Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Just to point out, Stormie, I didn't "promise" not to flame you. And funny how it's "profanity" when I use an acronym with a prominent 4 letter word, but apparently isn't when you do the same, including the same 4 letter word's initial?

And I didn't flame you - I stated my opinion of you. And it stands, given that you lied, and lied, and, "you lied like a salesman, selling flies" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif with all your statements about my lying, etc.

And, sweetcheeks? Again - saying I have no interest in flaming you isn't promising that I won't. And if you keep misrepresenting things, I may. ( Then again, at the moment you have a posse of fanboys who won't be swayed from thinking you're the bees knees, which suits your messiah complex just fine. )

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Hmm. In this context, www.dictionary.com defines a "flame" as "an insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network". It's a bit hard to see how stating your opinion of Stormbinder with the words "whining irritating self-righteous pompous snit" falls outside that definition.

And well-deserved adulation it is, too. I know that I could never have survived the stream of abuse emanating from Norfleet's supporters long enough to produce the goods. Again, well done Stormbinder - we are all in your debt.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

mmmmmm'kay

Let's everybody just take a deep breath.

This thread has served its purpose which was to express concern and curiosity over Stormbinder's findings, the thread and its closure, and what had really happened.

This back and forth is only enjoyable for you two and is certainly not garnering any further support to either of your "sides". You are just making yourselves and each other look petulant and silly.


On a slightly lighter note,

I certainly hope that when further information regarding the events of the Last week becomes understood and 'cleared' for public consumption, that it will be disseminated swiftly to the forum.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

In other words you can't post any proof of anything you just said here about me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif No surprise, since both you and me knows very well that I never harrased you, I never send you any emails or PM Messages other than few I listed above, you never asked me not to send Messages to you (just because I didn't ) and I never used mine acronym FOAD, unlike yourself who keep using it again and again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You, however, insulted my in few dozens of your Posts just during Last few days.


But I'll let it lay, since as I said I have no interest in flamewars with you, so you could display your "famous" flame skills that you braged so much about, and start poisoning athmospheres this board just when it become clearer, with flamewars you love so much.

Just keep in mind, that like I said, in the future any profanity, insults or flames from you directed at me or any other player will be promptly reported to Moderators. You are not going to turn this forum into another medium of yours, where "people will be talking about your flames years after you are gone", as in your other forums, according to you. Don't even try.

Stormbinder

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

You are absolutely right. I just simply wanted to make sure that there will be no future flamewars between me and even most zealous and loyal of Norfleet supporters, now that he is exposed and gone. That's the only reason why I have responded to Cain here, after ignoring dozens of his insults, and I am done with this for now and for the future.


Time to move on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Regards,
Stormbinder

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Back to the original topic. I also hope that there will be soon more information about the nature of Norfleet's cheating, and what's more importent - some prompt fix to close that loophole. Until it is fixed, the is no quarantee that it'll not be used again(or already being used) in other MP Dom2 games, by Norfleet in disguise or anybody else, to whom he may give his "hack". It can be especially devastating to such a long and time intesive game as Dom 2, because if people feel that thay maybe wasting several days of their time because they are playing against blatant cheater, it can have sad consequences to the community (just look at Pirathium here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

However Ilwinter have my complete trust that they will find this loophole and fix it.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Adulation ? lol. How utterly, utterly, completely nauseating.

I'm sorry, a lot of the abuse was self inflicted, well deserved, existed before Norfleet, had nothing to do with Norfleet and will continue to exist long after Norfleet.

I have never said this before but in an offhand way, I kind of hope Caine does start a flame war, not because I like to see flame wars but shet, some kind of counter-balance...I mean, some people really need a triple strength reality check, imo...

- Kel

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

OK, perhaps a bit strong. I was trying to make the point that Caine's use of the pejorative "fanboy" doesn't make appreciation for Stombinder's efforts a negative thing.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

lol this post has become very amusing lately... so many bickering kids

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Then please do so. Stop it. Ignore him. Don't answer his Posts. If I hear one more of your oscar speeches, I'll go rampage.
/polite rant

Didn't...want...to...reply.......can't...keep....e yes...off...thread.......made...me....say....it... .

Don't bother to reply. Please.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I wonder if Cainehill was named UN or UN202 or some other change on UN, since he is the biggest flamer I know from another board... (NOT that Im implying that Cainehill is a flamer, this is only in regards to stormbinder's "they rememeber my flames for years in other Boards" accusation)

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

You realize what this means, don't you? Any one of us could be Norfleet.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I'm Spartacus!

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

No... *I'M* Spartacus!

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Heh. I was actually going to end my post with that line. I'd already typed out "I'm Spart" when I thought better of it.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Oh, but nobody would have believed you - you're clearly a Brian, not a Spartacus.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Well. Well indeed.
I've been gone for the Last few days and i come back and we have a huge rigamahoopshamwamdingle. Of course i can't resist the urge to add my two cents, although i'll try my best to remain ...well... i suppose i'll try to remain honest to myself.

On Norfleets cheating:
Between Norfleets early defensive bs, the factual numbers, and Norfleets hasty exit, the case seems pretty clear at this point. Norfleet was cheating. Obviously its not the end of the world, and while its important to find out how he did it so it could be fixed, i dont think it necessarily follows that he should be Banned forever. I liked Norfleet. Despite his arrogance he could be quite funny, and helpful as well, and he would obviously know more about fixing these cheats/glitches than most others. While most games and forums might ban a player for his first infraction, i'd think that most people would agree that both this game and this forum are like no other. I could definetly see conditional parole for Norfleet were he to help fix whatever glitch or weakness he is exploiting. Obviously many people here would no longer want him in their games, and its equally obvious many people are going to be watching their games like a hawk in an effort to prevent any future cheating.

On the subject of Stormbinder:
Yes, you were right, we all know it, even if some of us refuse to admit it. Norfleet cheated, and you proved it and got one up on him. You came off very unctous and lowball doing it though. Now im not trying to insult you, though i understand how it could be taken as such... but you could have gone about this in an entirely different way. I could practically hear the snickers you must have been holding back in both your original post and your post with the actual numbers, you were OBVIOUSLY very happy to be destroying Norfleet on this forum, and that bothered me nearly as much as Norfleets cheating. In the end the cold hard truth is that you did this community a great service in exposing a cheater who was willing to exploit the game and others so he could lord it over us all, and i thank you for it.... But dont expect me to have to like you for it.

On the subject of the powers that be:
I have on occasion been given to think that sometimes certain Moderators come off as arrogant and dissmisive to those that havn't been around as long as they have, but on the whole i find all the seniority around here to be helpful, polite, and fairly open minded about any issues that come up. I can see why they locked the original post about the cheating, but im not sure i agree with it... Locking a corpse in a closet just means its going to stink that much more when it finally does come out in the open, and with an issue that is as serious as this and strikes so deeply as this issue does.... some negativity and displeasure is bound to be voiced. And i dont believe that should be a problem. It will be a sad state of affairs when we are no longer allowed to vocally make our displeasure known about something... attempting to lock down threads about an issue as important to MP games as cheating is just going to start ugly talk of censorship on top of the whole cheating issue. All in all, kudo's to you for paying attention and lavishing your time on this wonderful game.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I knew exactly what was going to happen. At the point of the topic change it no longer was about cheating, but about Stormbinder feeling he could without recourse say whatever he'd like.

Now as I said before, talking about the cheating, or how you think it's wrong. Turning an entire thread into a huge flamefest that must be deleted after it's run it's course so that newbies don't feel the official forum and posters drag the community through the dirt as often as possible is not my favored method of moderation.

Storm was only allowed to keep that post up as long as it maintained some form of dignity, and it did not when he broke his word to me, so it was closed. This thread has been kept relatively free of such things so it is in no danger of any sort of action while allowing people to speak their feelings on the subject without resorting to such low behavior. That being said, I expected it to turn in such a diretion knowing what we know about the animosity between Stormbinder/Norfleet and their own unique personality. Which is exactly why my first post in this thread is worded and stated in such a way as to keep things cordial.

Either way, you are encouraged to have your own opinion of the 'powers that be' as far as this forum. I won't let any other moderator take the blame of the strictures I have taken while I have been here relatively alone.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

My exit hasn't been THAT hasty. I'm still around to offload of all of my prior responsibilities before I depart prior to Monday, as I am leaving the country on business I had been planning for some time, but had been putting off. Now I don't have a reason for it, so I booked the ticket yesterday. As for "Defensive Early BS", yes, I admit it, I lied. The actual truth was not something that can be believed in the climate, circumstances, and resultant brouhaha, so like I said, I won't waste my time looking like I'm trying to come up with an excuse, which would not have convinced enough people anyway. I've shared it with only a small handful of people I considered to be friends, and requested that they not share this for their own sake, so as not to come off as an apologist and damage their own reputations further. I won't ask anyone to take sides. I'll just take my lumps and leave, as I was really looking for a way out for at least a month now, as Zen can testify to. Ultimately, I'm as fed up by this as you all are, and as people have graciously offered to take the now onerous and distasteful chores off my hands, I can wash them of this entire affair. Good bye, and good riddance.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

If you cut though norf's vague bs, it sounds to me that Norfeet is hinting, that he has shared the secret of his cheats with few of his "trusted friends", and ask them not to tell it to anybody else. Perhaps he thinks that this would make a nice parting gift from him to the Dom2 community, as a payback for exposing his cheats and forcing him to quit.

I have no idea if it is turth or not, and obviously Norf can very well be lieing about it just as he lied about other things. He might as well keep his cheats to himself and use them under another alies of his in his future Dom2 games, that he will keep playing. Or he might just lie about his "parting gift" to his friends, to make us all suspicios toward each other, and poison atmosphere in Dom2 community some more. *Shrug* It is impossible to determine.

Be it as it may, the scenario that he is describing was always a possibility, of course. More reasons to find and quickly fix whatever loophole he was using to hack Dom2 files. Personally I trust Illwinter and I believe they will find and close whatever security hole he had been using.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Put... the ball... down!

You were the Last person who should have responded to that.

Know when to quit man.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

What are you talking about Demosthenes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif If you believe that norfleet have cheated and I think you have said it yourself in your earlier Posts (and which is now confirmed by developers), than how else can you possibly read his post? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif I suggest you reread his post again and think about it for a minute.

And if it is so, than why should I not be allowed to point that out and need to wait for somebody else to say it??? Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Look man evyryone knows he cheated. It's not debateable. He admits it. You succeeded.

He's not expressing ill will toward the community. There's no conspiracy.

Let it go.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Try as I might, I just couldn't let that go.
"Goodbye and good riddance" is ill will in any language.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Aww come on. It could be crankiness, exasperation or any number of things instead.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

So you are saying his post about his "trusted friends" was pure bull****? As I said myself, it is always a possibility. It may be even likely. But it is also quite possible than it was not. How can you possibly be so sure?

Besides his post did not sound as if he has "no ill will toward community", as you put it. On the opposite, parts like "I'll just take my lumps and leave", "Good bye, and good riddance" and others sound as if he is bitter. As I suggested, please reread his post and think about it before continuing to argue.

Neither you, me, or anybody else have any way of knowing if it is true or not. It may very well be pure bullsit on his part. But I don't think that we should hide our heads in the sand, and hope for the best.

And please, stop saying "let it go" for god's sake. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif I already did. At this point I could not care less about Norfleet, he is busted and gone. My only concern is the security of the game, as I made clear in this post and in my other Posts. So naturally when Norf reappers and tell us that he have shared his "secret" with few of his "trusted friends", and tells them not to tell it to anybody else, while saying "Good riddance" to Dom2 community, it does not sound very comfortable, don't you agree?

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

actually, all he said was that he only told his side of the story to a few people. and now, thanks to your jumping all over that little post of his, he certainly isnt going to tell the rest of us his most likely interesting but truthless story.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I think that was certain all along. The only point of implying the existence of an explanation was to effectively protest his innocence. No need to actually create a story and share it with anybody.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Yeah, yeah, because I do *SO* value your support. Who the heck are you? I don't know you! Alas, the story is far less interesting, and whether it is truthless or not, I'm not going to throw to you jackals to pick at. And jumping or not, I rather expected somebody would want to jump on anything I write. Of course, you're not my friend. You're not demonstrating you ARE my friend.

Storm, I have *ALWAYS* been bitter. You, of all people, should know that. I have been actively bitter for longer than you have been alive. At this point, I am sufficiently bitter as to be considered inedible.

Hammer, nail, head. This is precisely the kind of thing I'm not going to miss. Good riddance indeed. If I wanted to express more ill-will, I'd have thought of more colorful way to curse you, like "May the offspring of a thousand fleas infest your camels.". Actually, that's a pretty good idea, now that I think of it. What do you think, Zombie, should I wish for some more ill-will on people?

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

LOL. He specificaly said in his post that he is not going to share his "story" with us, and will prohibit his "friends" from doing so. But if you really believe it exist, you can always send him PM and ask him to tell it to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Alright I think there has been enough petty childishness (emphasis on petty).

If I have to hear about Zapmeisters proclaiming adulation for the anti-Norfleet Jerry Falwell Church of Stormbinder, Stormbinder's obvious not-enough-attention-as-a-child complex or Cainehill's not-so-teen angst for purely the sake of each of them instead of for any good reason, I'll have to vomit.

Norfleet, do us a favor and stop dragging your corpse up off the ground after proclaiming yourself DOA. One or the other please, rest in peace or ooze from the grave to haunt your enemies with a vengance I don't really care which at this point, but this dying down, then rekindling is getting annoying and for me, tiring.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

C'mon Zen, I'm not that bad.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Then where is my $150.00 donation?! Heavenly Flames were supposed to cure me of baldness and halitosis. Huh?! By Rickirack I'll give you a good sheared Sheap for peace of mind! Where is the salvation!

Or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Zen I think you are a little confused. After shearing, you keep the sheap, but give the wool away.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

That's true. I was caught in the holy revelation of pure truth and divinity of purpose there for a moment and lost my head. I would never give away my dancing, prancing, M-80, hung like a donkey, ewe-gigalo, fancyboy Sheap! Back you Zealots, to the Scientoligists with you!

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Bye Norfleet
 

Wow, I'm gone from the forum for a few days playing Doom 3, and all hell breaks loose!

I don't condone cheating in MP (and I can't think of any reasonable/likely alternate explanation), but I still feel obligated to say thanks to Norfleet for his very many helpful Posts here on this forum, particularly those in response to my own (sometimes lengthy) series of detailed questions, from which I've learned a lot about the game.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I've been following this story with morbid interest, but haven't posted because I've been unable to articulate exactly how I feel about all this. I agree with everything Cheeze wrote, except the "arrogant" bit. I think Zen has made the right decisions in a difficult situation, and I thank him for the effort he's put in to the forum. Not sure what's with the drug-crazed stream of consciousness stuff a couple of Posts ago though. Is the strain finally telling?

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Zen, you are way over the line. Please, the ball, not the man. I've reported the above post to the Moderators --- though I know you are yourself one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Yes it would appear that luckily he is not angry at the entire Dom2 community or he would publicly tell how to do what he did. The hex location to change in a file can always be found, even if encrypted, by hit-and-miss trial and error. But once found, if its released then its fairly simple. If any other method was used, then even simpler. So the most evil thing he could do would be to post a "haha this is how its done"

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Im with you all the way. And Zen has made acceptable decisions as far as Ive seen. (especially since Im the first line person who would be backing them out of the system if they werent).

Mumbling about MP security
 

Odd. I would have thought that a PBEM TBS server-client game design would follow one oft-espoused rule: Never trust the client. If one does follow that, it should be impossible for a client to cheat outside of having a more efficient or useable interface -- and interface modifications are perhaps less unfair dangerous in a PBEM TBS than in practically any other genre.

You don't let a client program directly modify the server's concept of state, such as how much resources a side has available. The client will modify its local perception of state (e.g. adjusting gem quantities during alchemy) but the modifications need to be noted and checked for legality.

You don't let a client program have more information than it should. MP FPSes may often break this, I suspect, and let the clients do LOS testing for computation cost reasons, but they really shouldn't in theory.

You do let a client program submit instructions (proposed modifications to state, essentially) but need to check for bogosity. Having the client record "have this commander with a dwarven hammer forge this item" is very different from having the client itself define the new gem and item inventories.

I'm reminded of Netrek, which had an open client architecture with known protocols and open sources but a two-pronged approach to client security --

(a) 'Blessed' clients tested with cryptography-based challenges, where keys were supplied to certain trusted people who compiled with 'em. Could probably still be bypassed with a proxy-type architecture in which an unblessed client would forward challenge/response to/from a 'blessed' client, although this would be much harder if the challenge/response sequence modified local game state in an obscure but predictable way e.g. depended on and itself changed the state of a PRNG such that the 'unblessed' client would somehow get out of sync in a detectable fashion. Eh.

(b) More importantly, regardless of whether or not the client passes the periodic RSA-based server/response, the server tracks game state and enforces rules. Ships controlled by rogue clients still can't be invulnerable, can't gain energy or repair faster than they should, don't get told the locations or velocities of cloaked ships, don't get told how many armies enemy ships are carrying, can't recharge their phasers any faster, can't fire their torpedoes more often, can't teleport, and so forth, because the server doesn't trust the client. A rogue client -can- have illegal interface mods, such as having turn keys to allow simultaneously changing direction while aiming somewhere else, or automatically correctly leading a target assuming known locations and known, constant velocities (subject to server-imposed torpedo wobble), or even indicating which incoming enemy torpedoes seem likely to hit unless the user alters his velocity vector, but that's much more difficult to control because it doesn't require that the server send or accept anything unusual.

In a game like Dom II, unusual / illegal interface mods wouldn't seem to be a huge potential problem; I could see attempts to set tax policy more efficiently (applying a rule system to each of scores of provinces every turn, say) without user tedium, or archiving previous battle replays for the intelligence value... but it would actually be pretty impressive if somebody managed to write these. Simply editing the gem or item treasury shouldn't be possible, however, without a server detecting that the values aren't in sync.

A host could still cheat, but a sufficiently paranoid system could be set up to defeat cruder attempts like a host modifying data after receiving it, or reading turn files before submitting his own; it would increase the number of Messages -- e.g. players submit files encrypted with single-use keys (key pairs, preferably), all encrypted files duplicated at a second host site (a public key algorithm would allow verification of authorship), both hosts process the same files using the same PRNGs and math, both hopefully coming up with consistent results which could be reasonably checked using message-digest algorithms without revealing unencrypted state to all players. Either host in such a system could potentially learn full game state, but only after their turns were submitted, and it would require conspiracy or freakish luck for a host to be able to edit the turn files. Separate host-controlled game state files could be similarly signed/encrypted using keys submitted by all the players, to reduce the probability of the host being able to independently modify or read that file as well. Feh.

But simply a better architecture with regards to not trusting the client would allow better security with respect to the non-host players without too much fuss over message exchange, and likely without damaging gameplay (it's not like it's an FPS requiring blazing-fast processing coupled with minimal bandwidth and detailed rendering).

Re: Mumbling about MP security
 

In hindsight it is easy to say that security should have been handled differently. But dominions was not made in an orderly and well planned fashion, but was built up from humble beginnings to greater and greater complexity. Furthermore JK learned much of the required programming while working on the game. Had the game been made by persons familiar with these sort of security issues at the outset things might have been different, but it wasn't.

Re: Mumbling about MP security
 

Absolutely. This is especially true for a turn-based game, where effectively all you are doing is using the client to fill out an orders sheet which is then processed by the server.

Lol. I ran a netrek server when I was starting university (yes, I'm old http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif). The client in that case had to handle things like movement plotting and aiming, which allowed for some fairly major abuse of the client by C-savvy Users (e.g. phasers that didn't need to be aimed with the mouse).

However, I don't see any of these issues with Dom 2. The server should be controlling all amounts/locations/etc, and the client simply indicates how it wants to manipulate these resources. The server then checks the legality of each order issued by the client. Seems simple enough...

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Actually that would be the best thing he could do. If he did that Illwinter could fix it easily right away and put it in the next patch most likely. As it is it will be more work for IW and will probably take longer.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Im far more hacker than I am programmer and I dont agree with that view. The chances are very slim that such a post would be something that is easier to fix than it is to do. And telling how it could be done makes it far too easy to use the same steps to do something slightly different to bypass the fix. How its done is not all that necessary for fixing it anyway since we do know what to look for.

Now, sending an email to info over at the illwinter site saying how he did it (as most hackers would do) would be helpful, but posting it here would not be IMHO

Re: Mumbling about MP security
 

Exactly. We all had to learn, and most of us the hard way. But there is always dom3, rift? I can assure you one buyer, at least http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif (provided you provide a linux Version)

I can't tell you how happy I am you're reading this. You are brilliant in game design, which is the hard part. Annoying details such as this are easily overcome if you know the how. You are welcome to ask me anytime, BTW. Thank you again for the game, and thank you for providing the linux Version!

Re: Mumbling about MP security
 

What was apparently done was that the turn file was edited to have extra gems. Those gems had to be converted to something else or used in forge commands or turned into gold and used to make troops in that same turn before turning in a 2h. The game does have checks for such things but the variations make for alot of "thinking" needed by the game. The game sent him a turn with XX gems in each Category, and received back a 2h file of commands to do things. To take into account the original amounts, plus new gem income, plus all of the things that can be done with it in order to decide "oops too much" is pretty hairy. Especially when you try to reverse logic the troop queue to the gold to the fire gems made from the astral gems which were made from the death gems just as one example. NOT IMPOSSIBLE before someone jumps my case about it, just hairy and time consuming to get it put in. I didnt want to get into the "method of hack equals difficult to track" how-to here.

Hmmm is that what it does now? The pros and cons of a clearer "log of commands given" is being discussed as something which has some advantages although of course some disadvantages also. As usual, the programmers in the forum have a pretty cler view of what can be done. Its great to see these discussions.

To an extent this could be implemented now by players. Before the addition of a master password feature I had setup to be a "seperate trusted host" setting up an email account that people could email their game-file passwords to. That way the host (who was also playing) didnt have access to the passworded files, but if a player fell out of the game then I could step in to turn on AI or do other checks.

In fact, that might work now as a low-tech answer. One thing Im worrie about is that now that Illwinter has shown they can dismantle a turn file to get answers Im afraid they will be swamped by requests every time any player feels another player did something shady. As often as we see Posts to that affect here which get answered as possibilitys that the player hadnt considered, you can see how busy that might be.

If someone declared their game to be only playable by people who were willing to email their passwords to a trusted site, would that help? In the case of what occured we would either have had a player who flatly refused "to let anyone view his secret tactics and strategies" (in which case anyone who played with that player would be taking their chances) or we would have had a much quicker and sooner way to have someone examine the turn file for inconsistancies. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE ANSWER OR THAT OTHER THINGS CANT BE DONE just that its a low-tech thing that can be done today if people are concerned. (thats another disclaimer to cut off some of the responses I tend to get)

Re: Mumbling about MP security
 

If he modified gem inventories to do stuff with it, then the game presumably isn't too fanatical about checking this, or the server itself was somehow compromised or worked-around.


It occurs to me that their shouldn't be that much looping. That is --

Gems left in the treasury were computed from the previous turn.

Gem income from sites, gifts, events and enchantments was computed from the previous turn.

Outside of diplomatic means (handled by the messaging system) there is no in-game way to turn anything that's not a gem into a gem, or for 1 gem to turn into more than 1 within a turn. Within a turn but before processing, then, total gems should be strictly nonincreasing. It also should not matter at what point gem alchemy was done, because you can't get more in-turn except by alchemy and because the ratio is fixed. That is, if alchemy was done at any point in the turn, it must have been legal with identical results and with the gems available at the beginning of the turn.
Then there aren't that many numbers to juggle (six types of gems turning into pearls, pearls turning into six types of gems, fire and earth gems turning into money -- which can be done after all other alchemy checks because that's a one-way street and can't make other alchemy operations possible if they weren't already).

Forging has a bit of bookkeeping; the game would need to check that the number of forges done using hammers does not exceed the number of hammers available from the end of the previous turn, and that the forgers had the necessary item slots in addition to skills.

Then, once alchemy is completed, gold becomes a one-way-street; you can get gold from alchemy, but you can't easily turn anything else (people, buildings, units) into gold that you can use that very same turn. You can pillage or hike tax rates, but you don't see the gold until next turn, so it'd be illegal to spend it or put it in the treasury until the appropriate time in turn computation.

Exception: You can get a refund of gold by clearing a recruitment queue that was non-empty after the previous turn. Whether or not you can clear a queue, however, is not affected by other in-turn actions, and the maximum you can get should be based on the Last turn since even if you increase the refund by adding units you have an equally large debit incurred during the addition.

And so forth. I don't think there's much room for bizarre circular operations (actually profitable alchemy, say; e.g. a _MoM_ player with Alchemy, Runemaster and obscene casting skill forging and breaking small items during a turn for pure profit) or anything else that would be unusually difficult to serialize.