declined Lock Players in battle If spectator joins

[Frylock 1,617]

Hey, I would like to suggest that due to many people trying to report people during mid match to really catch a hacker, But the hacker immediately leaves before spectator could join is really annoying because there are times when we as players try to vote but the hacker either has too long of a name to report or just rapidly leaves during mid matches. And its hard to keep track of who did what. I would like a fail safe for when a spectator joins in a battle, the players stay until what the spectator has to say and or convict if necessary; and possibly making it easier to catch them. 

[Maf 32,300]

Declined

How will this system stop hackers closing their tab or client window? Or just... you know, turning off hacks when spectator joins?

[Frylock 1,617]

I guess your right but like a fail safe if that spectators join they should mark the player that immediately left like putting a golden name or any color to signify they left. @Maf 

[The-Kill-Switch 96]

6 minutes ago, Maf said:

Under review

How will this system stop hackers closing their tab or client window? Or just... you know, turning off hacks when spectator joins?

if they implement a system where if your client or tab closes mid match, you become a phantom for 2 minutes that cannot interact with anything or be interacted with.  this would help in multiple areas: 1, if a players game crashes they can get back right at the point it crashed and 2, to help catch the hackers. 

if when a spectator joins all players cant manually leave the battle through the "leave battle" button, then supposing  the hacker does just close the application, the phantom will still be there and it would be very suspicious that they conveniently closed the game as a spectator joined and the name would be visible for further action to be taken.

[yellowghetto 3,206]

2 hours ago, MysticBlood said:

Hey, I would like to suggest that due to many people trying to report people during mid match to really catch a hacker, But the hacker immediately leaves before spectator could join is really annoying because there are times when we as players try to vote but the hacker either has too long of a name to report or just rapidly leaves during mid matches. And its hard to keep track of who did what. I would like a fail safe for when a spectator joins in a battle, the players stay until what the spectator has to say and or convict if necessary; and possibly making it easier to catch them. 

I’m gonna be honest with you, I’m your friend, but I don’t like this idea. I don’t want to be trapped in a random MM Battle if it happens. I think the best solution is that there should be a new Helper Position called, “MM Battle Moderator.” This position would specialize on exclusively spectating MM Battles. I’d prioritize the lower ranks because it would seem there are more cheaters there. I recently caught and reported a player in the low ranks trying to show off his “funny nickname” and using a jump hack. 

[Frylock 1,617]

@yellowghetto I mean it was meant for fail safe and it would only lock if spectator is in match due to a vote report. otherwise you can still leave if he/she inst there in mid match.

[yellowghetto 3,206]

2 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

@yellowghetto I mean it was meant for fail safe and it would only lock if spectator is in match due to a vote report. otherwise you can still leave if he/she inst there in mid match.

Or another idea using your idea, is if like 25% of the players in the battle reports the same player, it would lock the accused in battle? And if there is no evidence he leaves? Idk this idea is just really obscure. Better stick with video evidence like it is now 

[Frylock 1,617]

@yellowghetto Yes in a way like I told maf, I said anyone that leaves will have a special mark or color sash to show that they left when spectator join so they can track the hacker easier.. To help cause further investigation. 

[yellowghetto 3,206]

2 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

@yellowghetto Yes in a way like I told maf, I said anyone that leaves will have a special mark or color sash to show that they left when spectator join so they can track the hacker easier.. To help cause further investigation. 

That player is Sus. Better Report the tank and Vote him out.

[alkyng 3,080]

If the teacher want to see who cheats in the exam, he should ask all students to stop writing and see who is cheating?

[Frylock 1,617]

@asem.harbi Yeah I get what concept you are saying but....

[Frylock 1,617]

@asem.harbi  yep but there needs to be a fail safe though

[Frylock 1,617]

@asem.harbi  To help Spectators track hackers or suspicious users easier though.  Like I told Maf earlier that they need a marking system or special color code to see who left when spectator joined to help further investigate the situation further

[alkyng 3,080]

tbh, now the hacks are useless, I wonder from who complain about hackers now... the system of restricting hackers are very good now... maybe in 2012 days the hacks were horrible hurt the game like hiding the tank or come across buildings or jump hack etc... 

[Frylock 1,617]

@asem.harbi But its still not fun going against them period. It just spoils the fun. 

[alkyng 3,080]

6 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

@asem.harbi Yeah I get what concept you are saying but....

 

5 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

@asem.harbi  yep but there needs to be a fail safe though

lol I like how you act with your duplicated replies... btw I know that duplicating happens with wrong I think any moderator comes now can remove this duplicated replies

[alkyng 3,080]

2 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

@asem.harbi But its still not fun going against them period. It just spoils the fun. 

yes true, but can you give me examples of the hackers you see now?  I don't see anyone in the game from a while I wonder from who complain about that

[Frylock 1,617]

@asem.harbi My CPU Lagged rn thats why there was duplicate message My bad XD Its having 20 sec delays when replying. 

[yellowghetto 3,206]

There are always those cheaters hiding in battles, but we can't always tell. They can be lurking Among Us.

[Tokamak 1,021]

Yes it is easy for voted players to leave a battle when the Battle mod comes in. If battle mode could observe unnoticed it would definitely help to catch them red handed.

The efficient way would be to have a point system that flag/tag an account when it reaches a certain points level. When tagged, a battle mod would find and observe the player in battle without being noticed. Point would be the number of time it has been voted. But this will never happen.

So the best way is a video, and /or to scare the guy buy publicly asking other player via the chat to vote for him/her. They usually leave pretty quickly.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Why not just create an option for spectators to enter battles without raising any notifications? No one would know that spectator joined.

[Frylock 1,617]

@ThirdOnion Here's the thing though sometimes they'll just leave when they do commit to a hack before spectator can join sometimes. Meaning they will leave instantly regardless. And that's why they need to have a fail-safe.

[Maf 32,300]

8 minutes ago, MysticBlood said:

@ThirdOnion Here's the thing though sometimes they'll just leave when they do commit to a hack before spectator can join sometimes. Meaning they will leave instantly regardless. And that's why they need to have a fail-safe.

Either way, this feature you propose will cause more problems than it will solve. I agree that the current battle moderation is not as effective as it could be, but there are better ways to improve it. You can find some ideas via this filter.

Status changed to declined.

[Frylock 1,617]

Well At least it was worth a shot..

[alkyng 3,080]

47 minutes ago, ThirdOnion said:

Why not just create an option for spectators to enter battles without raising any notifications? No one would know that spectator joined.

I don't understand what you suggest? you mean spectators will enter the battles without any "vote" or report for a hacker? or you mean the spectator when they enter the battle no one will know? if you mean the second, Already now, when spectator enter the battles no one knows that except when he finish the spotting and caught the hacker or something