Pak40 Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: 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. DjB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doug, I have to disagree that you you would know quickly. Many players are conservative when it comes to armor and they may not show what they have until halfway into a game. You could waste even an hour of your time to a cheater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And if this was me the game would not progress beyond this point. I don't see how you can be cheated if the game hasn't been played. ------------------ Frag Hanoi Jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Ok guess its time for me to chime in... 1st: I HATE CHEATERS!!!!!!!! 2nd: If I catch you the WORLD will know!!! 3rd: Have I seen this happening in CM ... so far NO! Does this mean I "DON'T" think their should be safeguards against it ... Heck NO! They ARE needed regardless of how honrable the commmunity currently is (which to my experience it is in a class by itself) *********************************** Hi Rune Just wanted to comment on your dbl blind thing: Unfortunately.double blind does NOT protect you against cheaters.... anybody can run a second Cm in the background and look at everything or do it on another PC. It probably is unlikely but very easy to do. It still reduces to "do you trust your opponent" ************************************* SSPL's Tips for fair play Basicallly the best thing I have found to avoid any problems is ... *Discuss the paramaters in chat PRIOR to the game creation. *DO NOT use ANY sort of RANDOM settings *Make sure your opponent agrees to ALT_P during setup if u require it *Make sure you agree on the Time limit and game length *Gauge his play style between "Anally realistic" or "I'll do anything to win bar cheating" *If he is an EXTREME and you cant adapt find another opponent. If he is closer to one extreme than the other come to agreeable handling of situations. *Finally never allow computer purchasing for a Ladder Match ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Dear General Hodges: I'm commanding the 5th Panzer Division opposite you, and we'll be invading your sector just before sunrise tomorrow. Would you be so kind as to forward a list of the forces at your disposal? We'll need some idea of what we'll be facing, in order to requisition special equipment from Berlin and have it here in the morning. I'm sure you have the same issues with Washington. The weather will be snowy and overcast, fortunately for us. Needless to say, should we awake to find the weather clear, we will hold you personally responsible. I'm sure you understand our frustration in agreeing upon tomorrow's weather, only to find ourselves completely unprepared due to a sudden change. As a panzer commander, I cherish the flexibility to immediately convert to an infantry unit when the situation or conditions dictate. I'm sure you've found yourself wishing for an extra antitank gun or two, and know how you appreciate it when they drop them off within the hour. I appreciate your prompt attention to these matters. Sincerely, etc. Reason #24 to stick to cesspoolers and others of known honor. I don't know what others are into the CM experience for, but cheating would not occur to me, probably making me easy to cheat against. But as you get to know folks from their posts you can kind've tell who else feels the same way. I have never seen it and don't worry about it. If it was undeniably the case, I would terminate the game and tell the world. A fix for this is WAY less important than the next patch or even CM2, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Me? I have never played a cheater in all my CM gaming (almost 1 year). The only thing that I would consider cheating for the 1st player to change in a QB is setting an Assault instead of an Attack. This just adds to the attacking force. And this is also obvious. Cheating for CM isn't rampant. If you have a constant problem with being suspicious of other player's ability to play fair, then maybe PBEM isn't for you. PBEM is about trust. And, if they don't play fair, then don't play them again. HOWEVER, ceating in the sense of cheating to guarantee, or even get close to guaranteeing a victory is virtually impossible. You can manipulate terrain and force composition without the other player's knowledge, BUT, this does not guarantee victory. Cheating in a PBEM game is like cheating on a school test and handing in your cheat notes with your exam. If you have such a hard time trusting people in QB PBEM's, then why don't you just always insist of starting up the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apoc Posted December 19, 2000 Author Share Posted December 19, 2000 Doug Beman: I re-read your previous post as suggested. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this. The problem in this situation is clearly obvious the creator messed up the settings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The flaw lies in the above statement. If the creator puts in Purchase Units: Automatically, for his opponent, he can select Purchase Units: Allow Human, without the remote knowing. Now you're going to say, "This is not so!" And here lies the partial flaw: TCP/IP games do not duplicate the process of PBEM games. A TCP/IP creator enjoys more flexibility and less saved game file swapping. PBEM games force the host to mail his opponent prior to the setup phase if Purchase Units: Allow Human, is selected. The TCP/IP creator can, if he wishes, select Purchase Units: Allow Human for himself and force the remote into Purchase Units: Automatically. This is a smooth, undetectable process. PBEM games do indeed have a flaw of their own. If Purchase Units: Automatically is selected, the host gets to see the setup phase and his force layout. The host can then immediately dispense the game if it's not to his liking. With Purchase Units: Human, the host never gets to see the time/weather before the setup phase. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this observation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's my belief that with sufficient game code (information), we will be able to aptly police ourselves. As I noted above in my statement, there exists two partial flaws with the current step/method procedures. When players insist on more pre-determined settings it'll reduce the opportunity for foul play. The information inputted by the host can only benefit the remote. One information screen at the start of any scenario for the remote player will prevent accidents from occurring. (i.e. In your example). The TCP/IP code is still in beta testing and my attempt at getting a problematic portion of it fixed is being met with stiff resistance. Der Unbekannta Jager: This cheating is not code related, but player related. It deals with a player supplying false information to his opponent prior to the game commencing. This game itself is never in jeopardy. It's the host side of the game who can break the faith of prior-agreed upon, random settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Great letter, Mark IV GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Apoc, you'll get back from people how you treat them. As far as accusing someone of brown-nosing, this is really a poor excuse for your own inability to argue calmly and effectively. The only thing I have noticed here is your tendency to become abusive to the people who don't happen to agree with you. I for one do not think that cheating is running rampant in CMBO nor does it require extra coding by BTS. If you don't trust people, the solution is very simple: do not play them. Calling someone a cheater and then ignoring them is childish. If you think someone cheated you then you should try and talk to them about it. However by your posts here I think that if you accused someone of cheating, and they hadn't, you would not believe them anyway. I also do not believe you have this "secret" method of telling if someone has randomly force-picked or not. If you base your argument on secrets then your argument carries no weight whatsoever. -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 I'm closing this one up. It will likely keep calming down and then flaring up. Not a good cycle. The issue is clear. Most people do not fear cheating, some do. Most people do not cheat, some do. If you find someone cheating, simply refuse to play them again. If you keep finding that people are cheating you, then perhaps there is some flaw with how you select your opponants since the majority don't have systemic problems. There is something more we can do to reduce cheating, and I have said as much. I have also said that we will, at some time, put this into Combat Mission. That is really all there needs to be said about this issue. Except to war Apoc to knock off the personal attacks. Reread the Agreement you clicked through when you signed up for this BBS. If you don't like what someone else has to say, respectfully disagree. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be here. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Apoc, if the mere chance of running into a cheat is of that much concern to you, stick to playing the AI or go play solitaire. It's just a game,albeit a great one. It is not the responsibility of BTS or anyone other than yourself how you choose to deal with someone you suspect of cheating. I would prefer that BTS keep focused on creating great games, i.e. CM2 and beyond, rather than worry about this drivel. And if this makes me a "brown-noser" as well, then so be it. It's still better than being a self-righteous ass. ------------------ "Moriarty, you suck." -- Dunno, but somebody must've said it somewhere along the line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts