Cheating, anything going to be done about it?

[Apoc]

Playing a game of Combat Mission may take several hours. When playing new opponents, we have to HOPE they set up the scenario as per instructed.

I'm going to cut to the chase. You have absolutely NO idea if your opponent is trustworthy. Battlefront.com made a stance about their method of PBEM makes cheating extremely hard, if not impossible. That means nothing if a cheater does their dirty work BEFORE the scenario gets started.

You have absolutely no idea if your opponent is creditable. You don't know if your opponent is a fair player. This is a glaring problem with what is otherwise a great game.

Selecting your own forces is not the solution, since the Point value for units are not necessarily correct (Night + Dense Fog == Flamethrower dream; lessens the value of Artillery, etc...). Perhaps if your opponent, who set up the QB, fingers in Night + Dense Fog and takes a platoon of engineers.... You get my point.

The fabric of integrity can lack when dealing with unknowns on the internet. We the players cannot enforce fair play(other than insisting on generating every scenario, which looks extremely suspicious) Please address this deficiency by permitting players to view the QB settings during the Setup phase.

[Berlichtingen]

Ok, couple of points....

1) name one battle in history where both sides were evenly matched.

2) if you think your opponent is 'cheating', don't play him again.

[Bruno Weiss]

I really don't think anything will ever replace a simple conversation or negotiated agreement with a prospective opponent, no matter how hard an effort BTS might try. Fionn Kelly's documentation on "Short 75", "Recon", and "76", rules for example, ensure force balance and were much simpler than some programmed effort which would alter other aspects of the game. See:

http://www.rugged-defense.nl/cm/Fionn3.htm

If weather and time of day are a problem for you in that you get took by someone taking advantage of the situation, then ensure you secure an agreement from your opponents for future engagements. That resolves the problem without CM having to potentially change or alter other aspects of the game.

For example, many folks do "not" want to know the weather or time of day ahead of time. They like the surprise of it. So, then BTS would have to come up with some complicated system wherein either preference could be maintained.

With tcp/ip play I'm afraid, comes the potential for a Microsoft type "Zone" mentality of hop on, jump in, shoot and run. Which IMO, resembles something more akin to an attempt to wrestle a blonde away from the bar for the evening but not getting there until 15 minutes before the last call. Since I'm not a fan of "Zone" type play, I wouldn't consider playing "anyone", I didn't first have some conversation with and some mutually agreed to expectations with "prior" to the engagement.

Which, if you think about it, and considering the spread of STD's out there, ain't a bad idea with regard to the blonde either.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

At some point we are going to introduce a sort of "preview" feature. This will allow the second player to see the settings the first player chose. That is really all that is needed, but we aren't sure when we are going to do it. Probably not until CM2. Conceptually it is easy, but it involves some involved coding and testing.

Steve

[Jumbo]

Hi everyone.

I've wargaming for a long time (27 years to be exact) but I've been playing CM for only several months now. Can anyone tell me about these different (house) rules that players agree upon before they play CM? -OR where I can find them?

Thanks

[Apoc]

Berlichtingen: This is a game, not history. 99% of all games use/enforce rules of fair play. Or do you enjoy playing someone who cheats at Poker? My time has worth to me.

Bruno Weiss: Those rules are abstract. The game allows random force, random weather, random time. Instructing customers to purchase units, instead of using built-in game code, because it's not important enough to make a code alterations to circumvent cheating is less than acceptable. Your post stresses communication with the opponent. I'm pro-communication and agree with your statement concerning this.

Players who want Random weather/time, would see Random weather/time selected. Players deserve the right to check if the basis of the game is correct. There are no checks. There should be absolutely no objections to players getting QB information as selected by the host. The LACK of information is a safe haven for unscrupulous actions, which are being performed against unsuspecting players.

I want all information inputted for the QB to be accessible to the non-host. This is fair. Everything else is an excuse or feint against truth.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Apoc:

I want all information inputted for the QB to be accessible to the non-host. This is fair. Everything else is an excuse or feint against truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Settle down, sparky. Steve just told you what's going to be done, and Berli and Bruno just gave you good suggestions of what to do in the meantime. Lobby all you want, that's all you're going to get for now.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Apoc]

Thank you Steve. The addition of a preview screen will greatly limit the current woes being experienced while playing new opponents. I hope the addition can be retrograded to CM1. As it stands now, every piece of QB information must be communicated prior to a scenario. The remote can only hope the host inputted the exact foliage, hilliness, and map type as per agreed upon. I get this sour taste in my mouth when playing opponents who obviously cheated while creating a scenario.... for which I had an unpleasant epiphany today against a new opponent.

[Guest wwb_99]

For all the online games I play, I worry less about cheating in CM than I do in any other one. Now most counterstrike servers are running PunkBuster because of aimbots and silent runs. Much of this problem is caused by the size of the community, you would have to be a really bad apple to get universally banned from CS, given there are 1300+ servers on WON.net.

But CM is far different. Go to the CMHQ chat, and you will end up seeing the same names again and again. If someone is a cheater, they will be well known by our small and insular community before long.

Also, the biggest form of cheeting (giving yourself more points) is hard to accomplish, because CM does inform you when you are playing with anything other than equal forces.

So, in short, quit being paranoid and enjoy some good violence.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Apoc]

Chupacabra:

Please learn how to read the time of post. You will see my post was made three minutes after Steve's. Common sense would dictate I was in the PROCESS of writing my post when Steve made his post. I'm not new to this board.

Good day

[Guest rune]

Or everyone misses the obvious. Play a scenario double blind. I have created 14 scenarios,11 of which are great two player games. I also have 2 historical and 1 anti-grognard scenario. I have been known to make scenarios for people with a little warning. I will continue to make various size two player double blind games. Some have been posted, some not.

The cool thing about a double blind game, is you play with what you get, as a real commander would. Are the scenarios good? Actor, Ro, Foobar, germanboy and others can pipe in here.

Rune

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune:

Are the scenarios good? Actor, Ro, Foobar, germanboy and others can pipe in here.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The one you provided for Croda and me was fantastic.

[Guest wwb_99]

Rune--Good point. I would also suggest playing a scenario known to both parties, as most of the better designed scenarios are replayable. As for suggestions, first try anything by Wild Bill. Then worry about the rest.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Chupacabra]

Apoc:

Please learn how to not be quite such an ass.

Good day to you.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Jagdcarcajou]

Hey Jumbo,

Try my site. Its been a bit since it was updated (work sucks) but some of those rules are there.

http://members.home.net/jagdcarcajou

Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo:

Hi everyone.

I've wargaming for a long time (27 years to be exact) but I've been playing CM for only several months now. Can anyone tell me about these different (house) rules that players agree upon before they play CM? -OR where I can find them?

Thanks

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

[Apa]

The preview feature is not enough, as you can make as many battles as he want's to, and try to play the first turns until he has the weather he wants to, even if it says random weather in the preview screen. You can do this, because even if you load your own created file, and set the password for the enemy, the first setup file will _not_ change. I think this isn't too hard to fix, but just wanted to say this.

This way one can also make unbalanced force mixes with computer buy (but this is easily done now by just buying your own forces, but letting the computer buy for your opponent).

btw I see this really as a problem, as I have been playing in some tournaments, and there I can't chose who I am playing against.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Apoc:

Please learn how to not be quite such an ass.

Good day to you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And A Merry Christmas to everyone!

Jeff Heidman

[Kingfish]

A couple of more points...

3) Don't assume someone is cheating just because their game style is suspicious in your eyes.

4) If that lack of trustworthy opponents is a "glaring problem" then I have a solution. I have about a half dozen opponents that I play on a consistent basis. I can vouche for everyone of them as being very capable, very trustworthy opponents. Let me know if you want their e-mail address, I'm sure they wouldn't mind some fresh meat

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Berlichtingen: This is a game, not history. 99% of all games use/enforce rules of fair play. Or do you enjoy playing someone who cheats at Poker?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, its a game, but it is also a simulation of history. If I wanted to play a pure 'game', I'd play Monopoly. As for poker, that I play for money, so there is a NEED to win. I don't NEED to win at CM... its the fight that's important. Fighting a loosing battle can be every bit as enjoyable as 'fair' fight. One other point I should make is that in over a year of playing CM, I have never run in to the sort of 'cheater' you alude to.

[Apoc]

Kingfish: Thanks. I'm more into TCP/IP than PBEM these days. My opponents' forces were in violation of the current code with automatic computer selection. The computer generates a specific constant result (which I am not going to disclose since it's my ace in the hole to prevent playing other liars/cheaters). So I know for an absolute fact he cheated. No thinking required.

That brings me to.

Chupacabra: It's taken me years to perfect my straight, to the point, no-bull**** attitude. I'm not going to give it up now. It's a pity you result to childish remarks, when I was being to the point. Never asked for your help and I would kindly ask you never to offer me your help. Unless, of course, you were making your post to brown nose Battlefront.com? No need to answer this.

[This message has been edited by Apoc (edited 12-19-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune:

Or everyone misses the obvious. Play a scenario double blind. I have created 14 scenarios,11 of which are great two player games. I also have 2 historical and 1 anti-grognard scenario. I have been known to make scenarios for people with a little warning. I will continue to make various size two player double blind games. Some have been posted, some not.

The cool thing about a double blind game, is you play with what you get, as a real commander would. Are the scenarios good? Actor, Ro, Foobar, germanboy and others can pipe in here.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Rune

Perhaps we can swap

I have a few up my sleeve as well.

I will be looking for a few good ones over the Christmas break. At Some Point may be Rune and I can play and some else can set us up with a good double blind Scenario.

If you have a neutral third party you TRUST set up the game for you then all that suspsion of bickering and cheating can be put aside.

Why don't we all get back to looking forwad to some time off over Christmas and some more FUN with CM and other NEW toys for Christmas.

To everybody who is bickerking in this thread, lets all just have some egg nog and say Merry Christmas and Seasons Greetings a few times and move on.

-tom w

And if that doesn't raise your spirits get napster and download a copy of Bob Rivers WinterWonderland.... Now think Walking in a Winter wonderland in your head and sing the words......

"In the Store theres a teddy

Its got little Straps like Spaggeti

It holds me so tight

like hand cuffs at night

Walking round in women's underware..."

It goes on...........

if you have never heard this, its the funniest

Christmas song there is!

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-19-2000).]

[-Havermeyer-]

Apoc (re: nasal sphincter probing):

I heartily concur with your observation.

But, a lump of coal to each of you for good measure.

[Jumbo]

Originally posted by Jagdcarcajou:

Hey Jumbo,

Try my site. Its been a bit since it was updated (work sucks) but some of those rules are there.

http://members.home.net/jagdcarcajou

Chris

Thanks Jagdcarcajou! I've bookmarked it in my Favorites.

Rick

[gaffertape]

Maybe I've been lucky, but every opponent I've PBEMed (each found on this forum) has been entirely honourable. I like to think (and perhaps I'm naive) that the cheaters are in a small minority.

GAFF

[Pak40]

Apoc,

I havn't had much of a problem with cheaters of this sort and I have yet to hear of it (untill this post). If I were you, I'd simply would refuse the map if the player lied about the conditions, then tell him you will only play him if you do the setup. It's that simple. This should even be legal in a ladder match. Both sides have to agree to the conditions, right?

Anyway, I agree that there should be a preview of the battle paramters by both sides, at any time during the force choosing or play, just like the battle briefings. It would make life that much easier.