Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:05 pm How about making it so a dodgy player's soldiers start dying as they are doing their re-loaded turn? They start by clutching their stomachs and groaning and then they all drop dead. It would be a fitting end, I feel.
Or they all get the shits and go running back frantically over their baseline!devoncop wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:56 pmstockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:05 pm How about making it so a dodgy player's soldiers start dying as they are doing their re-loaded turn? They start by clutching their stomachs and groaning and then they all drop dead. It would be a fitting end, I feel.
The wrath of the Gods.
Ideal.
I am feeling now that there ought to be a strong humiliatory element to any new system that is brought in. 
It is difficult, because you have to get it right. Especially if FoG II becomes more prominent and its userbase expands considerably. This is the kind of thing that ends up on the Jimquisition. A lot comes down to what is considered an excessive number of reloads and also a suspicious pattern of reloads. I have had to abandon a turn maybe two to three times in my almost 2000 hours of play. I actually reported the first instance of it as a bug (the bug report is probably still somewhere in the technical forum somewhere, though it might be lost to the mists of time or the archives or something by now). Then again, I have also been through having an internet connection which dropped out after just 20 minutes prior to picking up FoG II. Obviously, that is normally when you get the engineer out, but we cannot afford to have any false positives.IainMcNeil wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:35 pm I understand your frustration but any change has to be thought through. This is not a simple thing to resolve without causing as much damage as good so we need to evaluate the options here and make sure we get it right. This was a perfect storm of support staff being on holiday so the team being undermanned and not monitoring the system as closely as they should and letting someone get away with something they clearly shouldn't. Previous cheating has already been dealt with and users involved banned. I'm not saying we wont make any changes but we're going to look at the data across all games and work out how we can better detect cheating from normal behaviour, not a knee jerk reaction.
Make the system too sensitive and you risk haranguing innocent players who are maybe just having bad internet that day but are determined (or under some kind of competitive obligation) to get through their turns. Make it too lax, and we'll have another case like this on our hands.Is it possible to improve the current PBEM++ system to PBEM+++ system that each move result is uploaded to the server instead of each turn?IainMcNeil wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:35 pm I understand your frustration but any change has to be thought through. This is not a simple thing to resolve without causing as much damage as good so we need to evaluate the options here and make sure we get it right. This was a perfect storm of support staff being on holiday so the team being undermanned and not monitoring the system as closely as they should and letting someone get away with something they clearly shouldn't. Previous cheating has already been dealt with and users involved banned. I'm not saying we wont make any changes but we're going to look at the data across all games and work out how we can better detect cheating from normal behaviour, not a knee jerk reaction.
I don’t know what you mean. Two sections use 1600 and two sections use 1200. There is Themed which I didn’t count. What is that? Yes, as I said, strong support on both sides.Swuul wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:16 amCorrection, 9/21=43% of Digital League uses 1600 point armies, 57% uses 1200 point armies. In this poll 56% informed they would want to use larger armies. That is quite a difference, one would like to say the exact opposite.SLancaster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:53 am Half of the Digital League uses large armies so it is already there.
I can attest to this. My first tournament mirror match was a freakshow that saw my opponent's army practically burst into flames on contact, and my second match is turning into a bizarre series of upsets with unlikely results happening on all sides. It has been a weird tournament for me so far, and one that has at times defied all attempts at logical strategy. The issue is particularly prominent with warbands because they blow their cohesion tests so often. I sometimes I feel like I'm charging stacks of lit dynamite into battle.harveylh wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:25 pm We did need a system we can trust as very unlikely combat sequences can occur without cheating. In the ongoing Slitherine tournament this past week I was playing Triarii who can attest to this. I made four warband attacks against other warbands or medium infantry. In three consecutive attacks all in the same turn, my warbands not only lost but double dropped to fragmentation. The fourth combat was inconclusive. I went from winning to losing in one turn. Now to be fair this is the first time I have ever seen three double drops in the same turn. And I have played a lot of FOG2 as Steam records my hours as over 3300. Two double drops in the same turn are a lot more common and I estimate I have seen one or two most league seasons. A system we can trust to be relatively foolproof is needed or I am afraid we are going to see cheating accusations based on unusual but honest runs of good and/or bad luck.
RBS, if you see this what are the odds of three consecutive double drops? In two cases the attacks were even and in one case my warband with general was attacking a superior warband with general. Terrain was not a factor.
Harvey
What you and Harvey are talking about has been happening frequently to me and some of my opponents. It might have been cheating but sometimes it definitely was not because the runs of extreme events happen in my turn. This has made me highly suspicious of a number of players which is rather sad and probably mostly unfair as I cannot be sure anyone was cheating. Without trying to sound like a stuck record I think the problem is twofold. Yes some players are cheating but the probability of "extreme" results is far too high. They happen too often and because of this cheats will "replay" a turn as they know they will probably get a game changing result. A change in the probability of extreme results will mitigate the problem. I realise it will not stop cheating but it will definitely increase the number of reloads required to get a desired result and make it easier to identify culprits.Ludendorf wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:31 pmI can attest to this. My first tournament mirror match was a freakshow that saw my opponent's army practically burst into flames on contact, and my second match is turning into a bizarre series of upsets with unlikely results happening on all sides. It has been a weird tournament for me so far, and one that has at times defied all attempts at logical strategy. The issue is particularly prominent with warbands because they blow their cohesion tests so often. I sometimes I feel like I'm charging stacks of lit dynamite into battle.harveylh wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:25 pm We did need a system we can trust as very unlikely combat sequences can occur without cheating. In the ongoing Slitherine tournament this past week I was playing Triarii who can attest to this. I made four warband attacks against other warbands or medium infantry. In three consecutive attacks all in the same turn, my warbands not only lost but double dropped to fragmentation. The fourth combat was inconclusive. I went from winning to losing in one turn. Now to be fair this is the first time I have ever seen three double drops in the same turn. And I have played a lot of FOG2 as Steam records my hours as over 3300. Two double drops in the same turn are a lot more common and I estimate I have seen one or two most league seasons. A system we can trust to be relatively foolproof is needed or I am afraid we are going to see cheating accusations based on unusual but honest runs of good and/or bad luck.
RBS, if you see this what are the odds of three consecutive double drops? In two cases the attacks were even and in one case my warband with general was attacking a superior warband with general. Terrain was not a factor.
Harvey
The thing about self-reporting, Ian, is that it protects people from suspicion and accusations. The reloads are out in the open and there's no attempt to deceive.IainMcNeil wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:16 pm The thing I worry about with reporting all download/upload issues is that they do happen in genuine fair play. Sometimes the server glitches. Sometimes your machine glitches. I've had it happen to me on numerous occasions over the years. I worry that showing these values could create false suspicion that could destroy the community, rather than building confidence in it. I also worry about accusations flying around. It is not a simple problem to solve so I don't want to make a knee jerk reaction.
You sound like you know the exact probabilites. So I will ask you the same question, what are the odds of three consecutive double drops? In two cases the attacks were even and in one case my warband with general was attacking a superior warband with general. Terrain was not a factor. I have an approximate idea based on my knowledge of tabletop FOG but I suspect the tables are not the same so I do not want to guess.SLancaster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:43 pm RNG is fine. There aren’t far too high extreme probabilities. Let’s not conflate issues.
