Play by e-mail

[Marko]

Can you explain how e-mail works? By that I mean, is the process like this:

1) Player A plans, sends to Player B.

2) Player B plans, executes, plans, sends to Player A.

3) Player A watches execution, plans, executes, plans, sends to Player B.

4) Player B watches execution, plans, executes, plans, sends to Player A.

Steps 3 and 4 are repeated over and over again until:

n) Player A watches execution, plans, executes, sends to player B.

n+1) Player B watches execution.

(or swap Player A for Player B depending if the number of turns is even or odd).

So, ignoring the initial and final couple of steps, each player is watching the execution of the previous turn, planning the current turn, executing the current turn, and planning the next turn, before sending the file to his opponent. Is this how it's done?

Marko

[This message has been edited by Marko (edited 07-17-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ah, nope If it were done this way it would be open to cheating. The way it goes is this (uh, so far as my tired brain can recall!):

1) Player A deploys troops, sends to Player B.

2) Player B deploys troops, plans, sends to Player A.

3) Player A plans, executes but does not watch execution, sends to Player B.

4) Player B watches execution, plans, sends to Player A.

5) Player A watches execution, plans, executes but does not watch execution, sends to Player B

Repeat 4 and 5 until game is done. The big difference here is that a player will NEVER plot after seeing a fresh execution. In other words, the player only ever sees the previous turn's execution before plotting and can never plot after the current turn's execution. The latter would allow someone to redo their turn simply because they didn't like the results.

Steve

[Marko]

Ah, OK. Your method will reduce or eliminate the possibility of cheating, but double the number of e-mail transfers required to complete a scenario. So that's the trade-off you've made.

Cheating is an interesting topic. When I was a foreign grad student studying in the US, the first thing that struck me as being different (c.f. to Australia) was the seriousness with which the university lecturers and administrators treated cheating. An exam would be vigilantly monitored by a team of a dozen (or more) people (a job for which I would often be recruited). I found this policing disturbing because:

1) We were dealing with adult, not child students,

2) I didn't think that the cost of policing outweighed the benefits of catching the odd cheater,

3) Cheaters never succeed in life, anyway. (err, but then I look at the movers and shakers of society and I begin to doubt that statement! )

So, back to Combat Mission, I certainly would be very pissed off if the guy with whom I was playing my e-mail game was cheating! On the other hand, I am a very trustful guy when it comes to my fellow wargamers. I could never envision that such people could cheat.

Quick! Sell me a bridge while you have time!

Marko

[CRourke]

Yes, at my school we have an honor code. This code protects the right of all students to be treated as potential cheaters. It also builds honor by forcing us to sign pledges on every exam stating that we haven't cheated. Sure, when I was freshmen, I had trouble understanding the link between a coerced agreement and honor, but now, as a world wise senior I understand. Apparently, its actually ok to cheat, as long as you haven't signed the pledge promising that you wouldn't.

But I digress.

Chris

[Brian Rock]

The CM system prob will make it harder (if not impossible) to cheat, but it does at the price of a slower PBEM turn rate.

The TacOps system, for example, makes it possible for me to play two turns at a time:

1) A plots and sends turn N

2) B plots turn N, watches execution, and sends this and his turn N+1 to A

3) A runs turn N, plots turn N+1 and watches execution. He then plots N+2 and sends N+1 & N+2 back to B...

(It sounds more confusing then it is.)

Can players cheat? Yes. Solution: put them in your kill file.

I don't play with people I don't trust. Simple.

This seems to me to be a good reason to play CM on a LAN.

[mikeyb]

To eliminate the "hassle" and possible delays of using e'mail to deliver instructions and commmands is it possible to use ICQ (or an equivalent? This is much much faster, a qiuck history of message dialogue is available, and you can print if needed.

Some programs slow down or have problems if ICQ is running - has CM allowed for such a tool to be used w/o problems?

And about that CHEATING thing: It is human nature to want to win, succeed, and prosper. Darwin's entire research was closely related to this. How you may ask? Adapt or perish, simple as that.

An ethics professor I once had had an "extra credit" question on the final exam - 'Would you cheat if you knew for certain you would get away with it?' Not a deep question, but a thought provoking one, I answered YES in certain situations blah blah blah...

This is only a game. Right? So isn't Little League Baseball, Pop Warner Football, and dodgeball at recess. Now who out there has played dodgeball and been in the middle and NEVER said that the ball missed them (when it actually grazed them)- just to keep going.

[Guest Big Time Software]

There is in fact only one extra transfer for every turn in order to prevent cheating. Since file sizes range from 30k to 600k during a single game we don't feel that the extra transfer is a burdon. We have played via PBEM extensively and no complaints

The problem about cheating is that if we did it the standard way, you have NO idea if the other guy is cheating. He can run that PBEM file 4000 times to get just the right result and you will never be the wiser. So it is impossible to put someone in your kill file unless the cheater admits to playing against common decency. Plus, how the heck would anybody ever be able to run a fair tournament or contest?

We have set up a system that is probably 99% protected against cheating. Files can't be hacked, passwords are encrypted, and turns can't be redone to get the best result. This means that when you play a PBEM game with someone, no matter who it is, you can rest assured that no cheating is going on. Everybody should want to have this kind of peice of mind. We know we do

Steve

[Fionn]

Marko,

1. I have experience of PBEM systems very much like CM will use and its not much of an extra burden really.

2. People WILL cheat. I've seen people who replay and replay a turn using planes to overfly over inch of your territory by plotting it to move between different points each time they replay a turn. They then plot accurate artillery on all your units.

You have no proof but you KNOW they've cheated since they're hitting invisible units.

3. Some are even more blatant and hack the data files and give every Stuart a 90mm AT gun.

#Basically, making 1 extra swap is a small price for me to pay to eliminate the total destruction of all enjoyment which occurs when these cheaters come to town. I've had MANY PBEM games ruined by people cheating..

I've never cheated in a PBEM game since while I have the normal drive to win my most enjoyable games have always been ones in which I am hopelessly outnumbered and die horribly . Something about the fatalistic nature of such a game and the grim satisfaction of killing yet another Sherman only to see three more loom out of the smoke at your position gets my blood stirring.

In other words, I can enjoy losing more than I enjoy winning in the correct circumstances. For some, winning is all and those are the ones who end up cheating IMO.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I second the last thought of Fionn's. So long as I am losing because of the reality being simulated, not the simulation itself, I am at my best. I pride myself on being able to pull something off at the last minute that at least stalemates the game. At the very least I make the victor have to fight a tough battle on the edge of his toes for the ENTIRE game. Get sloppy with me towards the end and I will likely clean you clock Well, at least that is what I try to do, and it is so much fun when it works!! In fact, my fondest memories of games of days past are ones where I have "lost" at some point, but come back to at least claim a stalemate.

Steve

[Rick]

I can't imagine someone cheating at these games. I'm not surprised people do, but I really don't understand why. Rarely is there anything important at stake over a PBEM wargame. Most importantly the real enjoyment comes from doing your best not winning.

In the 3d world, I like to play basketball and with basketball I can't tell you anything about the times I won or lost, but I do remember quite vividly when I played my best - when everything just seemed to flow. Well actually, I can remember the result of one game (my team lost), but it was one of those games when your body and the ball seemed to effortlessly fulfill your every wish.

Basically, unless something valuable is riding on the game knowing you did your absolute best is more rewarding than winning.

However, losing to the computer does aggravate me.

[Marko]

mikeyb,

ICQ is certainly able to send files, but I don't really see that it has much of an advantage compared to e-mail. I certainly see the advantage of a modem or tcp/ip game.

Darwin's idea of adaptation applies to a species over a number of generations -- not to the individual. It is a process rather than a state. But your point is taken about cheating being a natural urge of humans (and probably many other species). One would hope that culture would help us override that instinct.

BTS,

I just wanted to clarify that one extra transfer per turn is still twice the number of transfers. The system I mentioned has one transfer per turn, while yours has two. I know you understand this -- I'm just being pedantic.

Fionn,

Thanks for sharing with us your real-world experience of PBEM games. I've only tried it once or twice so I find some your information very interesting.

Rick,

Yeah, I don't like losing to the computer, either.

The last thing I'm gonna say about cheating is: if everyone had watched The Dukes of Hazzard in their youth, then we'd all be living in a better world, where cheaters would get their comeuppance every time - preferably after a cool car chase!

Yee-haaa!!!!

Marko

[CRourke]

I never really had any problem with cheating until I played a few "ladder" games.. Something about playing for a ranking really seems to drawn out immature behavior. The solution was simple enough though, I stopped playing ladder games.

Chris

[Lee]

I, for one, really appreciate the extremely secure nature

of CM's multi-player game system. It'll be nice to know

that the guy you are playing against has almost no chance

of cheating. As was said by Steve, the peace of mind alone

will be wonderful.

And, if anyone is concerned about someone hacking the

data files somehow, BTS can just do a file check when the

2-player game starts. If there are any differences in

the files where there shouldn't be, the player would

be notified immediately that the other player is using modified

files. Simple and effective. With this kind of system,

cheaters don't stand a chance.

[Guest Big Time Software]

All PBEM files are compressed using our own compression code. Hacking the files will be impossible without first hacking the game program itself, then building a decompression tool. Of course, we are going to make that pretty tough to do as well

Steve

[Rattler]

Ah..., cheating!

Apart from finding it opposing my idea of personal honourable

behaviour (but knowing this is viewed a cultural defect in

ohter cultures possibly...<g>)....:

I have been playing TacOps for quite awhile, mostly

PBEM, and I ran into one cheater one day (or so I

presume, hitting invisble units, etc..., see above). I find,

at least in TacOps, you'll still win almost every

game against a cheater, because cheating makes him

predictable (adds a cycle to the game).

In case of TacOps you will find that the "lucky"

things always happen in the turn you cannot control and,

once you understand that, you use this knowledge to place

all relevant movements into the other turn. Usually works,

(probably, flying all these planes about makes your opponent loose

perspective...<g>).

Cheating is just a tactic that can be countered tactically.

My 2c

Rattler

[Doug Beman]

Rick said:

---------------------------------------------

I can't imagine someone cheating at these games. I'm not surprised people do, but I really don't understand why. Rarely is there anything important at stake over a PBEM wargame. Most importantly the real enjoyment comes from doing your best not winning.

---------------------------------------------

Of COURSE there's something valuable at stake!! I want to be able to spit on your grave and shout "In your face, sucker!" And then tell all my friends about this one time I beatdown this total loser guy (even used his real name, Rick or something) and just totally confirmed my status as a manly man (basically making this the high point of my week)

Oh, wait, that's Quake-players.

Sorry, my mistake.

(no offense if you've dabbled with the Dark Side that is FPS gaming

DjB

[Rick]

Only dabbled with FPS when friends invite me to their homes to check out their game, never have put one on my computer.

-Rick

[Guest KwazyDog]

Im thinking Hidden and Dengerous might be worth a look though. The problem with FPS's is that they can never seem to get the AI for the opposition any good.

[Marko]

Strategic AI for FPS games are incredibly hard to do. To compensate, many games give their monsters or bots superhuman abilities (reflexes and aiming skills). I think Unreal Tournament's bots will probably set the standard in this area, though.

Hidden & Dangerous suffers (IMHO) from a lack of good control in the first-person perspective mode. Plus the enemy AI is rather stupid.

Marko

[CRourke]

Actually, in my opinion, the big problem of FPS is that they rarely reward doing the smart thing, that is, laying down next to cover and firing. Generally, the player who runs right at you and then spins circles around you while shooting, wins. In real life, you'd nail him as he approached, but the difficulties of aiming in fps games, combined with the usual hardiness of the players makes this impractical.

Mind you, just because its not realistic doesn't mean its not fun.

Chris

[Doug Beman]

Spot on, CRourke!

Also, FPS games turn kids into Satan worshipping, homicidal maniacs with the firearms skills of a 20 year GreenBeret vet.

Man, I'm just heaping the bile onto FPS games and everything about them

Wonder if that means something about MY personality, that I'd spend this time and thought energy raking a game I've played for 15 minutes?

Nah.

DjB

[Guest KwazyDog]

There is a mod out for Quake 2 called action quake, which Ive played a few times multiplayer, and it isnt bad. It has realistic weapons, damage, etc. Its basically like skirmish on you computer, except you using M4's, Mp5's, etc. ITs about the closest thing Ive seen to a realistic combat environment (though believe me, it has some pretty big flaws).

Doug, if you have problem with FPS's, the you should see kingpin. Its pretty much bordering on sick. Thankfully its been banned in its current state where I am.

[CRourke]

Doug, if only that were true. Despite all the games of quake I've played, I still miss over 40% of the shots I take at those pansy christians.

Chris

[Rick]

I don't know about where you live, but here in Dallas TX the media was trying to blame Littleton on wargames. I kept saying to myself "No *!*!*! way, I bet they were actually playing Doom." (or something like it) I believe I recently read that it was Doom they were playing.

[Marko]

What I find sick is that if a game contains the merest hint of nakedness then it gets banned, while on the other hand, almost all levels of violence are tolerated. And what ticked the moralists off about Kingpin was not the violence (Unreal, Quake, & Half-Life are similarly violent) -- but the swearing! That'll teach our kids: "Now Junior, I want you to go up to Billy, say you're sorry for calling him a d***head, and only *then* may you lop his head off with this scythe."

Kids watch films. Adults watch films. Kids play computer games. Adults play computer games. What's good for films should be good for computer games. A rating system. Kingpin should be Rated R -- and not banned. Censorship begins and ends at home. Tune in for my radio program ... oops! Time to get off my hobby-horse!

Marko