|
Well, about the only MUDs that I've run across that are meaningfully devoid of cheating are MUSHes, because everything in a MUSH is cooperative as opposed to competitive.
I really hate to say this, but it is absolutely impossible for an enforcement mechanism (OOC or IC) to eliminate all cheating. Until all players connect to your MUD through some type of remotely securable client (basically requires a TCP like Palladium, which I am strongly opposed to for home systems) there is no way to even guarantee that players aren't plotting their eeeevil schemes on an 8-way IM conference. Even if a TCP does gain widespread implementation in the home, those dastardly players could be exchanging email, talking on the phone, chatting over IRC, or even SSH'ing into a common private linux box and using wall.
Attempting to catch all cheating is an exercise in futility. Designing major MUD systems that have widespread effects specifically to do this will guarantee some very painful disappointments (and likely more than a few grey hairs). We only punish the most blatant cheaters because those are the only times we can actually prove with any meaningful certainty that they were, in fact, cheating. If we relaxed our standards in order to punish more probable cheaters we'd also end up punishing many innocents.
Instead of focusing on catching and punishing cheaters, design your game mechanical systems with the operating assumption that at least half of the playerbase will cheat successfully with every trick in the book and you'll end up with a more robust and enjoyable system for everyone.
|