Potential PBEM exploit

[PJL]

Just wondering, due to the WEGO system it is impossible for the non-host to cheat by redoing a turn again, but this isn't the case with the host. As far as I know there is no way of checking whether the host has just saved it once or several times (by going back one turn and redoing his move)? Not saying that anyone here is actually cheating though. Does Ageod plan to do anything about this?

[Childress]

Yes, indeed, an important question. Battlefront, with their Combat Missions series, solved this but it entailed, IIRC, three email exchanges for every 2 turns.

[Pocus]

This is a known fact, the host can cheat and you won't find a system that can prevent that. For example I could install the game on my laptop and regular PC, and replay/reload my turn on my laptop before doing the real turn on my primary PC...

[Childress]

Cheating is impossible in CM and it uses the same WEGO format. It's been a couple of years since I played it but do remember there was a proposal for an 'honour system' that eliminated one of the exchanges. It may be worth investigating since any good PBEM game should have rock solid security. (Not that people aren't honest, but he temptations are so great....)

[Hobbes]

I think less people cheat in wargames then people may think. It may be the demographic that plays wargames are above all that

I know a lot of people won't play games like The Campaign Series due to the ease of cheating yet in 5 years of PBEM against 30 or 40 different opponents I had no reason to suspect more that one or two of them and simply didn't play them again.

Cheers, Chris

[Bullman]

This is a known fact, the host can cheat and you won't find a system that can prevent that.

As Childress points out quite correctly, the Combat Mission series by Battlefront has a similar WEGO PBEM system quite like AACW, yet there is NO WAY to "cheat" when playing PBEM with both players using passwords for their files.

Start Game
file 1: player 1 issues orders for Turn1
------pattern starts here------
file 2: player 2 issues orders for Turn1
file 3: player 1 watches turn replay of Turn 1
file 4: player 2 watches replay of Turn 1 and issues orders for Turn2
------pattern starts here------
file 5: player 1 issues orders for Turn2
file 6: player 2 watches replay of turn2
file 7: player 1 watches replay of turn 2 and issues orders for Turn3
------pattern starts here------
file 8: player 2 issues orders for Turn3
file 9: player 1 watches replay of turn3
file 10: player 2 watches replay of turn 3 and issues orders for Turn4

etc

If AACW is not like this, then theoretically it could.

I know a lot of people won't play games like The Campaign Series due to the ease of cheating yet in 5 years of PBEM against 30 or 40 different opponents I had no reason to suspect more that one or two of them and simply didn't play them again.

Hobbes, funny you mention that because I was one of them. I was playing in an organised online "league" or something that had ranks and points etc and mainly composed of "mature" players. Quite fun until one PBEM battle I played (I had only played a few up until then) I got suspicious of my opponents overly favourable die rolls. I ended up reviewing all his PBEM files (out of curiousity originally) and recorded every die roll he had made in the game (there was a sample of approximately 180 rolls if I recall so it was statsistcally very significant), tallied the results up on a spreadsheet, and checked them against the expected statistical mean. There was a significant favourable skew in his rolls, and something like a 0.3% chance that it could be explained by chance alone. That was enough for me to just give up on that game playing PBEM in that league.

Bottom line, no game will be truly enjoyable and satisfying to play against an opponent IF there even exists a possibility that they could cheat, so my message to ANY game designer thinking of designing games for MP....design out ANY possibilty of cheating from the start (like Battlefront did with CM ) and let the players enjoy the game WITHOUT having to worry ever about whether their opponent (whoever they are) is cheating.

Bullman

[johnnycai]

This is a known fact, the host can cheat and you won't find a system that can prevent that. For example I could install the game on my laptop and regular PC, and replay/reload my turn on my laptop before doing the real turn on my primary PC...

I, for one, didnt know of this 'known fact'. I believe integrity and honour have their place in all competitions but the fact remains that cheating is possible and that the non-host can be cheated.
I ask for the AGEOD to work to eliminate this, there are systems in place with other games/publishers that can work and should at least be offered as possible solutions to the community.

[jimkehn]

I don't understand how anyone could be so insecure as to think they need to cheat to win. <although I know it happens....just it doesn't make sense to me> Winning isn't all that important to me, in the first place. I enjoy just playing the game and the fellowship that comes along with it. If I suspect someone of cheating, then I just won't play the guy.

[Sol Invictus]

Would it be possible for the program to at least inform the non-hosting player if a turn had been played more than once?

[boudi]

In waiting other solutions, like Combat Mission, the must, a third person can be the host, no ?

[Childress]

In waiting other solutions, like Combat Mission, the must, a third person can be the host, no ?

No, just two players. I remember competing in very competitive tournaments of 32-64 participants. The only downside was the extra email per turn, which in AACW should be less onerous since each turn = 15 days; not a single minute as in CM.

I think this a vital issue. In fact, I'll mail my CMBB disk to any verified Ageod rep. So he can check how it works.....

[Hobbes]

As Childress points out quite correctly, the Combat Mission series by Battlefront has a similar WEGO PBEM system quite like AACW, yet there is NO WAY to "cheat" when playing PBEM with both players using passwords for their files.

Start Game
file 1: player 1 issues orders for Turn1
------pattern starts here------
file 2: player 2 issues orders for Turn1
file 3: player 1 watches turn replay of Turn 1
file 4: player 2 watches replay of Turn 1 and issues orders for Turn2
------pattern starts here------
file 5: player 1 issues orders for Turn2
file 6: player 2 watches replay of turn2
file 7: player 1 watches replay of turn 2 and issues orders for Turn3
------pattern starts here------
file 8: player 2 issues orders for Turn3
file 9: player 1 watches replay of turn3
file 10: player 2 watches replay of turn 3 and issues orders for Turn4

etc

If AACW is not like this, then theoretically it could.



Hobbes, funny you mention that because I was one of them. I was playing in an organised online "league" or something that had ranks and points etc and mainly composed of "mature" players. Quite fun until one PBEM battle I played (I had only played a few up until then) I got suspicious of my opponents overly favourable die rolls. I ended up reviewing all his PBEM files (out of curiousity originally) and recorded every die roll he had made in the game (there was a sample of approximately 180 rolls if I recall so it was statsistcally very significant), tallied the results up on a spreadsheet, and checked them against the expected statistical mean. There was a significant favourable skew in his rolls, and something like a 0.3% chance that it could be explained by chance alone. That was enough for me to just give up on that game playing PBEM in that league.

Bottom line, no game will be truly enjoyable and satisfying to play against an opponent IF there even exists a possibility that they could cheat, so my message to ANY game designer thinking of designing games for MP....design out ANY possibilty of cheating from the start (like Battlefront did with CM ) and let the players enjoy the game WITHOUT having to worry ever about whether their opponent (whoever they are) is cheating.

Bullman

It would be nice to have both systems in place as an option. I would rather find an opponent I trust than have a more cumbersome PBEM regime though.
I understand this isn't always possible however especially in games where a PBEM can last 6 months.

It would be a little awkward to have the option though as you would have to agree with your opponent whether you actually trust each other

Cheers, Chris

[boudi]

No, just two players.

Two players can send their orders files to a third person, the host (who don't play) , the host close the turn, and send the files to the two players. It's possible, no ?

[HMSWarspite]

Why not just arrange it that the replay is identical however many times the host plays it, by encoding the initial random number seed at the non host's end. What I mean is:

Turn 1
Host (player 1) does orders, send to non host (player 2)
Player 2 does orders, and 'ends turn'. This encodes a seed into the save file, that cannot be altered by anyone (player 1 or 2). Send to player 1

Turn 2
Player one recieves turn 1, plays it (but the results are fixed by the seed (and the number of random die rolls). Enters orders for turn 2
Player 2 sees results of turn 1 , enters orders for turn 2 (thus fixing new seed)

etc

I believe this is the system that UV/WitP use.

Alternatively, don't play anyone you don't trust - I mean if their self esteem is so bad that cheating is somehow better than a 'bad' turn, what hope is there! (Cheat proof turn sequences wont stop them, they will just hack the file, or more likely drop out suddenly without explanation!)

[McNaughton]

The problem isn't the replay, but running the game, and seeing your opponents moves, then countering them perfectly.

[PDF]

As some said, for 2-players game the CM system is the only I know that's effectively cheat-proof, as the "host" switches from one player to another, each seeing the results after the other has hosted.
In 3+ player mp games (Space Empires, Dominions, Stars!...) there's usually a specific host software , that is separated from players front-end, so hosting can be "externalized" to a non-player or a bot (eg Autohost for Stars, PBW for SE...).
From what Pocus said/wrote AGE games could be hosted externally, that will solve the issue. Currently the games are only 2-players and it's much simpler to have one fixed hosting player.

[Adam the VIth]

Hey -- how does one find a PBEM opponent? Have a missed a PBEM sub-forum? I am sick of playing Athena.....

Just PM someone? Are there "house rules" that most agree to? THere must be a PBEM sub-forum I have missed....a little help?

Thanks.

[Hobbes]

There is a PBEM forum http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=88
But often you can find opponents in other ways.

Many PBEM opponents I have had over years with different games.
You get to trust each other and enjoy games as they come out.

Cheers, Chris

[James D Burns]

This is a known fact, the host can cheat and you won't find a system that can prevent that. For example I could install the game on my laptop and regular PC, and replay/reload my turn on my laptop before doing the real turn on my primary PC...

Well one way to prevent cheating with a system like this, is to have the second players PC execute the turn after he ends his move and then save the results without allowing the second player to actually see those results until after the first player receives the turn, plots his moves, and sends it back.

Jim

[tagwyn]

HEY it is hard enough for me to just absorb all the rules!!! I don't play anyone I don't trust. L3

[Pocus]

We have an external developer who is doing the play by web server PDF is talking about. Hopefully with that in place you won't have to worry about cheating.

[Bullman]

We have an external developer who is doing the play by web server PDF is talking about. Hopefully with that in place you won't have to worry about cheating.

This is good news!

I hope you guys realise the importance of designing out the abilty to cheat in a MP game. Makes MP games (the only kind of gaming I tend to play) much more satisfying and fun for all concerned and eliminates all doubt.

Please keep us informed.

[johnnycai]

Excellent!
Thanks Pocus.