Schalken Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 Being new to this board, I'm sorry if this was discussed before, but the search feature is inconvenient and you guys are using rather non-descriptive subject headers anyway. In an ideal system, movies & orders would be combined into one file and swapped as follows: turn 1 ------ Player 1 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 2] Player 2 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 1] turn 1 is executed turn 2 ------ Player 1 sees turn 1 movie Player 1 issues turn 2 orders [sends to player 2] Player 2 sees turn 1 movie Player 2 issues turn 2 orders [sends to player 1] turn 2 is executed turn 3 ------ Player 1 sees turn 2 movie Player 1 issues turn 3 orders [sends to player 1] Player 2 sees turn 2 movies Player 2 issues turn 3 orders [sends to player 2] turn 3 is executed [...] Cheating is not possible because nobody sees the movie after plotting (this is identical to implementation). A 30 turn scenario would require only 60 file swaps to be completed (CM beta demo requires 90!). Not to mention my frustration after seeing the movie and not getting a chance to give orders right away. Because most gamers have other things to do besides playing CM, one swap a day is reasonable. This current system unnecessarily lengthens typical scenarios by an entire month! I can't believe how the authors have managed to overlook such a simple, user friendly solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hunt52 Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 You overlook one thing: every resolution of a turn is different. Each turn must be resolved on one and only one computer becaues of the fuzzy logic the game uses. It's a nice idea though... - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Yup, and also we would have to totally rewrite the game engine to do this. The reason why is that PBEM requires entirely different turn resolution patterns than hotseat and internet play. So while it sounds like an easy thing to do, it most certainly is not. What we have now is as good as it is going to get for both practical and technical reasons. There have been MANY discussions about this in the past so if you are interested in more details you can do a search of this BBS and turn up lots more. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schalken Posted March 19, 2000 Author Share Posted March 19, 2000 Ok, after lots of tedious searching, amongst the dozens of messages dealing with pbem mechanism and security, only one partially covered my proposition. It was posted by Dar on 11-01-1999, but alas, was never commented by BTS. Of course each and every turn would only be resolved on one and only computer. Either alternating between Player A's and B's systems or solely on A's or B's. Thank you for your replies, but they didn't shed any light on this. If somebody has the knowledge to elaborate on exactly why my proposition would not work/prevent cheating, please indulge me. Otherwise I have to conclude BTS has made a major error on this one. No offense to anyone. [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 I believe most of the people who play CM will have some sort of maturity and honor as to play the game right and not cheat!!! Hell, the vast majority are so into realism, that they may even feel bad when they leave their Tiger on the edge of the map in LD. I do anyway, so maybe others do also. This is a game that will let some people live out their dreams of a great wargame, and no one has said anything about dreaming of cheating. I know I will go out and get my ass kicked around a lot in PBEm, but cheating never even came to my mind until now. Ray ------------------ SWAT 3 Page Panzer Elite(not up) Combat Mission(comming soon)Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 I'm also sorry you didn't turn up the correct threads. There were two very long ones that dealt specifically with this issue, and many smaller ones. Since you seemed to have missed my main point, let me repeat it. We can only have ONE method for turn resolution. If you have ever made a computer game of this complexity you would understand that. So we went with the system that worked best for hotseat and Internet/LAN play. This means one extra swap for PBEM. Sorry, no "major error", just reality making life a little more complex than it might appear from the gamer's standpoint. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Schalken, I have had tons of problems accepting the format that BTS WILL be using. I understand it but have never been happy about it. PBEM would be more fun if with every email you got to plot and watch a movie. BTS has answered your question but I will try to expand upon it. The problem from what I understand with your PBEM system is that because the turns would have the movie part executed on the same computer then the owner of that computer MIGHT have the ability to alter the turn or otherwise mess with the files in a way that I could never come close to doing and thereby change the game to work in his (or her) favor. If one computer was the only computer doing the execution of turns then he (or she) would be the only one to tinker with the game. As I plan to play 99% of my games vs humans via TCP/IP when it is released the bottom line for me is moot. I hope I answered you question. ------------------ "Tryin to be so so bad is bad enough, don't make me laugh by talkin tough" EC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schalken Posted March 19, 2000 Author Share Posted March 19, 2000 Steve, Of course I keep missing your main point, because you are yet to explain it in detail. Could you please point me to the threads you're referring to? Until then, I'm not any wiser I was before. In one thread BTS (was it you) said that one extra file swap is absolutely necessary to prevent cheating. As I explained in my first message, this extra swap is NOT necessary to prevent cheating. Could you please refute this argument? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Big Time Software: We can only have ONE method for turn resolution. If you have ever made a computer game of this complexity you would understand that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would understand it simply by somebody giving a detailed answer. But thank you for your attempts to enlighten me so far. [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Schalken, Search. In the search field, type "pbem cheat" Just a word of warning: Watch the tone of your posts unless you're looking for some rather heated responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Schalken, I believe you'll find that the onus is on you to do the basic research. FWIW of course one extra file swap isn't absolutely necessary to prevent cheating. HOWEVER if you READ Steve's response you'll see he talks about programming issues impinging on the decision. It seems to me you're being a bit bloody-minded about your position and not taking into account REALITY ! I'm sure that if this is such a major problem for you you can go get another game with a turn system u like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schalken Posted March 19, 2000 Author Share Posted March 19, 2000 Fionn, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe you'll find that the onus is on you to do the basic research. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Naturally. After several hours of reading literally hundreds of messages on pbem and cheating, I'm however unable to find the info I'm looking for. Steve does not owe me anything, so he can just ignore me or ban me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FWIW of course one extra file swap isn't absolutely necessary to prevent cheating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There we finally have it. Thanks Fionn. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HOWEVER if you READ Steve's response you'll see he talks about programming issues impinging on the decision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These 'programming issues' are exactly what I'm interested in. Of course, nobody is obliged to give me a detailed answer, but I would be greateful for it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure that if this is such a major problem for you you can go get another game with a turn system u like <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd rather not change for the worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hunt52 Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Why what you suggest won't work: turn 1 ------ Player 1 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 2] Player 2 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 1] turn 1 is executed # On whose computer? If is is executed on # both computers the results of the turn will # *not* be the same. Try it out. Save a game # and play through the same turn eight or ten # times. They will all be different. # # One computer has to execute the turns which # necessitates an e-mail bringing the total # back to the 1.5 emails per turn mark. # Sorry - I have PERL on my brain. - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schalken Posted March 19, 2000 Author Share Posted March 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunt52: Why what you suggest won't work: turn 1 ------ Player 1 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 2] Player 2 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 1] turn 1 is executed # On whose computer? If is is executed on # both computers the results of the turn will # *not* be the same. Try it out. Save a game # and play through the same turn eight or ten # times. They will all be different. # # One computer has to execute the turns which # necessitates an e-mail bringing the total # back to the 1.5 emails per turn mark. - Bill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Man, is this REALLY so hard to comprehend? Did I say it would be executed on both computers? No? Then why are you presenting such a bizarre comment? Every and each turn would always be executed on ONE and ONLY ONE computer. On whose computer? On the *other* guys machine - as it is now. This part of the proposition is identical to current implementation and thus was not elaborated in the first msg. However, it is different in that you'd always get to plot orders after viewing the movie. This has not anything to do with turn resolution, which apparently surpasses some peoples comprehension. Read it again and you understand, hopefully, at least Fionn did. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR># Sorry - I have PERL on my brain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you have void structures on your brain. Live with me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Schalken, this is really a dumb discussion. Sorry to say that, but it is There are serious programming issues involved here. If you don't understand how code works I can't explain it in a post or two. However, I will make one attempt to explain this further... The way the game system works is that orders are stored then executed. There is no code in there to have orders stored for Turn X, executed, and then Turn Y's stored all in one file. That is what your proposed system (one that we thought of about 2 years ago I might add ) requires. The game engine simply can not do this without a huge programming effort that is quite frankly not worth the effort, which is why we didn't do it in the first place. So there is very little point discussing this any more than someone asking why CM isn't 2D. It is what it is for logical and/or practical reasons. If you don't undestand them... oh well Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schalken Posted March 20, 2000 Author Share Posted March 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Schalken, this is really a dumb discussion. Sorry to say that, but it is <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you noticed that jolly face is nastier when inverted? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The way the game system works is that orders are stored then executed. There is no code in there to have orders stored for Turn X, executed, and then Turn Y's stored all in one file. That is what your proposed system (one that we thought of about 2 years ago I might add ) requires. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> P1 only needs position data and X-1 playback he can view. It's a clean table after exec. The following transaction will be slightly heavier, P2 receiving P1 orders, playback and position data. They say that coding for too long reduces your IQ, after which you start producing stuff that is unnecessary heavy - tripple swapping, 50% longer pbem mechs. Done for greater good afterall, hot seat and TCP/IP. I ditch the pbem alright. The game itself is damn fine though. (was that enough foul language to ban me so I don't have to continue this thread any longer, please?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 20, 2000 Share Posted March 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schalken: P1 only needs position data and X-1 playback he can view. It's a clean table after exec. The following transaction will be slightly heavier, P2 receiving P1 orders, playback and position data. They say that coding for too long reduces your IQ, after which you start producing stuff that is unnecessary heavy - tripple swapping, 50% longer pbem mechs. Done for greater good afterall, hot seat and TCP/IP. I ditch the pbem alright. The game itself is damn fine though. (was that enough foul language to ban me so I don't have to continue this thread any longer, please?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Schalken, You should be thankful that people didn't ignore after the first time Steve told you it didn't work. You're last post is completly useless. Nothing in it was worth saying. So next time just don't say it because no one cares anymore. And maybe that face wasn't supposed to be frowning. I think it's a lot more effective right side up. Sorry to have wasted your time. ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted March 20, 2000 Share Posted March 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay: I believe most of the people who play CM will have some sort of maturity and honor as to play the game right and not cheat!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but some wont. Then there are all those chance of the draw things that happen that are hard to accept and may give the impresion of cheating. Then there's rooky players who can't appreciate how the supperior tactics of his vetran apponent rolled over his poorly positioned troops. I've spent many a dime talking on the phone to PBEM apponents from all over the U.S. explaining how I used the gameyness of Steel Panthers to my advantage in crushing his presious(and expensive)Panthers and Tiger II's. CM puts the tactics into tactical wargaming, but just as importantly it has a very nice system to pevent cheating. If it requires a third more file swaps than what I'm used to in order for it to work in all gaming modes, no problem. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 20, 2000 Share Posted March 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P1 only needs position data and X-1 playback he can view. It's a clean table after exec. The following transaction will be slightly heavier, P2 receiving P1 orders, playback and position data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, it really is so simple to do. I guess we are just morons. Thanks for clearing that up. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They say that coding for too long reduces your IQ, after which you start producing stuff that is unnecessary heavy - tripple swapping, 50% longer pbem mechs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm going to let this one slide a bit because it is obvious that English is not your native language. However, I would advise you to choose your words a bit more carefully. And if you did mean this as an insult, then I guess I'll just have to do the same to you when you spend 2 years of your life making a ground breaking wargame. I'm sure your IQ will be up to the task. In the end the answer remains. I'm sorry if you don't like the reality of the situation, but until you code up a game like CM I think you should assume that we know what the Hell we are doing. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted March 21, 2000 Share Posted March 21, 2000 I wrote some games (and major OS code) and I understand why CM does it this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schalken Posted March 21, 2000 Author Share Posted March 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow, it really is so simple to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The actual coding would not be a quickie - a fundamental change like this would have sure been unreasonable after the project was initiated. However, starting from scratch, triple swapping is not required for security reasons, or for any other reason, nor is it the most efficient implementation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm going to let this one slide a bit because it is obvious that English is not your native language. However, I would advise you to choose your words a bit more carefully.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps it was there to see if anyone would decry and bitch. It is not necessarily easy to notice at a glance, sometimes not even after professional research. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if you did mean this as an insult <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are no intentional insults in my messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts