Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

Sigh. Yes it would. It's like my server pages: You are told that no more games can be started. Of course, you could break out you hex editor and send in a request to have a new game made anyway. What happens then is that the server rechecks that the game creation is allowed, and stops the request. This is no different than casting a summoning spell: Done right, the client would sent a request to the server that caster A cast spell B. The server would then check that the conditions are met, subtract the used gems, and send the result back. (In practice, there would be several orders and so on, but the principle is the same.) '

I repeat: Given a trusted server, cheating can be limited to "better clients". If no trusted server exist, cheating is possible. Try looking in the KDE forums for KBattleship. Battleship --- such a simple game. But there is no way to make it cheat-free without a third part acting the part of the trusted server. Try me, if you want http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

And yes, I'm aware that this would require such a major redesign that it would not be feasible for Dom 2. But I, for one, are secretly wishing for a Dom3, and for that, it might be done right <tm>

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

Now you are getting contagioned with Norfleet's paranoia.

In my 3+ years of playing first DomI & now DomII I have only been burned once, and that was a 'map edit'. The cheating host was spotted & exposed easily.

I have joined many games in different servers since then with mostly unknown (at the time) opponents, and always met some excellent people. No cheating in them at all I believe.

I dispute also the idea that 'mild' cheating could become common: cheating in a MP games when no rewards are available always comes down to an ego issue: 'must win at all cost' for recognition or whatever, so it's never mild but rather tries to _fully_ guarantee victory, all the more the more opponents involved. Both the data KO offered re Norfleet's empire at turn 23 & my own experience confirm this.

The problem with this issue is IMO that Norfleet was such a dedicated player, involved in a dozen or more games at the same time...so it looks like many people might have been burned by him and a good deal of newbies at that, which is a sad first experience.


From our discussions at the time I certainly recall that a bunch of us defended that 'economic building' & 'turtling' strategies were only viable in big maps & vs non agressive opponents, and that argument was never countered at the time, but rather we were told 'look, Doom horrors wished for at turn 30!! after empowering to As9, this proves you are wrong'...now we know how those Doom horrors were wished for.

It all comes down to investing scarce resources in either the short term or the long, and the answer to the question of what to do with someone that is putting all his eggs in the long term is always 'kill him before he gets his return on his investment'.

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

And just to point out something: if there is a way to have gems set to 200 specifically / exactly, it seems much more likely that this is a debugging / internal game testing command that was left in and discovered. Possibly a bogus way of using the wish spell, without having the astral / research necessary.

Say, Stormbinder : you're demanding / whining for Illwinter to make the game cheat-proof. You going to donate them the money to hire a couple of dedicated security/encryption specialist programmers, considering that big companies (Blizzard, for example) with multi-million budgets can't manage it with programmers largely dedicated to said task?

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

Im not sure that going from a PbEM type game to a different style of gaming is a "fix". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Yes that would allow for MANY things to be fixed if all actions were interactive at the server. Of course even more would be fixed if you just went all the way to an Online world environment. Of course then you have to shift attention from hex editing to packet editing. Everything has its pros and cons.

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. There's no reason to quit having the game as a PBEM one to implement what he's described. In fact, I'm kind of surprised that it wasn't done that way in the first place.

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

I don't think he's suggesting that the server checks everything inter-actively - just that all the rule verification is done by the server, and not by the clients.

The game would still be the same, but you would get rid of hex-edit cheating - as all the information in the turn files would be just player orders that the server would examine for legality (as opposed to just checking for validity and correctness.)

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

But it does that now. It does quite abit of math to decide if the turn that the player turned in can be legally accomplished. I know because I have been able to bump up against such checks frequently. It takes alot of time and effort to figure out what changes you can make in a 2h file that wont be caught when the host runs.

More checks could be added (and it looks like they will be) but there is ALOT of variation in this game as to how anything can be accomplished so such checks are hard to implement without a rash of (rarely friendly and understanding) Posts by players that they were declared to be a cheater when they werent. Of course any checks will make it even more time consuming to hunt for the way around it so it will serve some purpose. But as a security person my view is that nothing ever stops anything. The best effort is to only make it as hard as possible for as many as possible for as long as possible.

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

The game could be identical in every single way from the player's perspective. The only difference is that all commands are executed by the server, instead of the client. So the client simply sends a list of commands he wants executed (Move commander A to province 2, cast spell X with commander B, alchemize 4 astral to water gems, etc.) and the server would check the orders and execute them (can A reach 2, are the gems available for both the spell X and the alchemy? Does command B know that spell? Does he have the correct paths?). See? No difference from the players perspective. The only difference is that cheat is impossible. If you don't believe, try me! Tell me how you would cheat with the above setup?

Everything IS interaction with the server TODAY --- that's why there is only one fatherland file. I'm not talking Online play.There are no cons, actually --- except that the game would need extensive refactoring, which is a showstopper for dom2.

If I were to make such a game, I would make at least these separate components:

• libdom2rules --- the actual game engine, which knows about gems, spell, movements and so on.
• dom2processor --- Uses libdomrules to processes turn files into new turn data files, ready to be sent to the client
• client --- Can represent the client
• ipserver --- Accepts files over IP, checks passwords and so on.
• mailsserver --- The same over SMTP or MTA or whatever.

The work is about the same, but using a software stack instead of one gigantic program makes every much more flexible.

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

No offense intended to the IW folks, but the thing you must understand, Esben, is that IW does not have (AFAIK) any professional software engineers. Dom 2 has been created in the "spare" time of a few folks whose day jobs are something other than being programmers, game architects, graphics designers, network engineers, et cetera. It's actually remarkable that they've been able to do as well as they have given their relative lack of in-depth knowledge of professional computer game design (as compared to almost all other game dev shops) or even the inner workings of the coding tools they're using. I think you may be expecting too much from them, however nice your suggestions sound (at least they sound great to me). Perhaps if they become successful enough to consider giving up their day jobs, or hiring outside 'experts', then we might see the sort of polished product we'd love to have.

IW reminds me a lot of Paradox, who also began with 2 coders. After several years of popular products, they've grown to the point of recently soliciting for additional programmers. (Hopefully they've hired someone who actually has a clue on how to code a competent AI, and even more importantly, gotten a decent internal QA manager.) IW appears, to me, to be sort of following in the footsteps of Paradox. More or less. The largest difference is that I'm sure Strategy First has more money to throw at Paradox than Shrapnel has to throw at IW, since SF is a by far bigger publisher (nor better, just bigger). With more money, you can try to do more (or more difficult) things.

Re: Thank you Stormbinder!
 

Thank you for posting that.

Actually IW is 2 guys and I think only Johan K calls himself a programmer. Kristoffer O is a teacher and seems to be the source of the thematic research, graphics, etc.