Issue: ESP and Ghosting are two issues that have been plaguing BH. Under the current set of rules, both of these offences are classified as Gameplay Trolling, a Severity 1 Gameplay Offence, under "Ruining the game for players in Block Hunt by using unintended means to find and directly travel to hiders." This means that punishment times start off very low, allowing ESPers to run rampant. Although the GI BH update proposal has methods in place to make ESPing and Ghosting harder, a rule change is necessary because they will always be an issue, and will remain easy until whenever we receive an update. Proof of Cheating: Although I understand that a main reason the punishment is such a low severity is that definitively proving ESP/Ghosting is next to impossible without a self-report, the severity needs to be increased. For those who have played BH for thousands of wins, it is very clear when someone is ESPing/Ghosting. Although I would rather not get into specifics, since sharing how to tell if someone is ESPing/Ghosting lets people hide it better, one very easy way to tell if someone is ESPing/Ghosting is if they beeline a spot that is not frequently used with no way to have seen a Hider there, even if they are Radar kit. This is especially more true in the case of Infestors. The absence of definitive proof should not equate to the punishment time being so low, because the obtainable proof is generally fairly evident. The BH community has developed strategies as BH players that we consider as close to definitive as possible in telling if someone is cheating or not. Hacking vs Ghosting: This brings to light the next issue: Ghosting isn't a hack, so why should it be punishable any more than other sev1 gameplay offences? The lack of clear differentiation between Ghosting and ESP makes it so that, when someone is ESPing, they are considered to be Ghosting, as it is the less severe offence between hacking and gameplay. This is what prevents ESP from being considered a Hacking offence rather than a gameplay offence. However, this should not be the case. Differentiating between ghosting and ESP is hard, although possible for those with a lot of experience in reporting cheaters. Even despite this however, I believe it is more than fair to classify ghosting as a Hacking offence due to the fact that it ruins the game just as much as ESP. ESPers and Ghosters can clear entire lobbies in a very short amount of time. The time taken by Ghosting to clear a lobby is almost as low as that of ESPing to clear a lobby. The justification for Movement Hacks being a severity 3 Hacking offence is that they "completely ruin gameplay," as pointed out on the rules page and by mab8400 in the BH update proposal thread. In Block Hunt, the goal of the game is to kill all the Hiders (as Hunter) or to survive the full 6 minutes of Hiding time (as Hider). When ESPers/Ghosters are in the lobby, this aspect of gameplay is completely ruined. Hiders are immediately found, as their location is instantly known to the cheater. Legitimate Hunters cannot get the enjoyment of finding Hiders either, because the ESPer/Ghoster finds them significantly quicker. There is almost always at least 1 ESPer/Ghoster per lobby, sometimes multiple, making playing the game incredibly frustrating to the point that it is completely ruined. Due to this, both Ghosting and ESP should be considered offences equal in harm to that of movement hacking. The issue is severe enough that the vast majority of the Top 10 Hunters (by Wins) have cheated at least once, and many of them have a significant portion of their wins due to ESP/Ghosting. Of the players with 1000+ Hunter wins, roughly 1/3 are known to have cheated for at least some of their wins. Reports Being Indirectly Discouraged: The need for increased punishment times is increased by the difficulty of reporting ESP/Ghosting. It can sometimes take days to gather enough evidence on an ESPer/Ghoster to get an accepted report. Although a good chunk of the BH community knows what to look for in determining if someone is cheating or not, it takes a while to get the evidence. This, combined with the short punishment times, greatly discourages people from reporting ESP/Ghosting. People do not want to spend days gathering evidence only for the ban to be shorter than the time it took to get the evidence. ESP/Ghosting is far more common than reports suggest due to this. Even despite this, however, some players have been punished multiple times for the offence. These players repeatedly ruin games over many months, and are not punished long enough to stop. As mentioned above, a significant portion of the Top 10 Hunters, and roughly 1/3 of those 1000+ Hunter wins, are known to have cheated for at least part of their wins. With how long some players have hidden their ESP/Ghosting, it is quite possible this number is actually higher. I strongly encourage any RC member reading this to take a look at past reports for ESP/Ghosting and to compare them with the leaderboard, keeping in mind that not every cheater gets reported due to the indirect discouragement. Players with a high amount of wins are also far better at hiding their cheating, as they know the methods the BH community uses to determine who cheats or not. Punishment Proposals: After the first 2 offences, have ESP/Ghosting be moved to Severity 2 Hacking. Although ghosting is not a hack, it ruins the game just as much as one, and should be punished accordingly. The first 2 offences being left as Severity 1 Gameplay bans would be for the cases of false bans and as a benefit of the doubt assumption that someone is likely ghosting, rather than ESPing, at first. An alternative to this would be to punish ESP/Ghosting twice each offence. The cheater would receive two separate Gameplay Trolling bans, the first of which being for “Ruining the game for players in Block Hunt by using unintended means to find and directly travel to hiders,” and the second of which being for “Preventing team-mates from succeeding in the game by hindering your team” (due to preventing other Hunters from succeeding in their quest to kill Hiders. Despite it being a team game, Hunters almost always act solo). They could also simply receive two bans for the first reason (ruining the game). This would allow their bans to stack up in time quicker, encouraging reporting and making ESP/Ghosting punished more closely to the offence it should relate to: completely ruining the game. Yet another alternative would be to start to differentiate between ESPing and Ghosting in reports, keeping Ghosting as Sev1 Gameplay and bumping ESPing to Sev2 (or preferably Sev3 based on above reasoning) Hacking. Although differentiating between the two is difficult, it is quite possible and many BH players are already able to do so. One of the easiest ways is to compare the tab list in the pre-round lobby with that of the tab list in the match to determine if anyone used /spec. If there is a spectator, or if someone joins during the round before the evidence is collected, the cheater can be given the benefit of the doubt and punished for Ghosting. Since this is simply a benefit of the doubt, only the Hunter (not the spectator) should be punished. If there is no spectator or late joiner, the only way for the cheater to have acquired the location of the Hider is through ESPing, and thus they could be punished with a Sev2/Sev3 Hacking offence. This would be proven to be the case if nobody sees the Hider (being used to report the cheater) travel to their spot, as then not even the Hunter team chat could have been used to tell the cheater the location. The Hider would simply have to look around to ensure nobody is in sight of their spot before they decide to stay there. A final alternative would require dev time, but would likely be the most preferable: adding Sev2/Sev3 Gameplay Offences to the punishment system. This would allow ghosting and ESP to be moved to a higher severity, as well as other punishments to be moved accordingly based on how significantly they ruin gameplay. As stated above, both ESP and ghosting ruin BH in a way equivalent to movement hacks: completely. EDIT: There could also be one ban per piece of evidence supplied. Although multiple pieces of evidence are sometimes needed to ensure validity, each piece of evidence is by itself an instance of them breaking the rule. Once enough evidence is supplied, it can be essentially assured that each instance (recording/piece of evidence) is valid. This would allow, for example, 3 recordings in the same report to result in 3 bans instead of the 1 that they currently would.