Abbott Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 This post grew from another thread. The ideas caught my eye as worthy of discussion. I know there are those qualified to say (or very close) what and how this could be implemented in the future. It seems like a very good way to breath life back into "computer picks". Quote: Well I think one "solution" really needs to come from BTS. Two changes that would solve a lot of these problems. 1) Include the setup parameters as part of the encrypted game file that gets sent at the start of the game, and display it to the "player 2" who gets the file. 2) Come up with some way of preventing the "player 1" from cheating with a computer buy situation by looking at the map/opponents forces before sending it. I would think this would require the "player 2"'s computer to actually generate the map and his picks, or at least not show player 2 what the map is, nor what forces he will get, but just to enter a password. After this gets sent back to player 1 then the map gets generated, along with both sides units... Windopaene End: (Windopaene, I hope you do not consider me moving your post bad form). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 Is this a suggestion that could be part of that solution: "Moriarty Member posted 03-23-2001 01:28 PM quote: Originally posted: "Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies". One way to avoid this and save time typing is to do a screenshot of the setup window and send the jpg to your opponent. Side note: I, too, have no problem with letting the AI do the unit selections. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellros Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 IIRC, BTS has said that in CM2, the game parameters of a QB will be made visible to the opponent before unit selection. ------------------ "No matter where you go, there you are" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: One way to avoid this and save time typing is to do a screenshot of the setup window and send the jpg to your opponent. At the risk of sounding dense, what is to prevent a person from simply taking the screenshot of the setup window and then changing it to human select after? Also, this doesn't seem to address the more serious computer pick cheat problem which is the first player looking at his opponents forces, as well as being able to start new games until he comes up with a force mix most favorable to him. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 At the risk of sounding dense, what is to prevent a person from simply taking the screenshot of the setup window and then changing it to human select after? Here's another dense rumination: My opponent and I agree to play a scenario PBEM. I select the scenario, say, Elsdorf as the Allies. Before sending the file, I open the scenario in the editor and distribute a few extra tungsten rounds to each of my tanks. Opponent receives the revised file. Who's the wiser? I could be mistaken, but there's no file comparaison(?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmac@work Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 Geez! Bottom line guys, if ya gotta cheat to lend credence to your pathetic life, then go for it. I LOVE auto pick games, and set up quite a few for myself and my fellow Dog's of War. Of course I COULD look, but what's the point? I'm an adult. This is a game. I play if for the enjoyment. I receive a number of auto pick QB's. I play 'em and guess what? I don't even lose a seconds sleep worrying whether or not my opponent felt the need to "cheat".... And even if he DID, it all comes down to the execution, doesn't it? Come on guys, get over it. This dead horse is beginning to bleed from the eyes.... Bigmac out! ------------------ All CM All the time! The Dogs of War CM Club http://members.tripod.com/johnnocmdow/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windopaene Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 No problem at all Abbott. But the fact remains that with a few programming tweaks, which may or may not be difficult for BTS to do, the inherent problems in the PBEM Auto-picking problem could be eliminated. As a programmer I know that a "few programming tweaks" can end up being a lot more work than it appears on first glance, but still, I think they should do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 I understand your point bigmac, but the problem the other guys are espousing is that most players want to be confidant they are playing on a level playing field & if the current flawed QB autopick system doesn't allow that confidence, then that's where the problem lies. I personally would LOVE to play alot of autopick QB's but when your playing in a ladder system when, let's face it, everyone has an ego & wants to do well, you simply don't want to take the risk of your own ranking being screwed up because of an opponent not being able to resist the temptation of cheating under the current system. If there was just one further change to Combat Mission by way of a final patch I would love to see the Quickbattle system changed to avoid this possibility. And I feel I'm probably not the only one with this view either. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 Originally posted by bigmac@work: I don't even lose a seconds sleep worrying whether or not my opponent felt the need to "cheat".... That's great Bob. I suppose if you had designed CM you would have left out the extra turn cycle that prevents someone from redoing their turn if they don't like the results. The fact is that while most people are honest there is a significant minority who are not, and it's hard to tell which is which. Some people who play honest expect the same from others and are bothered by the prospect of cheating. It's just better to avoid situations where suspicion can easily arrise. For that reason I avoid computer pick games until BTS fixes it. If people have a problem with that, then that is their problem, not mine. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 I personally think this is important enough to warrant a BOOT! Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 I agree if it could be fixed then all well and good. BTS have thought hard about cheating and the implementation of the game has revolved around solving that. As with all development some things do not get spotted until after the release. If it can be fixed all well and good if not then at least people know there is a potential problem. BigMac is correct and in an ideal world people should just get on with living, however we live in a world where people want to win at any cost. I take BigMac approach and will play "Auto Pick" if someone wants. I will get an idea of what the player is like through chat and E-mail. If I think I am being mislead or don't enjoy the player then I guess I won't play them again. I can however understand people not playing Auto Pick and in an "Ideal World" would like it fixed. As I would also like the force balance changed with different points cost for the effectiveness ala the points made by Jason. I know however that this might not happen as BTS have other issues to deal with. H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted March 27, 2001 Author Share Posted March 27, 2001 My idea for posting this thread came from the fact that the CM II beta testers read the board. If this thread catches their eye it may help towards a solution in future releases. [This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-27-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 I don't see what's so mystical about fixing computer-chosen PBEMs. You just add another round of file exchange at the beginning: Player 1 sets the game parameters, enters his PW and sends to Player 2. Player 2 agrees to the game parameters and enters his PW. The game then generates the map and forces for both sides, and Player 2 sends the file to Player 1. Player 1 sees the purchased forces and map, and deploys. Player 2 see the purchased forces and map, and deploys. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted March 27, 2001 Author Share Posted March 27, 2001 Originally posted by Leonidas: I don't see what's so mystical about fixing computer-chosen PBEMs. You just add another round of file exchange at the beginning: Player 1 sets the game parameters, enters his PW and sends to Player 2. Player 2 agrees to the game parameters and enters his PW. The game then generates the map and forces for both sides, and Player 2 sends the file to Player 1. Player 1 sees the purchased forces and map, and deploys. Player 2 see the purchased forces and map, and deploys. Etc. Not sure I am understanding this Leonidas. Doesn’t the computer generate both forces for battle when a computer picked QB is generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 Leonidas wrote: I don't see what's so mystical about fixing computer-chosen PBEMs. You just add another round of file exchange at the beginning: Your approach is sound but it can be shortened by one message: Player 1 sets the game parameters, enters his PW and sends to Player 2. At this stage the game also generates a random seed that it includes in the parameters. Player 2 agrees to the game parameters and enters his PW. The game then generates the map and forces for both sides, and Player 2 sends the file to Player 1. The game generates the battle by initializing the random number generator to the seed that was sent from Player 1. Now, Player 2 may proceed with setup in the usual fashion since no matter how many times he tries to generate the map and the units it will be the same result every time, since the seed came from Player 1. Player 1 can't cheat because he doesn't know what the seed is and what forces will be generated using it. Player 2 can't cheat because the seed is fixed. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreck Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 I have a question. I understand that the cheat for autopicks is a potential problem for email games. But I have not seen anyone clearly assert that it is also a problem in TCP games. Is it? I would think that it would take a fair amount of time to check a particular battle to find out if it is advantageous. So if your TCP opponent takes less than a minute or two to generate the battle, you should have a pretty good notion that it is fair. If this is so, then autopick should still be usable for TCP games. Email players might get together to start their game via TCP, then take it to the mail after the setup or first turn is done. Anyone knowing more care to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamsters Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 Originally posted by Wreck: I have a question. I understand that the cheat for autopicks is a potential problem for email games. But I have not seen anyone clearly assert that it is also a problem in TCP games. Is it? I would think that it would take a fair amount of time to check a particular battle to find out if it is advantageous. So if your TCP opponent takes less than a minute or two to generate the battle, you should have a pretty good notion that it is fair. If this is so, then autopick should still be usable for TCP games. Email players might get together to start their game via TCP, then take it to the mail after the setup or first turn is done. Anyone knowing more care to comment? This is an excellent solution. Anyone who plays a ladder game should start computer pick QBs like this, as it guarantees no cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 Originally posted by Wreck: I have a question. I understand that the cheat for autopicks is a potential problem for email games. But I have not seen anyone clearly assert that it is also a problem in TCP games. Is it? I would think that it would take a fair amount of time to check a particular battle to find out if it is advantageous. So if your TCP opponent takes less than a minute or two to generate the battle, you should have a pretty good notion that it is fair. If this is so, then autopick should still be usable for TCP games. Email players might get together to start their game via TCP, then take it to the mail after the setup or first turn is done. Anyone knowing more care to comment? Not really, I think the host of the TCP/IP match can say Auto pick for you and I will buy my own for me and then buy them quick and then make the game available for connection so the connecting player (not the host) may have to wait to connect, (but he won't know how long the host has been configureing the set up) or the host can set the game up (like an ambush) as auto pick for you and I'll buy my own for me and then post in a chat looking for an opponent witht eh paramerters set up. I seriously DOUBT anyone has done this or would do this but the point remains if you are hosting you have ALL the control in a TCP/IP game and the opportunity to cheat by buying your own units if you are of that ilk. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-27-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmac@work Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Well, if something IS done, it sounds like tss's plan seems fairly easily incorporated. Of course, this is a totally ignorant statement from a non-programmer (me), but the big picture look of the resolution looks good to me. Would this allay the fears of those worried about cheating? Call me naive or slow, but I really didn't realize you even COULD cheat before reading this thread. Gee, thanks guys! No, but honestly I've played in over 100 PBEM games, with 3/4 of them probably being QB auto picks, and have yet to feel as if I've been "cheated". I mean, how much help is it REALLY in knowing your opponents force load out? Now, if you could see initial deployment, then ya, BIG deal. But just knowing the composition, since your forces have already been selected? Oh well. I'll go crawl back under my rock now... Bigmac out! ------------------ All CM All the time! Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Moreover, you will know if the guy made a truly gamey purchase. Simply the computer would never, ever purchase Churchills and US airborne infantry. Or a FLAK company, Jpz IVs and a whole bunch of SMG squads. Or G'Jaegers or F'Jaegers and anything but Stugs. . . Well, you get the idea. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Originally posted by wwb_99: Moreover, you will know if the guy made a truly gamey purchase. Simply the computer would never, ever purchase Churchills and US airborne infantry. Or a FLAK company, Jpz IVs and a whole bunch of SMG squads. Or G'Jaegers or F'Jaegers and anything but Stugs. . . Well, you get the idea. WWB Hmmm... I had computer generated forces in a single player game I set up where the computer chose for me 2 Churchill Mk VIII's plus 2 Daimlers in a 1,250 Meeting Engagement plus a platoon of Engineers! Naturally I was very happy with this force but I would bet if I was playing a human oponent in an E-Mail game- computer generated forces- he/she would probably be very suspicious that I had cheated if I had initially set the parameters. My point is, simply remove all possible doubt by changing the way these computer generated games are established through, what I assume, are relatively simple programme changes. Fell free anytime BTS to shoot me down on this. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts