Cheating, anything going to be done about it?

[Guest ACTOR]

Apoc - I would have to go with Rune on this one. If you are so worried about cheating, then play a double blind scenario, it is an excellent way to go. I am also playing a mirror game with an opponent now, capt_ro. In that game we each play both sides, can't get much more even than that now can it.

I guess my take on this is pretty simple. I'll play just about anyone, except maybe stic , and if I am happy with the way it went win or lose, I will play them again. If not, I don't have to play against anyone I don't want to.

I also use the CMHQ chat as a way to get to know some of the folks before engaging in combat. The same folks show up pretty regularly and you can always get a good game from them. Not to mention getting excellent double blind scenarios from Rune and Evil Jr.

my two cents.....

[chrisl]

One thing that I usually do when I set up a scenario is take screenshots of the setup screens and send them along with the first file. Sure, someone could lie, but you'll figure it out pretty quick.

That said, I've played quite a few PBEM games and never had a problem with people setting up grossly unfair matches. Even if they don't send me the parameters, I usually don't worry much about it-- I'll play just about any set of parameters.

The other thing to do is find a small (or large) group of players who you play against/among consistently. The Cesspool here on the forum is one such community-- to the average outside it looks like a bunch of incoherent obnoxious drivel, but it's actually a very good way to find opponents. With a few exceptions, the level of play is pretty high. I've also been challenged by a few people from a ladder I signed up for. They've been honest and consistent about returning turns, even when being slaughtered.

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

Slayer of the Original Cesspool Thread.

[Chupacabra]

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

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).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to answer, but what the hell, I've got nothing better to do.

In my experience, calling someone childish really means "you're not saying what I want you to say." As does telling someone that they're a brown-nose. How exactly would what I posted be sucking up to BTS? What does it do for me? They're not going to give me a job for posting on the forum, nor are they likely to name CM2: Beyond Chupacabra. Boy, if I'm really lucky I'll get a smiley from MadMatt and gee, would that ever make my day. BTS has no lack of hangers-on, but to my knowledge that's the first time I've been accused of being one. So kudoes to you, it's a first.

You may feel free to keep up with your brave "no bull****" tone all you like, but a spade is a spade, and an ass is an ass. And it really is that simple.

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

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

[Guest Germanboy]

Regarding Rune's scenarios:

'Monty advances' was an excellent and thrill-packed two-player TCP/IP. Good for combined arms technique. A killer.

'A river runs through it' shows that Rune clearly needs his head examined, anyone coming up with a scenario like that is a danger to his neighbourhood and should only be let out under guard. Hannibal Lecter would be impressed. Great fun to play so far (into turn six or seven) and set-up with little twists and turns that reward the player who takes care to do a terrain analysis. Not for the whimpish or Peter_NZer

Fort Du Roule - play it as Germans against somebody you really hate for beating you in a previous game (e.g. in the Stolberg operation, grrrr...). See him attack into the face of your defenses. Kill him a lot. Sit back and have a cigar while watching him struggle. Nice.

Those are the ones I have tried so far. After Christmas I while gladly open a can of whup-ass onto the people on my list using Rune's scenarios.

So, was that enough brown-nosing?

As for the topic at hand, if I feel somebody is cheating (had that only once, in almost ten months of PBEM including the demo), I will quit the game and not play them again. I also prefer to play people I know from the board, and I find all my PBEM partners here.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

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

[aka_tom_w]

WOW.....

This Thread got awfully heated in a big hurry...

I guess that

"Hey Everybody: settle down and have an eggnog" idea did not go over so well..

Oh well

I tried

-tom w

[Doug Beman]

Apoc, if you set up to play a QB against somebody thinking the rules are "day, overcast," etc etc, and the opponent instead creates the battle with a bunch of randoms. who is getting cheated? BOTH players will get surprised by the random settings; the person who sets the QB parameters won't get any sudden bonus because he won't know any more than the second party.

The next step is what others have suggested: if you specifiy a certain battle type and the creator deviates from that, point it out to them. If they say "oops, my bad" give them another chance. If they ignore you, or violate the agreement a second time, don't play them any more.

I believe game developers should not attempt to force "fair play." This goes beyond play balance and into the realm of regulating interpersonal social behavior. If somebody cheats (and somebody did in a Beta-demo PBEM) I just quit playing that person. His loss, not mine.

DjB

[Bruno Weiss]

...and with that Tiny Tim said; God Bless us one and all.

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

"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)

[MikeE]

I'll echo what others have said about having no trouble at all finding honest, capable opponents either here on the Forum or from CMHQ chat. I for one would hate to see BTS waste precious coding time on what 95% of folks here see as a non-issue.

I also like to play scenarios double blind as a break from the QBs. I'll have to try one of Rune's next it sounds like - hey Airborne if you're reading how about that for our next game?

Mike

[Guest wwb_99]

I would also like to add that I am working on a series of quick & dirty scenarios designed for TCP/IP play. Some implausable and just for fun, others more plausable and also for fun.

WWB

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

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Col Deadmarsh]

wwb_99 said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now most counterstrike servers are running PunkBuster because of aimbots and silent runs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are these? Please explain.

aka_tom_w said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WOW.....

This Thread got awfully heated in a big hurry...

I guess that

"Hey Everybody: settle down and have an eggnog" idea did not go over so well..

Oh well

I tried

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the damn holidays. Men hate this time of year and it just makes everyone more cranky, including myself. My alcohol intake has doubled in this past month and that won't change until January 2nd.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Apoc]

Doug Beman: Knowing the settings for the QB is guaranteed for the Host and non-existent to the remote. With this, the host should know what he punched in. If he messes up, then that's life. Otherwise, he _solely_ knows the constraints of the QB. All this wrapped up into one bundle is a problem when you run into that 1 in 1,000,000th player of CM who cheats knowing he can get away with it. Of the 60 (or so) players I have battled in CM, there have been two who lied about the settings. It takes a lot of time to play a single game. Do you honestly want to know at the conclusion of a fight, your opponent cheated/lied for an advantage? I encountered my 2nd distasteful opponent today.

MikeE: Non-issue? This problem has been around Ladders for a long time. Just because you've never caught someone doing it, doesn't mean it's any less important to fix. Battlefront.com expounds itself on their ability to prevent PBEM cheating. This was a great achievement and a strong attraction for Combat Mission. It's an important issue. Steve's comment merits another look. Battlefront.com is aware of the problem and they expect to fix it. It's important enough for them to give it attention instead of shutting down this thread.

Chupacabra: Boy, you should learn to read. There's another poster in this thread that supports my insinuation of your brown-nosing. Get a dictionary and look up the following phrase: Nasal sphincter probing. You were brown-nosing. You were telling another member of this board an obvious statement to back-up an official response from Battlefront.com. Now suck it up like a good boy. Or you trying to squash this civil discussion because you're afraid of them fixing it? Re-read your first post and, perhaps, you'll see yourself in a new light.

Rune: I've had the pleasure of playing double blind game using one of your scenarios off of the CMHQ-Irc. It was a great experience. Keep up the good work.

[Talenn]

Ok, can someone then please explain to me what having passwords is for then? If we arent supposed to be worried about cheating, why have them? Isnt everyone honorable enough that we can dispense with such things?

OF COURSE NOT!

Thats why features like that are there...to make sure the playing field is level. IMO, thats all Apoc is asking for....something to ensure that the playing field is level from the beginning of the game. Why is that so dreadful?

I think what is the worst is the POSSIBILITY that someone is cheating. Its better to get it out of the way up front. Its like playing a board game and rolling your dice in private. Sure, you could be the most honest person in the world, but if things are going too much your way, the SUSPICION is the worst of it.

And it translates to the CM setup the same way. What if the 'Random' settings generate a Day time, clear weather, nice open map and give the opponent a few nice long range King Tigers or whatnot and you end up with a bunch of baseline Shermans etc. It can certainly LOOK like the game was rigged. Same with the above example of night/fog and flamethrowers.

For me, if I was dealt ideal conditions, I'd want no doubt in my opponent's mind that it was on the up and up. Its a simple piece of gaming courtesy IMO. I want them to know that if/when I beat them, it had NOTHING to do with any possibility that it was dishonest.

I want to trust someone as much as the next guy. Sadly, experience has taught me that too many people out there are more interested in winning than in playing the game for 'fun'. All it takes is a simple look at any other multiplayer game to see that 'cheating' is a somewhat important concern. Yes, even CM has its share of cheaters. People who feel they cant win without some sort of a bonus will always be out there. And its NOT always easy to screen them out. How difficult is it to log onto CMHQ with a different name if you gain a reputation for cheating with one nick?

Anyways, I realize that BTS has already stated their stance on the 'status screen' thingy. Fine, no problem, its not the end of the world. But I do not understand all the resistance to this one basic request to keep things honest between people who dont otherwise know each other. Personally, I chalk it up to the usual 'CM Sacred Cow Syndrome'..ie if its not in the game now, it shouldnt be there and we will come up with reason after reason as to why this is so....

Talenn

[Croda]

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

... All this wrapped up into one bundle is a problem when you run into that 1 in 1,000,000th player of CM who cheats knowing he can get away with it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm...You want them to recode part of the application to take care of what you are calling a 1 in 1 million chance? Now, I love this game, but don't know that I will play it against another person 1 million times.

Your concern is certainly valid, but I think that you're reacting against the fact that you've played people who've cheated. As you can see the vast majority of us have never had a problem with this (including myself). Everyone I've played has been very fair and engaging to compete with. Asking a company to recode something because you have a knack for running into unscrupulous people, is IMHO a bit ridiculous.

As for this comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd really like to know how you devised this one. If you've read the beta threads, this 'specific constant' is in a state of flux right now. It has been altered since 1.05 and may again be altered before this next patch is finalized. You may want to recheck your thinking.

In short: if someone cheats, deal with them. Don't blame Abner Doubleday because someone throws a spitball.

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

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Apoc]

Croda: There is one constant that hasn't changed. I'm not at liberty to state what it is, since I don't want any outside of Battlefront.com to know. This is my ace to catch cheaters. It can be manipulated to appear 'constant.' So if I divulge it, my self-check loses credibility.

[Guest ACTOR]

Apoc - Did you confront the individuals that you say were cheating? I would sure like to know what their response was. Did they admit to it?

[Croda]

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

Croda: There is one constant that hasn't changed. I'm not at liberty to state what it is, since I don't want any outside of Battlefront.com to know. This is my ace to catch cheaters. It can be manipulated to appear 'constant.' So if I divulge it, my self-check loses credibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pardon me, but I'm a skeptical, empirical kind of guy. This holds no water with me. No offense meant, of course, but I don't pay attention when someone has a secret and refuses to tell me.

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

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Lindan]

I constantly cheat, it's quite easy. This is how I do it:

I make my opponents believe that I am winning. And when they are totally sure about it I pull off my surprise and do something so stupid that I loose very quickly! They never expect that.

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

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

Croda: "You hang out with a guy named "Warphead?"

"Nuts!" "

visit lindan.panzershark.com

[Phoenix]

I guess I just don't get it.

When I play a game I tell the other person it's gonna be "xyz". Clear, dry, small hills,

1000 points, you attack...whatever. All the details. I expect the same from someone else doing a setup.

If I change this, say I make it muddy, then it's not as though the other guy can't tell. Same with hills, and trees. It's pretty obvious what dense trees are compared to light. If someone tries to pull this on me (no one has) then I just say, "Uh, dude, that's not what we agreed on". It's pretty simple.

So WHAT are people doing to "cheat" you Apoc??? I just don't understand it.

I gotta say, I only play QB PBEM and have never once had an issue with someone trying to "cheat".

Signed - Confused.

[Apoc]

ACTOR: I didn't curse at him or say anything else rude. I simply told him, "Thanks for the game" then proceeded to ICQ and placed him on my ignore list.

Croda: Your skepticism is admirable. I find no fault in it. As soon as Battlefront.com releases a fix/solution, I'll disclose my information.

Lindan: <-- worthy opponent! Don't close assault his Stugs with infantry, though

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

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of the 60 (or so) players I have battled in CM, there have been two who lied about the settings<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apoc,

From what I read out of this quote you have 58 trustworthy opponents to play again and again. Where's the problem?

[Apoc]

Pheonix: The situation needs to be rectified concerning randomness. If you communicate to your opponent every setting including the option to purchase units, then you greatly reduce the possibility of running into a problem. After my first 10 to 12 opponents, I noticed a sour trend of player's purchasing the same sort of units. Most 500-1k Battles turned into similar looking OOB with a random map. As a direct result I've sided with random games to make the battles more appealing.

Kingfish: Your point is well taken. I do have several concrete PBEM players (those are the ones who play from start to finish or concede the game instead of fading into the night). The beta TCP/IP patch has opened up a whole new spectrum of players. These types of players are, what I consider to be, "play on demand". As a whole I'm finding TCP/IP more to my liking, thus my divergence from PBEM. There's an active list on ICQ with over 80 CM players. The opportunity to fight new players "on demand" is quite exhilarating.

[Pak40]

Phoenix,

"So WHAT are people doing to "cheat" you Apoc??? I just don't understand it."

I know this question was directed at APOC, but I'll answer it anyway:

It's very easy to "cheat" someone when telling them the QB paramters. If your opponent tells you the weather is clear but you discover it is dark and foggy after you have already picked your forces, then you have been cheated. You will have picked forces that can take advantage of a clear sunny day (tanks, artillery, At guns, etc.) but he in his trickery is picking forces that can take advantage of foggy nights (Infantry with automatic weapons).

This can happen with type of terrain also: He may tell you that the ground is flat with few trees but you get into the battle and it's rolling hills with dense trees.

Those above are very obvious ways of cheating and you obviously know them already but there is another more subtle way to cheat: lying about your force mix.

He may tell you it's a 1000 point game and that he has mixed forces. But when the battle starts he's got 600 or 800 points worth of armor. You may not notice it right away because you may not see all of his forces until halfway into the battle. So then you've wasted valuable gaming time on a cheater.

Understand?

I believe Apoc when he says he's been cheated because I've been playing internet games since 1995 and have run across a lot of cheaters. Cheaters will always be on the internet. Fortunately I have only run across one who tried to pull a fast one on me.

[This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Doug Beman]

Apoc, please re-read my post. If two players set up to PBEM a QB, agreeing on the conditions list, and the creator deviates from that, then it should be immediatly apparent to the second party (different weather, ground conditions, etc) upon start of the game. At that point the second party says "hey, we agreed on -these- conditions, and you've set it up differently. What gives?"

If the creator puts in "random" instead of the agreed-upon conditions, then BOTH players are going to get random stuff. The creator won't know the weather (or other random parameters) until after the setup has begun, at the same time the second party knows.

If the two sides agree on what force type (infantry, armor, etc) and the creator changes it, it will probably become quickly apparent to the second party. There's a big difference between being attacked by an infantry force and being attacked by an armored force.

I would really honestly have BTS work on CM2 (where, Steve has said, he anticipates some form of "battle preview") than get into the messy job of policing its players. It should be up to players to police themselves.

DjB

[Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger]

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

Croda: There is one constant that hasn't changed. I'm not at liberty to state what it is, since I don't want any outside of Battlefront.com to know. This is my ace to catch cheaters. It can be manipulated to appear 'constant.' So if I divulge it, my self-check loses credibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you attempting to say that you have "discovered" that people can alter certain variables before you start a game with them? Not just lie as to the setup variables?

Perhaps someone is able to double their number of points to buy units with using a trainer or some such device or perhaps they can alter their units experience levels but as a CM player I would gather you could pick up on such things. If your opponent starts driving 6 KT's that are all Crack or Elite experience down the middle of the map in a 500 point QB I would think you would pick up on this.

Was that what your big secret was about? Or is it just the simple fact that people are saying "Yeah its a dry clear day" then when you get into the game it is set in a snowing night?

Please be more specific.

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

"The world is wide, and I will not waste my life in friction when it could be turned into momentum."

[Guest wwb_99]

Col. Deadmarsh:

1) Counterstrike is a half-life based FPS where one plays a team of Terroists or Counter-Terrorists in a variety of missions. It is very realistic (for a FPS) and many do take the game very seriously. But there are many pre-pubescent team killers running around (which is not the case with CM!).

Because Counterstrike is based off of Halflife, which is based off of Quake I, the game is highly modifiable. It essentially has its own c-style compiler in the game. Which means that there are many, many cheats avaliable. Things like AimBot, which makes it real easy to get headshots (=instant kill) and a silent run cheat, etc.

PunkBuster is a new software add-on to Counterstrike & Halflife which checks for certain known cheats.

WWB

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

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.