It's obvious from the test patch Y18 that it will become a future requirement of LFS Demo users that they open an account.

I would like to suggest something that whilst not being foolproof may go some way towards helping keep S2 license servers free of cheaters and wreckers.

Should a registered demo user be caught cheating or wrecking past a certain point, there should be some way for administrators to inform the LFS devs of who the user is and on top of the server admins banning that user from their servers LFS will refuse to sell that user an S2 License, (or whatever future licenses will be in the future), and therefore refusing them entry to the licenced servers.

There are obvious work arounds, but it should at least reduce the number of licensed cheats/wreckers in the same way as it will for demo users.

Thoughts?

As you said, this is not foolproof. What would prevent wreckers to create another account?

Ideally, this would be +1.
In real life, I would still give +1, even it won't come to true.

the principle is good, but things need more refinement.

i think it would be good to have an "identification system" based on license + cpu serial number/mobo chipset(or something else - hardware related).

so if a guy unlocks, and forgets, S2 to a friend`s computer - in the same network - and that friend wants to joins a server.. he would not be allowed (fails id check).
.. or a demo player, trying to create a second account, after being presented the boot. he could create one, using a proxy, but he won`t be able to.. "unlock".

then after the "identification system", maybe a "penalty system" should be done.
get two "warnings" in a month, third time you`re being "awarded" a ban.. 1-2 weeks~.
after the ban expires, should you crash again, in the "probation period" (next 3/6 months), another - longer - ban should be issued..

and only if the demo account is "clean" in the past x months, he is allowed to buy a license.

after these steps, you only need a "penalty system administrator", receiving and analyzing replays for the "i just joined a server, and these noobs banned me" cases - forcing you to have auto-saving-replay ON, at all times.

ps: sorry if this was mentioned before, if it was, i didn`t see it.. it just came to my mind right now.

*the x stands for "still to be figured".

Quote from STF :

...and only if the demo account is "clean" in the past x months, he is allowed to buy a license...

Agreed just about everything else, except that. Of course he should have rights to buy a license and play offline. Only online-gaming is blocked.

I don't think anyone should be blocked from buying S2, I mean who would pay $50 for a game only to wreck people? That won't happen.

now that you mention it, that doesn`t seem a smart idea like i put it.

i like your idea:

Quote from Gekkibi :

Of course he should have rights to buy a license and play offline. Only online-gaming is blocked.

and i raise you a new one:
after buying the S2 license, have online playing blocked for 2-3 weeks (s2 content), BUT if you finish all training courses (at least 80% of them = Quick/PRO), you bypass that restriction.

STF : that's an anti-Fiona Leggate measure, not an anti-wrecker measure.

Maybe it would be better to life time ban S2 blatant wreckers/cheaters. It's perfectly possible given the licence agreement and bans for causing extreme disruption to the community.

Quote from STF :

and i raise you a new one:
after buying the S2 license, have online playing blocked for 2-3 weeks (s2 content), BUT if you finish all training courses (at least 80% of them = Quick/PRO), you bypass that restriction.

Wasn't LFS like that years ago (You had to "unlock" content)?

Quote from Gekkibi :

Wasn't LFS like that years ago (You had to "unlock" content)?

Yes, but you could just set the AI level to "Pro", choose the shortest track with the fastest car and win 4 or 5 races, and you had everything unlocked.

the noobs didnt know about this trick though, so most of them never drove the gtt (aka xrt)

Quote from duke_toaster :

STF : that's an anti-Fiona Leggate measure, not an anti-wrecker measure.

hehe, yea maybe, but it`s only temporary, and every new buyer will want to play immediately, i know i will.. but i think "training" is there for a reason, and should be part of "being licensed" (or wait 2 weeks :shrug.
its not hard to complete it, but that doesn`t make it useless IMO.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Maybe it would be better to life time ban S2 blatant wreckers/cheaters. It's perfectly possible given the licence agreement and bans for causing extreme disruption to the community.

yes, but you would have to be 101% sure, that the crasher is the rightfull owner of the account.

Quote from Gekkibi :

Wasn't LFS like that years ago (You had to "unlock" content)?

yea but iirc, it was point based, not "delay" based.
oh well, i know i`d spend couple of hours finishing it, dunno about others.

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

I don't think anyone should be blocked from buying S2, I mean who would pay $50 for a game only to wreck people? That won't happen.

Yeah... because it never happens EVER...

*glares at former wrecker barricade*

See my point?

Some wreckers and cheaters will learn their mistakes and merit a license. Your scheme doesn't account for this.

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

I don't think anyone should be blocked from buying S2, I mean who would pay $50 for a game only to wreck people? That won't happen.

The times where being the owner of a S2 license attributed you with sportsmanship and being a gentleman are long over.

Back then the associations and stereotypes were like
Demo: Potential customer, potential wrecker
License holder: Crème de la crème (you remember, those times where S2 users actually visited demo servers to lead by example...)

Now it's more like
Demo: Wrecker, long-time-drifter, cheapskate, probable cracker, eventually a potential customer
License holder: Fanboy, immature kiddy, maybe a serious* racer
* but he can't be that serious, since he's only racing on fantasy tracks, right?

At least the image of the demo racers should get improved with the latest patches though, seeing how the drift kiddy magnet (no offence) XRT has been replaced with a serious racing car, and now the more involved registration process to filter out wreckers.


However, I disagree with the topic post, why deny entrance to a wrecker who wants to fund the devs AND upgrade to a scheme where he can get banned more easily and persistently?

Quote from AndroidXP :

However, I disagree with the topic post, why deny entrance to a wrecker who wants to fund the devs AND upgrade to a scheme where he can get banned more easily and persistently?

Well, maybe because to take payment off someone with no intention of giving them the service or product they payed for is generally known as fraud.

LFS would be on very thin legal ice if it were to take money from someone that it had no intention of allowing to play on line, when the online aspect of the product is a major selling point.

Quote from gezmoor :

Well, maybe because to take payment off someone with no intention of giving them the service or product they payed for is generally known as fraud.

LFS would be on very thin legal ice if it were to take money from someone that it had no intention of allowing to play on line, when the online aspect of the product is a major selling point.

Just like braking EULA of WoW gets your account suspended. Never seen Blizzard on court about this matter, 'tho.

Quote from Breizh :

Some wreckers and cheaters will learn their mistakes and merit a license. Your scheme doesn't account for this.

Well it could do. There would of course be a level of lenience shown towards new demo users. But if they consistantly wreck, (or use a hack even once - as this is actually technically illegal), as a demo user then they would not be allowed to buy an license.


There are actually ways in which each downloaded client could be uniquely identified, (and presumably this could be written very deeply in to the computer some how - just like those time limited demos that get around you uninstalling and reinstalling the software to get them to work again), used a more sophisticated registration/log in process with the master server which of course could be denied. This in effect would mean that the user would have to use another computer, (or completely reformat their one), download and install a different client on it and register as a new user just to be able to wreck/cheat online. This should put off all but the most dedicated hackers I would suggest.

Quote from Gekkibi :

Just like braking EULA of WoW gets your account suspended. Never seen Blizzard on court about this matter, 'tho.

That's actually a different legal scenario. The taking of moneys with no intention to provide goods or service at all is fraud pure and simple and always will be considered so in UK law.

Quote from gezmoor :

Well, maybe because to take payment off someone with no intention of giving them the service or product they payed for is generally known as fraud.

LFS would be on very thin legal ice if it were to take money from someone that it had no intention of allowing to play on line, when the online aspect of the product is a major selling point.

But the devs wouldn't ban this individual, the server owners would. Of course the devs wouldn't take his money and immediately ban him, everybody has a chance to prove he can be a productive part of the community. Also even in the most extreme case he'd only lose the ability to go online - he would still have full access to S2 content. There is no legal issue at all.

Besides that, just because you pay for something doesn't mean you're entitled to be a dick and ruin the service for others. You cause a ruckus in a club, you get thrown out. Doesn't matter that you paid entrance fees.

Quote from gezmoor :

That's actually a different legal scenario. The taking of moneys with no intention to provide goods or service at all is fraud pure and simple and always will be considered so in UK law.

It is completely legal if it is in EULA. If EULA says that all your base are belong to us, and you agreed the EULA, then it is ok.

Quote :

1.5 Extreme disruptive or offensive behaviour by a user, towards the developers or members of the community, may result in temporary or permanent suspension of the user's Live for Speed license.

You can understand that sentence multiple ways.

Quote from Gekkibi :

It is completely legal if it is in EULA. If EULA says that all your base are belong to us, and you agreed the EULA, then it is ok.

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

Those "shrink wrap" license agreements have no legal matter in here.

Quote from frokki :

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

Those "shrink wrap" license agreements have no legal matter in here.

Are you saying that we don't have to obey EULA?

Quote from Gekkibi :

Are you saying that we don't have to obey EULA?

Ultimately, no we necessarily don't have to. They are not valid treaties/bargains in at least Finnish or Swedish court systems.

Quote from frokki :

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

Those "shrink wrap" license agreements have no legal matter in here.

Actually listening to that song ATM

An EULA does NOT come above the Law, but in this case i think the EULA would be ok if it said that we (as in Scavier) reserve the right to remove your license at any time (which it already does).

Quote from frokki :

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

Duke_toaster votes to air guitar [1/2] - press 1.

Quote :

Those "shrink wrap" license agreements have no legal matter in here.

Not really an issue, there's ability to ban people for life at the moment in the EULA. I don't think a pre-emptive ban for demo wreckers would be possible though.