Hubert. Severe cheating possible in SC. Make SC2 as free from CHEATING as possible.

[zappsweden]

Hombre Plin just accused me of cheating. I said I did not believe that cheating was possible in SC and demanded evidence. HE then showed me that cheating IS possible in SC by modifying his MPP to a large number. I was surprised that a program could change a value on one computer and pass that faked value over to the other computer without the other computer noticing it. I have some questions.

1) Hubert, will you design SC2 with a double checking and double storing system or something else to prevent the misstrust that the possibility of cheating creates?

I mean, if every value was double stored then the computer could check the validity of the parameter sent by the other one. In SC, every move is transmitted to the opponent and that is why the moves are made instantly, BUT THE VALIDIY CHECKING IS ONLY DONE THROUGH THE GUI on the computer where the active player sits. Some hackprograms can manipulate numbers. That is where the beauty of double storing comes in.

Example (I write that the CPU store data for simplicity but actually it is stored in the RAM):

Player 1 sits on Computer 1 (with CPU 1). CPU1 has Germany at 50 MPP in their bank account (stored in the memory of CPU 1)

Computer 2 also has 50 MPP for Germany (CPU 2)

Player1 sits on Computer 1 (with CPU 1) and is making his moves. The nasty Player1 uses a program and manipulates Germany to 9999 MPP and buy a corps. CPU1 subtracts 125 from 9999 and now has Germany at 9874 MPP.

CPU1 send a message (string) to CPU2 that corresponds to "Germany bought a corps and placed it in Berlin". CPU2 takes HIS stored value for Germany (50 MPP) and substract the corps cost (125 MPP) and sums it up to 50-125=-75 MPP for Germany i.e not allowed. CPU2 knows that CPU1 made something buggy and sends a message to the screen and to the other computer that the game is corrupted plus the game terminates. Preferrably, the message says what is wrong like "MPP was illegaly modified, game terminated" or something like that.

[ October 19, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

I always felt something fishy was going on. Hey Terif, how's that FOW sniffer work?

[Hombre Plin]

Well, this will be my first and my last post in this Forum. When accusing someone, i always try to demonstrate what i say. In this case is impossible to demonstrate that Zapps is a cheater. And i would have retired from the game with no further commentary. I dont believe in miracles and the least i cant say is that is amazing what a mind can think in the 20 min passed since i proved Zapps that cheating is possible... maybe he was thinking about this issue for a couple of days or months.

I know what that mean and was discussing with Rambo about the convenience of posting. Zapps decided to post so...

Sorry for all the honest players of SC

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Hombre Plin:

I dont believe in miracles and the least i cant say is that is amazing what a mind can think in the 20 min passed since i proved Zapps that cheating is possible... maybe he was thinking about this issue for a couple of days or months.

U mean like "Coming up with an idea in 20 minutes beyond having Bachelor degrees in both Computer Science and Computer Engineering and being interested in game development and security" ?

I aint no cheater. Some players have played me 40-50 times and never ever accused me of cheating. You should read a course in mathematics or science and learn to draw your conclusion based on FACTS.

[Hombre Plin]

Your motto says everything

[zappsweden]

Amazing. You joined the "Terif play for fun" category now?

You have no FACTS. In our game, I bought only 2 UK corps during the whole France war in 1940. I also held Malta+Brest very long and held Bergen throughout the whole game. Those reasons explain why I could afford alot of air duels with luftwaffe. When u did the sea-lion, I sold something almost every turn. A bomber, a free french air fleet, a UK air fleet and two chits. That meant I could buy 1-2 corps every turn plus afford some reinforcements of damaged ones.

When you were surprised that my entrenched air in London took no damage on direct air attack and when I got L1 jets (since I had only weak hiding air on Ireland at the time it was too late to help out. UK surrendered eventually) and when Russia and USA joined the war 2 turns before UK was wiped out I guess that summed up to your weird conclusion. Get the FACTS straight before u accuse someone.

[ October 19, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Comrade Trapp]

Hombre Plin

Me and Zapp have had our disagreements but I have never known him to cheat. I have played many games against him over the year that I have known him and can't recall anyone ever accusing him of cheating.

I don't think your lying; I think this is just a misunderstanding.

Zapp

You joined the "Terif play for fun league now"?

Don't go there.

Comrade Trapp

[ October 18, 2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Comrade Trapp ]

[Liam]

Hmmm, I have played Zapp a few times and it was quite the opposite of a cheater. He was helpful where people like Terif and Rambo withheld certian vital information about strategy.

In all my games versus Terif he would play me whether laddered or whatever... If I was a better player, would have beat him at least twice by now out of 20 games. It's not the fact he's cheated it's the fact that he's better than I am and I do not need to accuse...the figures are pretty obvious on the map....blame yourself for not understanding game mechanics or strategies folks

[Shaka of Carthage]

I pointed out awhile back, that its quite possible to cheat in SC, the only real question being is it worth the effort just so you can say you won.

Hombre Plin, you'll find that almost every computer game can be manipulated in a way that is considered cheating. Without going into the specifics of your accusations against Zappsweden, why not simply play other people instead of giving up SC totally?

Zappsweden, while I can't answer specifically for Mr H, it comes down to resources. For the same reason many features that would be nice are left out of the game, more than likely the security feature you want was left out for similar reasons. Even the feature you described can be easily defeated, unless there is a constant data update between machines to show changed values. Games, especially entertainment games, can never defeat someone who is determined to cheat.

[jon_j_rambo]

Liam --- We're talking about the MMP cheat & FOW sniffer that people have. It's a fact, seeing is believing.

[Liam]

Rambo: That really sucks

if someone has gone through the trouble of programming a hack, vis versa if someone was motivated enough they can program protection

[Curry]

Man, all this computer tech stuff, I wouldnt be able to cheat if I wanted too. Wouldnt know how. My point is most people are like me.

Rambo - you really think people have those things for SC? Would not surprise me though. There is a whole web site dedicated to cheats for playing on the zone.com (zonehacks.com).

Dont beleive Zapp cheats. Simple reason, he would have beaten Terif a lot more than once or twice.

[ October 18, 2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[Iron Ranger]

Interesting - and note worthy that HP discovered this (?). I hope you all pull back and use alittle less emotion - lets give up the 'he cheated - did not stuff" and go though the facts. Zapp has always worked hard at keeping the game even, HP is a good player and I've never seen anything 'fishy' in his game. Rambo also say's others have the FOW egale eyes (LOL). Lets keep to the info - Zapp, whats your take on this - double value?

[Curry]

OK I confess, I cheated and gave myself 25,000 extra MPP points against Terif. But I still lost! Moral of the story: Cheating doesnt help those of us who suck at this game anyway!

[ October 18, 2003, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[Liam]

I know one thing I have the most notorious loss record in the history of SC!

so if any of you have been cheating in my games I'm gonna hack your computer and charge a new computer in your name to me free of my charge

Bastages

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Everytime I see the word cheating in a wargame it makes me sad.

Sad though only for the other guy.

Cheating in Vegas is potentially dangerous, but hmm it's about cash.

Cheating in an intellectual pursuit though, totally different matter.

I personally enjoy the fact I NEVER cheat in a matter of intellect. I could not bear the realisation that would come with it, that I was just to dumb to win the honest way.

In a wargame it is inevitable I am going to lose some of the time. It doesn't bother me when I do. I have played numerous games where I could smell the fact I was not going to win long before I lost. But it's the flip side to that sweet smell of victory you sometimes get as well.

I don't think I have ever accused another person of cheating in a wargame before. I hope I never do.

I have had some spirited dicussions over the semantics of a rule in a rule book during a wargame with my old wargaming friend of course.

If SC has elements of it's design open to rampant cheating, it doesn't worry me. It is easier to stop playing a person you think has succumbed to the weakness of cheating, and just move on. Than it is to design a cheat proof wargame.

I think you will encounter mostly good players. It is likely you will encounter some cheaters too. They are like the guys on forums that are annoying. You have to learn to deal with them or in the end you are the only one that suffers.

[ October 18, 2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1 ]

[JerseyJohn]

Zappsweden

I doubt anyone thinks you're a cheater.

Liam

Ah, the old Robber Baron re-emerges at last with a new computer wishlist!

Aside from which I have the worst won-lost record in history, 3 wins and 109 losses, despite averaging 17 reloads per move! :eek:

I've been thinking a lot about your idea of Giant Ants as a War Game; something like Orson Scott Card's novel Ender's Game. It would be interesting. Ever see the early fifties science fiction movie, Them!? It's about giant desert ants attacking Los Angeles -- of course-!

[ October 19, 2003, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bill101]

What on earth is the FOW sniffer?

I just try to use my common sense and take a look at the Reports screen once in a while to work out what my opponent might be up to.

I don't think people should worry too much about cheating in this game. Not even move reloads, because while they could have some effect, it is long term planning and investment that counts.

This doesn't mean that I condone cheating, far from it, but there's too much worrying about it. If someone is sad enough to hack the program then they really should get a life.

Bill

[ October 19, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Terif]

We all play SC to have fun and for the honour, not for money. If someone cheats, he will have no fun and proves - at least to himself - that he has no honour.

It is possible to hack every program, its only a matter of time, knowledge, effort and motivation. If SC got hacked, then it was obiously not so easy, since it took more than a year, so Hubert did a good job here.

I had my argument with Zapp, but he never cheated in our games.

During a Sealion Allies will sell every unit and research chit they cant use directly for the defence of England. So its really no problem to build a lot of corps there like Zapp obviously did.

Rambo:

You only have to use your brain and memory to know where enemy units probably are. Every unit has a defined amount of action points and you see in which direction it is moving, so you can be pretty sure where it will be, especially with a bit of experience. Then you only have to use some transports, corps or simply an airfleet to spot them....you dont need a "FoW sniffer", you only have to know the basics of war (reconnaissance is decissive) and the basics of SC. Then turn on your brain...

I hope this discussion about cheating wont last long. We are a small comunity and know each other very well. Since the starting positions in SC are well known, it would be very difficult to cheat (even if it would be technical possible) without the opponent noticing it. At least veterans should be able to notice it. So even if someone would try to cheat he wouldnt be undetected for very long....

As far as I can see, nobody ever cheated in my games and I hope it will stay this way.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Zappsweden, while I can't answer specifically for Mr H, it comes down to resources. For the same reason many features that would be nice are left out of the game, more than likely the security feature you want was left out for similar reasons. Even the feature you described can be easily defeated, unless there is a constant data update between machines to show changed values. Games, especially entertainment games, can never defeat someone who is determined to cheat.

Shaka, there IS already a stream of data showing MOST of the changes. When one player battles, the battle and the result is transmitted to the other computer and performed there too.

You are perhaps still living in the "Anything is possible with computers" world. You cannot just say what you say and not back it up. Computers are not mysterious creatures able to pull tricks out of the pocket and defy the laws of physics. You gotta explain.

Explain to be (I am very curious) how a double storing and double checking can be defeated?

As I explained, if one of the CPU diverges in numbers they will eventually collide with the other CPU.

For example:

The battles could be controlled too. When CPU1 fight a battle, he sends his roll over to CPU2. Both CPU calculate the losses from the formula with the same roll. The CPU can then easily show a graph of rolls and expose if one side got many wicked rolls.

So, tell me how someone could get any advantage at all without being exposed as a cheater?

[ October 19, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Terif]

Hi Zapp, we posted simultaneously in the same minute ...

I think what Shaka meant was: Hubert is a one man team. He has only a limited amount of time and money to program things. Probably he had no time to implement a double storing/checking system or something similar.

But nonetheless, its a good idea from you for SC2 if it is easy to implement and Hubert has the time/knowlegde to do so. If you know how it can be done, you could perhaps contact him.

Bill101:

I just try to use my common sense and take a look at the Reports screen once in a while to work out what my opponent might be up to....it is long term planning and investment that counts

I fully agree...

[ October 19, 2003, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[zappsweden]

My conlusions to the cheating matters:

1) REPLAY REVEAL STATS CHEATING

Yes, you can cheat any number BUT yes, with a replay you can be checked afterwards and revealed.

2) ROLL GRAPHS REVEAL INPUT FUNCTIONALITY CHEATING:

You can cheat with functionality input (tech rolls, battle rolls) but with a roll graph system (showing not only the roll but the current map situation and the date) it can at leist be shown afterwards. If u play someone several times and he Always gets the right rolls in the right moments then u will know that he is a cheater.

3) DOUBLE CALCULATIONS (BOTH THE CLIENT AND HOST RUNS THE SAME FUNCTION) REVEAL FUNCTIONALITY OUTPUT CHEATING:

You can cheat with the result (output) of a function (example is Battle results) but if the same function is performed on both computers, the cheating computer will diverge and eventually produce odd numbers, which the other computer will find out sooner or later in a validity check. For example, if a unit is destroyed on one board but alive on the other board it will lead to illegal moves. Next time that unit is referred to, the other computer will say "no, there is no such unit on the board" and terminate.

[ October 19, 2003, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Zaapsweden, before I answer your question, let me point out that I've been programming and doing system designs for over 20 years and was there when the first PC's came out. I point this out simply because any security system on a computer can be defeated and I don't want to start a discussion about the hows.

And like the others who have pointed out, its alot easier to stop playing someone who you suspect of cheating. You can't make a living playing SC, nor does it get you females. So why play against someone you don't like or suspect of cheating?

To your question... Temporarily suspend the outside transmissions, even if it requires corrupting the data packets. Increase the MPPs, buy the new units, then reduce the MPPs back to the original value. Resume the outside transmissions. There will probably be a few other tweaks required, since I'm sure I've overlooked a few things, but there is the general idea.

[Codename Condor]

Trying to find a cheater reminds me of one of my favourites SF movies of all times, The Thing. Both of them are about "can u trust your neighbour?".

Now the 12 men of the SC Outpost #31 stand between the cheater and total infection of the forum. They must destroy the creature and prevent it from reaching civilisation. The only problem is - can they trust each other - when there is no guarantee the next man is human?

The Thing is based on a short novel "Who goes there?" by J.W. Campbell. Id highly recommend to read the novel, here goes the complete novel, a must-read free of charge

Who Goes There?

Great url to find everything about the thing and movie ending conclusions.

The Thing

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

To your question... Temporarily suspend the outside transmissions, even if it requires corrupting the data packets. Increase the MPPs, buy the new units, then reduce the MPPs back to the original value. Resume the outside transmissions. There will probably be a few other tweaks required, since I'm sure I've overlooked a few things, but there is the general idea.

Shaka, the thing you are describing is the following.

YOU DESCRIBED:

Two humans play chess on a single board. One of them goes to the toilet and the other one adds pieces while he is gone. That is how SC works but contrary to what I described.

I DESCRIBED:

I described double storing i.e we play chess with TWO boards and do every move twice (once on each board). I cannot change your board, you cannot change mine. I make my move, I tell you what move I made and you make the same move (if it is a legal move) and we are have identical boards again.

I can only say to you

- I move my pawn from A2 to A6"

(and you will in this case say)

- Wrong, you cannot move pawn 4 squares".

I cannot say

- The board is now the following, Knight on A5, Rook on D5, ...

(because you would laught at me and say)

- Hey, just tell me your move

-Well, Ok I moved my Rook from G5 to D5.

(You would move the rook on YOUR board and we would now have identical boards again)

If I add an extra queen and say

- I move my queen from B1 to B6

(you would say)

- Nope, there is no queen on B1

COMMENTS:

You cannot add pieces to one board if everything is double checked. Say we play chess and we start with 16 pieces each. Both computers then have identical stats when we begin the game, ok?

If I cheat and add 4 new pieces to my board, I will only have 20 pieces on MY board (my CPU) but 16 pieces on YOUR board (your CPU). So explain to me then, how will it work without crashing?

If I can transfer all my stats to you and u accept them without hesitation then it is possible to cheat. Both computers will say that I have 20 pieces. However, that is not the case I am referring too. The case I am referring too is a strict communication that meanse I cannot change YOUR stats but I can send you messages and you can check if they are VALID before you change YOUR stats.

My idea is that every move is double performed. Both computers do the same move. The first computer does it first, then sends the move to the other computer. The other computer checks the validity of the message and does the move OR take actions if something is incorrect.

If u add units without telling the other computer, sooner or later those ghost units will be involved in battles. The non-cheating computer will then know something is wrong because he has 16 written positions of the enemies pieces and suddenly the enemy moves piece number 17 i.e a piece that he did not signal he bought.

If the enemy tried to cheat by signalling he buys more units than he can afford by manipulatuing his MPP, it wont work. The other computer will do the purchases too and eventually go down below zero MPP.

In the current system, sending a "I have 10 000 MPP" works and the other computer accepts it without queation. However, with a better system no such messages would be accepted. Both computers would keep track of the MPP for each country and subtract and add those values by themselves instead of accpting someone else computations.

[ October 19, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]