[drdaeman]

Ideal solution is to make "cheating" impossible by design rather than by trying to ensure trust.

Don't send the data player is not supposed to know. Don't trust clients to just tell the server what happened. And - I realize this is extremely controversial - ideally don't design games on pure reaction speed, visual acuity and mechanical dexterity where a sophisticated enough machine would consistently and unpreventably beat any human.

I believe we should be able to compete with bots just like we're able to compete with humans - and not because bots are handicapped and constantly toss coins deciding if they want to let the puny meatbag win.

I'm curious if there are any special tournaments where "cheats" are encouraged and even required, not prohibited. Would love to see a FPS where you have all the software aid you can think of. Texture hacks become enhanced vision aids (server may toss a coin and enforce camouflaging by not sending any information, though), auto-aim is smart munitions (so we don't compete on whoever has the faster hands or a better mouse -- see, it's already a competition of machinery!), last-seen markers and sound source visualization are tactical HUDs, and if you want some other feature you're free - as your competitors - to implement it. Naturally, if that's based on an existing game that would require heavy re-balancing of its rules (e.g. nerf of one-shot-kill weapons or buff for supports so in a teamplay they can save their teammates from such weapons). That would be a whole next level e-sports, true to the name.

[UncleMeat]

> And - I realize this is extremely controversial - ideally don't design games on pure reaction speed, visual acuity and mechanical dexterity where a sophisticated enough machine would consistently and unpreventably beat any human.

What games, other than turn based strategy games or puzzle games, don't have the property you list here? And even then, you can absolutely cheat at chess. Like it or not, people want to play shooters online.

[drdaeman]

> What games [...] don't have the property you list there.

A game of almost any genre doesn't have to be designed purely on those neural and mechanical skills.

(And puzzles are actually a bad example, as many can be unimaginatively played by a machine, and machine typically wins in terms of the computing speed. Unlike a complex strategy game where bots don't necessarily dominate human players.)

My previous comment had even hinted at how a FPS could be designed to not depend on one's eyesight difference, sleight of hand or gaming chair performance. If everyone has a perfect aimbot by design, tactics and teamplay (if that's a team game) becomes a deciding factor in a shooter. If everyone has a helper AI that alleviates mundane clicking you don't have to put your mouse on fire doing that 9000 APM micro - the actual strategic thinking and planning ("macro" rather than "micro") makes more important in winning a tower defense or RTS game.

I'd wish I could just write a whole implementation idea, but I'm no game designer. I just believe that things could be designed and balanced in such a way. I can be wrong, but I don't think it's proven yet (given the modern status quo of "don't you dare think of any aids or tools but those game designers have very very explicitly allowed").

It's just that most games out there were never designed for this so their gameplay becomes extremely unrewarding, as there would be a huge imbalance if everyone is mechanically perfect. Which is probably why there is no cheaters' competitions.

Maybe I'm thinking about a different genre, something like first-person-shooter-but-not-FPS?