The Dustbin

[SnuggleBunnies]

Mike perhaps wasn't entirely tactful in his statement, but I am in total agreement with him on this.

[DanZanzibar]

Tactfully put... +1
Also Mike gets a +1

[SimonLancaster]

Mike is mostly right for me. I agree that we want to see some changes and some ideas on how to stop this kind of cheating happening. I do, however, think that reloading turns could be and sometimes is normal behaviour. We don't all live in Europe or America. Internet is often poor in Asia or the Middle East. I had to often reload my turns on other games when I lived in the Middle East. Players from Eastern Europe don't always have good connections and a friend of mine reloaded three times last season in the Digital League because of his internet.

We don't want to suddenly turn into the FoG Inquisition. Just yesterday, a friend of mine in the US said his internet was going on and off because of a thunderstorm the previous day. We need to be open and understanding about all of this.

[melm]

I don't agree the players can monitor the reload result properly. One single reload, you are suspected as cheater, regardless what reason you give, because your opponent just regard such excuse as lie, putting a cheater hat on you, creating a thread to condemn you. This will be the outcome of the self-jurisdiction. It will go to nowhere as we start to find any evidence to presume your opponent is cheater, and then automatically wins the game. If such that wanting my opponent as a cheater starts then it would be like a virus spreading.

The best way is to improve the system that each movement s result should be recorded and uploaded to the server. Then people have no chance to redo the result. It's pretty safe for the community that Players can reload as many times as they want as long as they cannot change their unfavorable result.

[devoncop]

I don't agree the players can monitor the reload result properly. One single reload, you are suspected as cheater, regardless what reason you give, because your opponent just regard such excuse as lie, putting a cheater hat on you, creating a thread to condemn you. This will be the outcome of the self-jurisdiction. It will go to nowhere as we start to find any evidence to presume your opponent is cheater, and then automatically wins the game. If such that wanting my opponent as a cheater starts then it would be like a virus spreading.

The best way is to improve the system that each movement s result should be recorded and uploaded to the server. Then people have no chance to redo the result. It's pretty safe for the community that Players can reload as many times as they want as long as they cannot change their unfavorable result.

100% correct Melm.

Player monitoring (or indeed expecting Pete or other tournament organisers to do the monitoring/enforcement) is a none starter.

If I play a MP game (and all my MP games have been via the PBEM++ system because I am too thick to work out the file transfer system of other games ) I don't either expect or want to start "monitoring" my opponent.

Frankly I am the ideal opponent for any sad individual who wants to cheat as I frankly don't really care. I play all my games for enjoyment rather than being motivated by always winning (just as well given my ability!) so if the odd inadequate wants to spend their time reloading so their untrained rabble beats my veteran Legion after 8 hours of reloads then that is their problem not mine.

For those who do care though it cannot be right that players become some sort of digital Stasi reporting on real or imagined infringements based on one or more internet interruptions in their opponents turn.

Slithering really do need to change the mechanics to save the turn at the point the interruption happens so a reload makes no difference. If they don't then they will find the more competitive players will start abandoning the Leagues and Tournaments now the genie is out of the bottle.

[MikeMarchant]

The argument proposed by Cairn and whoever else seems nonsensical to me. I really don't know how it can be connected to cheating.

Take warbands.. let's say they are easy to break but they don't break. The cheater just tries again and eventually gets his reward. Let's say that warbands are actually not so easy to break. The cheater will just keep trying (like 225 times!!) and eventually get his reward.

The actual stats, percentages and probabilites have nothing to do with the actual motivation to cheat. If it can be done then the cheater will do it.

LOL! C'mon who is insane enough to try 225 times If you were inclined to cheat surely you agree you would do that if there was a good chance you got a result with only one or two restarts. I am not suggesting ant dramatic changes to the game. I'm talking about minor tweeks.

No, with the greatest respect I think you are trying to promote your own agenda. Yes, keep creating threads about RNG and probability but don't connect it directly to cheating.

Martin is absolutely right. Not only does the probability of an event occurring influence our ability to detect cheating, it also influences the motivation to cheat. If a player can get an advantageous result by reloading a couple of times he/she is very much more likely to cheat (if that is his/her nature) than if they have to reload multiple times a day for six months. is that not self-evident?


Best Wishes

Mike

[SimonLancaster]

LOL! C'mon who is insane enough to try 225 times If you were inclined to cheat surely you agree you would do that if there was a good chance you got a result with only one or two restarts. I am not suggesting ant dramatic changes to the game. I'm talking about minor tweeks.

No, with the greatest respect I think you are trying to promote your own agenda. Yes, keep creating threads about RNG and probability but don't connect it directly to cheating.

Martin is absolutely right. Not only does the probability of an event occurring influence our ability to detect cheating, it also influences the motivation to cheat. If a player can get an advantageous result by reloading a couple of times he/she is very much more likely to cheat (if that is his/her nature) than if they have to reload multiple times a day for six months. is that not self-evident?


Best Wishes

Mike

If a player is willing to reload games 99 and 225 times is it not self-evident that it doesn't matter how many times it takes he/she will cheat?

The motivation to cheat is there... for me, it is completely immaterial how many times it takes to cheat. Yes, this was a certain kind of person but once someone starts cheating it is a slippery slope.. you may try 5 times to get your result, which becomes 10 times in another game and so on.

But, this is just chit chat really. Our opinions.. what matters really is that safeguards are put in place to stop it happening in the first place!

[MikeMarchant]

No, with the greatest respect I think you are trying to promote your own agenda. Yes, keep creating threads about RNG and probability but don't connect it directly to cheating.

Martin is absolutely right. Not only does the probability of an event occurring influence our ability to detect cheating, it also influences the motivation to cheat. If a player can get an advantageous result by reloading a couple of times he/she is very much more likely to cheat (if that is his/her nature) than if they have to reload multiple times a day for six months. is that not self-evident?


Best Wishes

Mike

If a player is willing to reload games 99 and 225 times is it not self-evident that it doesn't matter how many times it takes he/she will cheat?

The motivation to cheat is there... for me, it is completely immaterial how many times it takes to cheat. Yes, this was a certain kind of person but once someone starts cheating it is a slippery slope.. you may try 5 times to get your result, which becomes 10 times in another game and so on.

But, this is just chit chat really. Our opinions.. what matters really is that safeguards are put in place to stop it happening in the first place!

Human nature suggests that an individual is more likely to attempt an act if it is viewed as easy than if it is viewed as difficult. If making cheating more difficult does not deter cheating, why would so much effort be put into making cheating difficult?


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

This will be my last post in the thread until you guys have an official answer as to what changes you will be making to the system since you deserve some (but not a lot) of time to discuss the issue internally and effect changes. This official answer should be posted in the main FoG2 forum as a sticky and not buried in the FoG2 DL subforum. I will say that a lot of what you posted I consider utter nonsense.

How do you know previous cheaters have been dealt with? You lack the context of what happens in the game when all you have is upload vs download numbers. How many are doing low-level cheating by strategically save scumming at critical points? It is impossible to tell for an automated checker. No automated system can do this since they don't have context. We on the other hand as player DO have context but we lack the data to see it ourselves. As I said before, no one runs up 225 reloads in one game without a steady ramp-up to that ridiculous number. That means he had been doing it and building up to that kind of behaviour with your system failing to catch it. We now have ample anecdotal evidence from his previous opponents across different time periods attesting to strange occurrences that can no longer be explained by RNG. *So don't sit here and expect me to believe the line about the "perfect storm"*. That is BS, you know it, I know it, anyone who understands how to savescum in FoG2 knows it. Your system failed here and at multiple points in time in the past.

I don't really go along with this at all. I think it is possible to credibly argue that the current monitoring system is really quite adequate for our purposes, with one major caveat. I think it helps to break the system down into two parts, what we can call the "technical" or "automated" part - and then there is the "human" part. Let's not forget that the "technical" part of the system did actually detect dkalenda abusing the system. My understanding of exactly how this "technical" part works is a bit vague, but apparently the system flags up the 10 most dodgy examples of mis-matches between downloads and uploads and then a member of staff is required to send a warning PM. What I don't know is how often these 10 possible examples of bad behaviour are flagged up. Every day? Every week? Or what? The longer there is between the checks the more likely it seems to me that the judicious save scummer will get away with it. Also, if the "technical" part of the system is only flagging up the 10 worst mismatches, what is the level of mismatches for players 11, 12 and 13 on "the list"? Is it negligible? Or is it more serious? Do we actually know?

The caveat I mentioned is the "human" part of this process. I can only assume that the person sending the warning PM to dkalenda, after he was initially flagged, did not delve deeper to establish how much of a problem was being identified. This is the key weakness in the system for me. Does Slitherine ask its staff embers to investigate thoroughly? I guess the screen for the flagging procedure doesn't actually show the member of staff the extent of the problem with an individual, just that there might be one. So perhaps this is where a change could be made so that the staff member does always check more thoroughly? At the moment it seems that the member of staff sends out 10 standard PM's to the players identified and then waits to see who replies. dkalenda did reply, and was therefore re-instated with a warning that any future trangressions would result in a permanent ban. He complied, and what we saw on the forum after this was a sequence of surrendered matches and surprise defeats. So the system, even as it is now, did eventually impact severely on his behaviour. But this does not answer the question of how he was very likely able to get away with it for so long. Was he warned before? If so, how serious was the trangression then? Does Slitherine keep a log of who has been warned so repeat offenders can be more robustly dealt with on a second occasion? I am generally in favour of giving people second chances, but sometimes when behaviour is so outrageous a permanent ban is warranted straight away. dkalenda should have been banned straight after the initial flagging up occurred this time and maybe he should have been banned before. If the player who had suspicions about him had not contacted me then dkalenda would still be playing in the tournament today.

Of course, if Slitherine's answer is that they cannot afford to have staff members spending more time checking and investigating what is happening on the server (because they have other duties), then any solution will have to be based on increasing the "technical" component of the checking procedure.

That is why transparency is what is required right now. In-game or out-of-game notifications when the server sends you the latest saved file telling you how many reloads your opponent did for that turn is almost a must-have as this point to restore player confidence. FoG2 rolls a lot of dice. With dozens of players playing dozens of games adding up; crazy events can and will happen. I have a video on Youtube showing two such instances in one game. One for my opponent, one for me. When the game or email notifies you that your opponent didn't reload the turn at all, it buries any and all speculation of cheating via save scumming. Bottom line, end of story. You as a player can rest assured that you just got screwed by RNGesus and move on. Without transparency, every single odd event begins to be questioned. You can see it happening already in this very thread where Thunderbird got accused. If there was an email notification saying Thunderbird had a 1:1 ratio, there is no way he would be accused. When you put the data in the player's hands, we can pool our data together and figure out cheaters like dkalenda far more quickly or exonerate players as a group when we can all say that reloads from Player X is rare to nonexistent. Without data, players cannot speak since we do not have the facts and are afraid of false accusations as several people I have spoken to have said. They refuse to provide names even in confidence since they believe it to be unfair and they are right - since we do not have data.

I think this could be an important part of the solution if the "technical" component has to be amplified. My worry is though that if someone reads (perhaps in the game chat box) that their opponent has made an extra download that turn then there may be an accusation of cheating right away before the other player has the chance to explain. Some people are very quick to assume the worst about others even though the explanation might be completely innocent. Therefore, perhaps the download count should only be shown at the end of a match and players could then be advised to report the incident by PM to a designated staff member and/or tournament organiser?

[SimonLancaster]

Martin is absolutely right. Not only does the probability of an event occurring influence our ability to detect cheating, it also influences the motivation to cheat. If a player can get an advantageous result by reloading a couple of times he/she is very much more likely to cheat (if that is his/her nature) than if they have to reload multiple times a day for six months. is that not self-evident?


Best Wishes

Mike

If a player is willing to reload games 99 and 225 times is it not self-evident that it doesn't matter how many times it takes he/she will cheat?

The motivation to cheat is there... for me, it is completely immaterial how many times it takes to cheat. Yes, this was a certain kind of person but once someone starts cheating it is a slippery slope.. you may try 5 times to get your result, which becomes 10 times in another game and so on.

But, this is just chit chat really. Our opinions.. what matters really is that safeguards are put in place to stop it happening in the first place!

Human nature suggests that an individual is more likely to attempt an act if it is viewed as easy than if it is viewed as difficult. If making cheating more difficult does not deter cheating, why would so much effort be put into making cheating difficult?


Best Wishes

Mike

In this current situation I really don’t see much difference between easy and difficult. You cheat 5 times. Next game you cheat 8 times. What is an acceptable number of reloads for one opponent might not be for another.

I do think some kind of reload counter would be a start.

Overall, though, server side calculations have to be the way forward. That might not come until the next game..

[Najanaja]

Division D

Najanaja - Roman 199-106 BC with Greek 227-146 BC allies beat ggarynorman - Indo-Greek 175BC-10 AD 46-7

[Cunningcairn]

If a player is willing to reload games 99 and 225 times is it not self-evident that it doesn't matter how many times it takes he/she will cheat?

The motivation to cheat is there... for me, it is completely immaterial how many times it takes to cheat. Yes, this was a certain kind of person but once someone starts cheating it is a slippery slope.. you may try 5 times to get your result, which becomes 10 times in another game and so on.

But, this is just chit chat really. Our opinions.. what matters really is that safeguards are put in place to stop it happening in the first place!

Human nature suggests that an individual is more likely to attempt an act if it is viewed as easy than if it is viewed as difficult. If making cheating more difficult does not deter cheating, why would so much effort be put into making cheating difficult?


Best Wishes

Mike

In this current situation I really don’t see much difference between easy and difficult. You cheat 5 times. Next game you cheat 8 times. What is an acceptable number of reloads for one opponent might not be for another.

I do think some kind of reload counter would be a start.

Overall, though, server side calculations have to be the way forward. That might not come until the next game..

SLancaster my name is Martin. As Pete has mentioned above as soon as someone has a bad result and sees that there has been a restart accusations will fly justified or not. A restart does not mean there has been cheating. Neither does the number of restarts. A single cheating restart in a turn can change the result a game changing combat while 3 innocent restarts in a turn might not change anything despite there being a game changing combat in the that particular turn. It is indeed a dilemma unless as Mike suggests Slitherine prevents players being able to change a result when there is a restart. Personally I can't see this happening and think we need to find other ways of changing risk and reward criteria to stop players wanting to cheat..

[MikeMarchant]

If a player is willing to reload games 99 and 225 times is it not self-evident that it doesn't matter how many times it takes he/she will cheat?

The motivation to cheat is there... for me, it is completely immaterial how many times it takes to cheat. Yes, this was a certain kind of person but once someone starts cheating it is a slippery slope.. you may try 5 times to get your result, which becomes 10 times in another game and so on.

But, this is just chit chat really. Our opinions.. what matters really is that safeguards are put in place to stop it happening in the first place!

Human nature suggests that an individual is more likely to attempt an act if it is viewed as easy than if it is viewed as difficult. If making cheating more difficult does not deter cheating, why would so much effort be put into making cheating difficult?


Best Wishes

Mike

In this current situation I really don’t see much difference between easy and difficult. You cheat 5 times. Next game you cheat 8 times. What is an acceptable number of reloads for one opponent might not be for another.

I do think some kind of reload counter would be a start.

Overall, though, server side calculations have to be the way forward. That might not come until the next game..

If by 'this current situation' you are talking about cheating in general, then whether it is easy or difficult to cheat is absolutely funadmental to the problem.


Best Wishes

Mike

[NikiforosFokas]

Congrats for the win of the division

Thanks .

[Cunningcairn]

Human nature suggests that an individual is more likely to attempt an act if it is viewed as easy than if it is viewed as difficult. If making cheating more difficult does not deter cheating, why would so much effort be put into making cheating difficult?


Best Wishes

Mike

In this current situation I really don’t see much difference between easy and difficult. You cheat 5 times. Next game you cheat 8 times. What is an acceptable number of reloads for one opponent might not be for another.

I do think some kind of reload counter would be a start.

Overall, though, server side calculations have to be the way forward. That might not come until the next game..

SLancaster my name is Martin. As Pete has mentioned above as soon as someone has a bad result and sees that there has been a restart accusations will fly justified or not. A restart does not mean there has been cheating. Neither does the number of restarts. A single cheating restart in a turn can change the result of a game changing combat while 3 innocent restarts in a turn might not change anything despite there being a game changing combat in the that particular turn. It is indeed a dilemma unless as Mike suggests Slitherine prevents players being able to change a result when there is a restart. Personally I can't see this happening and think we need to find other ways of changing risk and reward criteria to stop players wanting to cheat..

[stockwellpete]

An unbeaten record has seen NikiforosFokas win Classical Antiquity Division C with his Carthaginian army. Well played NikiforosFokas!

[MikeMarchant]

Well done, Kostas. Stunning record!


Best Wishes

Mike

[devoncop]

Really well done my friend.

A formidable opponent and a thoroughly nice chap too

Ian

[Tratmot]

Cheater is a specific human player. If a people is a "normal player", play for fun AND win. A Cheater play ONLY to win, no matter on fun. If need, can reload even 1.000 time for turn ...

Any solution to improve the control, like opponent number of reload, can work because move up the line of control needed to win without ban. No one Cheater can win if banned.
It's possible ... it's sure have some initial bad interpretation from normal player if opponent reload 1-2 time (it's normal), but after few game this interpretation gone away.

Hope my bad english is understanding ... =(
Cosimo

[phoyle3290]

Good playing! Well deserved.

Patrick