve their services, as in a better developer team and better management.
Well, I suggested season bans for cheats detected which don't pertain to Cross Fire a little while back. What I thought it would do is prevent them from possible cheating in the league matches. Also, it would allow for them to play in other events after they're done. 6 month bans are little severe for some types of cheats [for example, cheats for a flash game] but some types of cheats [injectors, cheat engines] are definitely severe. I actually agree on your first point.
The second point would somewhat work. It all depends on the willingness of the players to pay to play in a league. Most good or decent teams are sponsored [vVv Gaming, ProCore.LPK who are unfortunately dead, hrg`deviate, CRev, and so on]. I'm pretty sure those sponsors would probably be able to pay a small fee [I'd probably hope you're talking $10 a player or less] for their name to be shown.
This "pay to play" league style wouldn't work as well with non sponsored teams [for example, those which are stuck in the open division and cannot move on]. I would think a "pay to play" for the professional division, and a "free to play" for the open division.
This wouldn't be as good as your suggestion [they pay to play, they won't cheat hopefully] but it would probably promote more people to play. Some players don't buy ZP, what makes one think that they would play in a league that requires a buy in?
The income = better business mind set isn't necessarily true, because the developing team has to have the knowledge of what to do.
Once again, I agree with most of what is said.[MOD]Polleus wrote: »I see your point. But again, that banks on the Anti-Cheat being good enough to do that, haha I was trying to convey that to people last night, but apparently what you have on your computer is the Organization's business. I was getting called an idiot because I felt that the only bans that should be enforced are ones that prove cheating at the time you are playing in-game, or prove the injection of the cheats during that league match. What you have on your computer doesn't prove cheating in a league match. I'm not saying cheating is RIGHT, but I'm saying having certain things on your computer for unrelated games doesn't prove cheating in the league match for a title game.
This is true as well, but as far as I know, anti-cheats don't scan what your computer is doing, it's scanning what's on your computer over what's being run on your computer. Correct me if I'm wrong, anti-cheats aren't my specialty. -
This has turned into a bunch of monkeys flinging sh%t at each other...Might I point that out?
It's a discussion thread of OPINION, debate, but don't over think it's direction...The idiot(s) is he/she who thinks otherwise.
@Whoever Said It: "leagues don't need reason..." It's obvious....Tasty was banned from WOGL a year after he ever played in a draft; We all know WHY he was banned, and NOT for his hash report... Your right in the fact they don't need a reason, but how credible is THAT league if they dictate off of ethics? That would be like me going back to WOGL-P when LPK pulled a cold one on LL switching the map the night before and forcing both teams to play the originally stated maps, despite what the rules said...exploitations are not moral; Then again, ruling against the slated rules would be unmoral. How credible would I, Bobby have been if I went AGAINST my rules and ruled differently? There MUST be just cause. We can't argue the rules in place, but can't we debate the severity in which your penalized? There should be a just system with a means of a quality and fair review/investigation...Honesty in my opinion.
@doop Stating you won't play in a league that is open to 'cheaters', or however you stated it. Isn't that a little...construed? WOGL has not been a fair median of non hackers. It's well aware, and pointed out. It's known people don't run it during league matches and drafts. It's been going on how long and people haven't been caught? WOGL doesn't possess the adequate AC to actually monitor gameplay and or the staff to man the AC. When bans from league week two-three are being handed out in week six or seven, having to overturn EVERY match prior, there's an issue. I assure you WOGL is NOT a hack free, or LEGIT environment. You and I both know this, so your statement is void. Until WOGL can man their reports and ACTUALLY review them, monitor gameplay and mediate a system up to date, they're not offering a hack free, legit competitive field; ESL is no better.
@Tasty Although the marketing scheme is a good idea, implementing a pay to play system, people b%tch when it comes to offering ZP weapons in league matches aside from their technical advantages. It would produce a revenue, but more of a stream of conflict. And then you'll have to run contracts with G4Box Inc. . There goes an added %. Here would be a structured table system:
EXAMPLE FIGURE
Option A || Option B
$6.99/player || $41.94/team
*A $6.99 player fee is quality for a season; Not too steep, and affordable to attract a larger base of players. Run a team special for teams of 8 MEMBERS ONLY. For a quality and luring marketing bargain.
10 Teams [All 5 Man Teams]
G4Box Inc. can sign for x% on the ground, meaning from $0.00+ or a lobbied percentage, which would be x% over $x.xx. Let's just say they'll be generous and only ask 15% over $100 USD.
$6.99 x 5 members/Team = $34.95
$34.95 x 10 Teams = $349.50
$349.50 Net - $100 Base = $249.50 Before Contractual %
$249.50 x 15% Owed to G4Box Inc. = $37.43 Acct Payout
$212.07 + $100 = $312.07 Net before company % deductions and prize tier distribution.
Maybe save 10% for the company at most to maximize distribution? Leaving you $280.86 Maybe cap that at $250 prize distribution.
And this is a small scale marketing model for the pay to play. I see it as a long term stride apposed to growth today. Who's to say CF will be alive in six months from now? The field would take a big hit.
Is it honestly worth cutting to a pay to play? Would teams take a significant hit in prizes and pay out of their pockets in the same token? Although a GREAT idea Tasty, this community isn't structured enough in a competitive and business standpoint to run with a pay to play structure, sadly. Competitive gaming for the majority here isn't as serious as it needs to be to have a lucrative pay to play. The talent is here...but the dedication and understanding to that system and that type of gaming isn't here. +1 though Tasty. I'd like to see it done, but is there enough wind in the CF sail? -
@Bobby, I don't want to quote all of that, would be taking up space
Don't forget that leagues don't hand out prizes solely based on the amount of money that comes in from other players and teams signing up. Leagues can, on the occasion, help their game divisions and give them some type of monetary value in which to give to their winners.
I like the $6.99 per player mindset. As for having to pay out G4Box, a league could work out a deal to buy via ZP. What that would do is help players who do surveys and don't have access to credit card / PayPal to gain league access. The same math would be done, but the purchase would be via ZP.
For example, $8.99 = 10kZP is $0.000899 per 1ZP, so a pass would be 7775.3 ZP, round it off to 7800 ZP a pass, which would be fairly easy to get. Would be much easier for G4Box, as they would just a cheque or payment over to the league after passes have been purchased [G4Box keeps the amount they get, send the rest over]. -
. . . . .
No, I understand your side, but I'm only providing a model to look at. Nothnig more than an example. Payouts can range in moons. And on the side of buying in via. Zp, blah blah blah [small print blah's]. I say NO!. And I'll give you reasons why- When dealing with G4Box in the past regarding money it takes FOREVER! LPK can vouch for this. You have to worry about the wait on the check from G4Box + the 60-90 day wait on clearing a check from Canada > United States of America = Distributing the checks appropriately. By the time you get your money and physically allowed to spend it, you're already forgetting about it. One central hand = quicker payouts and rollovers
- Running all fees in-house means no room for error or fixing. Not saying G4Box did any of that when I worked with them in accounting for all paid players. I'm simply giving a corrupt example. A third party can accidentally not account for players, blah blah blah. Keeping everything in the leagues hands leaves only one space for blame and error. It's less hassle, and less headache.
Fun ALL your finances in-house....I'd negotiate a % off the top with G4Box Inc. before I have them assist in everything. It's nothing against them, but I in marketing and finances know this is organized and secured route.
The more the hands in the cookie jar, the less cookies you see....
![[MOD]Polleus](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/7/navatar_8918107.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.6K CrossFire
- 742 CrossFire Announcements
- 740 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 333 Community
- 12 Modes
- 397 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 89 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 17 Looking for a Team?
- 531 CrossFire Support
- 8 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 38 CrossFire Off Topic