ban people from playing dirtybomb with vac bans !

(Ghosthree3) #21

Oh. God.

I am so sorry.

(LANshark) #22

This is one reason paypal is so based though.[/quote]

Where I live paypal is not a thing.[/quote]

you have my deepest condolences.

(Snark) #23

So basically what you’re saying is if you haven’t spent actual money on this game you shouldn’t be allowed in competitive? That wouldn’t go down well…[/quote]

Limited Steam accounts. The system Steam uses to reduce the amount of spammers and scammers in the Steam ‘community’ population. Reporting and banning does nothing if I click on a hacker’s account and the only game they have played on that account is Dirty Bomb, as happened 2-3 days ago.

(ludicrousBlast) #24

In modern warfare 2 there was a cheat to make the anti cheat think people were cheating, thus vac banning them. That’s what I have heard at least, and I don’t think it would be fair to not let them play a game because of that, maybe make the anti cheat prioritize those people, but don’t ban them.

(Amerika) #25

According to a dev post on Reddit importing VAC bans isn’t something they allow. Now, whether that means they don’t allow it through their API to easily import them or if it’s against Valve’s terms of service in using Steam as a developer…I don’t know.

I know sites like steamdb shows VAC bans but I don’t know if that’s populated via an API Valve lets devs have access to or if it’s due to steamdb doing web scrapes. But I wouldn’t really be in favor of auto-banning anybody with a VAC ban anyway. But according to SD it can’t be done.

I would be much more in favor of what @Snark mentioned as I’ve suggested this in the past. Do not allow people who have not spent $10 on Steam (not just DB itself) to play in ranked MM, only allow those people to use Autojoin and have the Autojoin only put them on servers with others who have similar accounts. This would eliminate a huge portion of the cheaters in any F2P game as the barrier to entry would have a not insignificant monetary attachment. This isn’t a perfect solution but it’s one that would have the largest impact on preventing cheating while having a small impact on the legit playerbase.

(Ghosthree3) #26

I’d rather games just start costing money again tbh. If DB cost $40-60 cheaters would drop real fast after getting banned once, if at all.

(Nail) #27

nope

(Amerika) #28

I like the $10 as it’s a compromise and keep the barrier to entry virtually free for anybody who has been on Steam for a while but puts a monetary hit on cheaters and will reduce the amount of repeat cheaters probably as much as if the game cost $60.

(D'@athi) #29

Mh, if I would have to open my wallet for it, ok. If we were out of beta, with at least the month’s old bugs beeing fixed, ok.
But to be honest, simply look over your shoulder at CS:GO. Most of the time costing 13 eur, and still many many cheaters there. As a friend always says, probably kids, having told their parents, it’s a subscription-model, costing 13eur a month… :slight_smile:
(Ok, imo they do the sales with 7?eur directly after the banwaves, and not to mention the reports, coders wanting percentages from the quite high cash-prizes of their “pro-players”, but ok)

Still, you would lose all those just-wanting-to-try-it-and-probably-staying-people.
And, just keep in mind, even WoW’s subsciption-model is theroretically not as good, as some f2p’s for this number of subscribers (or was, at good times, before they’ve chosen to hunt away all the famous people doing the pr for for them for free).
People simply pay more when you offer much different stuff with low pricetags (customization), than for the whole package costing less than the rest combined.
So if you put some entry-cash-barrier on it, probably you’d hunt-away many potential customers, probably more than the people that are hurt by cheaters.
Don’t know, but a real problem, I imagine.