Mail Bag

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 224208 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Christey steqve@shore.net
Subject: A final response regarding the use of DeCamper

A final response regarding the use of DeCamper

==============================================

Unfortunately but predictably, the release of DeCamper has fueled the camping debate.  We don't want to enter or challenge the camping debate, and in fact we're not particularly pro- or anti-camper ourselves.  People expressed a desire for such a tool and we provided one.  The camping debate will rage on regardless of the success or failure of any anti-camping mods.

DeCamper 0.1 (or its successors, or any anti-camping mod) is available to server owners to use IF they want to.  Server operators have the freedom to run DeCamper, or not.  They have an option to punish a camper severely, or not.   Players have the freedom to join a server that runs DeCamper, or not.  The players on that server can decide whether to allow camping, or not.  While DeCamper 0.1 has its limitations, it is still an open question as to whether or not such a tool should be used even if it eliminates abuse.  We think it is up to the individuals' freedom of choice whether or not to use this or similar tools.

In some sense, going to an anti-camping server is similar to going to a CTF or Team Fortress server, or one with a weapons mod.  If you want a particular style of game play, you go to a server that offers it. Like these other mods, DeCamper changes the game play.  If the Quake community decides that an anti-camping tool is not appropriate, then they will not use it and "Project Yellow" will go away.  Two Pole Software has other much less controversial works in the making, so the potential failure of this tool within the community is not particularly disconcerting.

Now that there is a tool available that attempts to address camping, perhaps a poll would be useful to get some sense of what players and server owners really think about using an anti-camping mod.

We believe it would be unproductive to fuel the camping debate any further by posting any more comments on whether anti-camping mods should be used or not.  However, we will address the technical concerns of anti-camping mods if the need arises.

- SteQve, Rohn, and Mr. X (Two Pole Software)

---

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 102953 -0700
From: "Michael Buttrey"
Subject: Mailbag Camping.

Camping, sniping and other such "undesirable" tactics are forms of ambushing.
Ambushing is getting the first shot in.
Quake 2 is designed in such a way that ambushing is the most effective tactic you can ever use. Ambushing appears in Quake 2 to such a large degree because of high weapon lethality. Even id software planned for anti-camper patches, you can see figments of the idea in the source. These systems will not cure ambushing, or camping, or sniping, or whatever deregatory name you wish to call it.

To solve a problem, you must attack the source Weapon Lethality.
Almost all the weapons easily kill an unarmored player within a second, and most will kill most players within a few seconds. This is a sign of shallow gameplay. What's the best way to survive in a game like this? Ambushing. The "best" skill in Quake is surviving a long, even battle, but these rarely take place.

id software designed Quake 2 for short and uneven battles, with high weapon lethality, super-powerups, excessive item gathering (there is no need for a range of power, especially not a range gained through item gathering), and unbalanced items. (jacket armor and a shotgun to hyperblasters, power armor and a tons of cells.) This is fun for a while... but it doesn't show much depth. The best skill is nearly irrelevant. Only among thresh and others do we see true gaming... but that isn't possible in the mere world of quake.

I've contacted id several times, as have other people. No response.

I've posted a longer dissertation down below on weapon lethality. Feel free to leave it out.

... Here goes

"The balance between the ability to do damage and the ability to take damage is probably the most critical aspect of a game in terms of gameplay. Simply put, the more powerful a weapon is relative to the amount of damage a player can take, the more important a single hit is in the game.

"The more important a single hit is in the game, the more important making the first hit is. When single hits are very significant in the game, fast target recognition and fast reaction time become the most important skills in the game, lowering the importance of deep skills like intentional use of terrain.

"Furthermore, the first hit will not always go to the quickest player. When the first hit is pivotal, how does a player guarantee that they get the first hit (maybe even the only hit)? By ambushing, sniping, and other such tactics, all of which involve more shallow skills, such as the ability to recognize a good ambush position, and not choke on the free shot. The core idea behind ambushing is, after all, finding an easier way to kill someone than killing them in even combat.

"Preventing ambushing, sniping, reflexes and ping from dominating a game is accomplished by ensuring that the first hit doesn't all but determine the outcome of the ensuing combat. In Quake this can be achieved by through lower weapon lethality.

"Even when the first shot doesn't all but determine the outcome of combat, ambushing is still a somewhat effective tactic that has a bad effect on gameplay. This is problem best solved in map design."
Expert Game Design, (http://www.planetquake.com/expert/)

When I see variables that look like you want to reduce camping in gamex86.dll, and I see id's employees mentioning the camping problem, I have to wonder if they know the cause. Well, here's a large part of it. Implementing the above solution would also reduce cheating. See

"Be forwarned.. this could be considered a "rant".

"There is one and only one workable methodology to prevent cheating in network games.

1.Remove all dependencies on the behavior of remote machines, ie make the network model fully express the game model.

2.Remove all elements in the game that computers can do much better than humans.

"An example of a violation of rule 1 is the Ring of Shadows or any dark spot in a level. Examples of exploiting this problem include altering models and relighting levels. The solution is to either never make difficulty in recognizing an opponent a factor in the game (no great loss in my opinion), or to actually not send information about completely invisible game objects to the client.

"An example of a violation of rule 2 is the great advantage that extremely quick reflexes and extremely accurate aim convey in regular Quake. An example of exploiting this problem is the Stooge bot. The solution is lower lethality, as is my (imperfect) solution in Expert Quake to both cheating and ping differences.

"Zoid correctly points out that people will find a way around any attempt to do verification of client code and client files. More importantly, there is almost no benefit to making the hacking of the client arbitrarily difficult. All that is necessary is that one person successfully hacks the client. That one person can then make it arbitrarily easy for other people to repeat his hack. At that point all that's necessary to cheat is to know of the hack, and to want to.

"Yes, I am claiming that preventing cheating bottoms out in game design. Designing a game for game depth has great synergy with cheating prevention; in fact, rule 2 is almost a statement of what game depth is.

"For abstraction enthusiasts, you could arguably collapse both rules into:

"The interface between the human and the network model must accomplish all tasks that can be done better by a computer."
Expert Quake News, (http://www.planetquake.com/expert)

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 121138 -0500
From: "Erik"
Subject: mailbag

I was upset to learn about this new decamper-patch, there goes the bulk of my easiest frags. Who will sit perfectly still for me now while I frag them?

Previous Mailbag