Urgent. Host Cheating: Problem and Solution.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Oh, wait, I figured it out. OK:

"Force Host Disabled"

and

"Master Password Disabled"

will allow perfectly cheatproof network play.

Gotcha there: All you have to do: Start a copy of the game: Turn it into a PBEM game as the copy, then force the hosting with the command line or the timer.

The fact of the matter is that you can either get a third party to host for you, and if you're REALLY paranoid, then you have to worry about that third party being in collusion with one or more cheaters, or you can stop playing with shady people.

As a general rule of thumb we use in games that my group plays, including, but not limited to, Dominions II, the person selected to be the host is the player considered to be the best anyway, because if the host gets killed off fast, the quality of your hosting may quickly decline.

The point is that if you're dealing with cheaters, you're just going to have to accept that there's no real solution to this: The harder you make it to cheat, the more lucrative cheating will be.

[Gandalf Parker]

If we can get a web-server working that might help. The image I have is a signup page which creates the entire game along with ways to drop off and pick up turn files.

Of course the server host still has access. But if the server is starting a new game every day then it would have to be a pretty addicted Dominions player. WHAT AM I SAYING? We are all addicted Dominions players.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Gotcha there: All you have to do: Start a copy of the game: Turn it into a PBEM game as the copy, then force the hosting with the command line or the timer.

No, you can't force host with the copy, either, since the game was created with "Force Host Disabled".

JO:
Not that it is any of my concern with whom you want to play, but why would you play with a known cheater. I would avoid them like the plague.

So I can beat him=)

PhilD:
Only if both are known cheater. And it should only be a concern to known cheaters. If you absolutely must play with a cheater, and aren't one, you can host.

Well... as Jasper said, "accusations of cheating arise easily -- simply because cheating is easy, and regardless of whether the accusation is true.

For me the solution is easy -- I just don't host. But _somebody_ has to host, and who really wants to open themselves up to such a potential headache? "

and a bit of Coffeedragon's "Yes, but this doesn´t cover the really serious case -what if no one is a cheater, but if all my friends are paranoid, and so am I, who should now host?"

Cheaters, after all, are paranoid - you can't say "Let me host, as I am more trustworthy than you."

Maybe it's more of a logic puzzle than anything, like the question of how to get the cannibals and the missionary across the river with only one 3-person boat. And you could say, "Don't go to the Amazon rainforest in the first place", and while that's a good answer, it is not very helpful to missionaries.

Having a way for a host to be beyond suspicion is, IMO, necessary.

-Cherry

[mivayan]

to "Force host" means to host without all players submitting turn files?

[Xavier]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
Ahhh I wondered what that was. (probably in the docs somwhere but never got around to looking for it). Oh but now I have to bug them to see if its included as a command-line switch.

--masterpass password

It's in command_line_switches.txt in the doc folder. I noticed it when I saw that the 2.06 patch modified that *.txt file.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by mivayan:
to "Force host" means to host without all players submitting turn files?

Yes.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
No, you can't force host with the copy, either, since the game was created with "Force Host Disabled".

Sure you can. Just set it to host on a schedule, so that it will host at time X, where X is 2 seconds from now.

Maybe it's more of a logic puzzle than anything, like the question of how to get the cannibals and the missionary across the river with only one 3-person boat. And you could say, "Don't go to the Amazon rainforest in the first place", and while that's a good answer, it is not very helpful to missionaries.

It's more like the two doors guarded by two guards: One door leads to a great treasure, the other leads to certain doom. The two guards are politicians. One tells half-truths, the other dodges questions. What do you ask them?

Having a way for a host to be beyond suspicion is, IMO, necessary.

So find a third-party host. If you can think of a method to secure a host locally, I can think of a suspicion.

[ January 26, 2004, 04:22: Message edited by: Norfleet ]