Urgent. Host Cheating: Problem and Solution.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by PhilD:
Considering the "Master Password" option is one that was added at the players' request, so that dropping players could at least be turned to AI... I think you're mainly trying to make the devs go nuts

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.

[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 ]

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

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.

---

Ahhh... I see. Essentially, the game would have to be locked as "Quickhost Only" (when all turns are in) or "Autohost Only" (at a specified time) when the game is created. Hmmm... for Autohost Only, the only cheating mechanism would be to play with the computer clock, which is a lot of work and can cause problems, unless you dedicate a computer for Dominions cheating and avoiding time-limited software demos. But "Quickhost Only" should work flawlessly... for net games.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Ahhh... I see. Essentially, the game would have to be locked as "Quickhost Only" (when all turns are in) or "Autohost Only" (at a specified time) when the game is created. Hmmm... for Autohost Only, the only cheating mechanism would be to play with the computer clock, which is a lot of work and can cause problems, unless you dedicate a computer for Dominions cheating and avoiding time-limited software demos. But "Quickhost Only" should work flawlessly... for net games.

Now you're opening the opposite problem. Your game is now potentially COMPLETELY SOL if somebody goes AWOL: No master password, due to fear of host cheating, means this player cannot be AI'd. No force host means you can't simply skip him: If you lose one player, your game is FUBAR.

Now you've expanded the potential to ruin the game from the host deliberately attempting to cheat, to anyone, deliberate or not. This is almost, but not entirely, like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:

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

-Cherry

Well, aren't you getting a little overboard here?

Sure, it would be nice. But it's not "necessary" until the Grand Dominions Pro Tour opening, which isn't scheduled until a few months from now.

Seriously - securing PBEM games without severely crippling the option to deal with dropping players, seems a bit hard, and would require the Illwinter crew to probably search deeper in cryptology books than they wish to. There are techniques for "secret sharing", where a secret information (say, a master password) is shared among several participants, and at least X of them (any X) are required to cooperate to obtain such information.

With such a setup, a master password would be generated at game creation, and "shared" among players so that, say, all but 2 would be required to recreate it. The game would, of course, disable forced hosting. Then, when one or two players drop (if 3 drop at the same time, you have to give up), all players are contacted so that they let the dropping players be turned to AI (this could be included in the .2h files, and should be, IMHO).

Still, more trouble than it is worth, IMHO. I'd say this is less important than, say, the inconsistent battle replays.

[Keir Maxwell]

If you are worried about a game being seen to be fair I think the most practical solution suggested is shared hosting. Offer to host a game as long as one of the players in it hosts a pair game run along similar lines (ie line you want to play). In this context the sort of person who will generally take up the host position is some-one who has a responsible inclination.

Does it matter? I wish I could say it doesn't but after years of PBEM and having hosted many games sadly it has - though not often in my experiance. The Last open to the public game I hosted was a highly themetic Stars games where I had put significant time into prep work and got a third party player to do the setup. The game had rrstrictions on diplomacy both pre game and for the first 10 or so turns. An overly competitive player pushed the boundries, then broke them and was dobbed in by other players. He bawled like a stuck pig when caught out and he had a friend playing to back him up . . . If I had not been playing as well as hosting I think I would have been able to deal with it easier/better. As it was it was very unpleasant. Alot of time, work, and creativity was wasted in the end. I wish I had tried the shared hosting idea.

Hosting can be alot of work - and quite a bit of stress when players are not getting in turns repeatidly or getting overly competitive. Remember this and be nice to your host. Thanking them at the end of the game is a minimum. Accusing them of cheating because you "feel certain" they must have is out - if you are not prepared to trust them don't play with them.

Cheers

Keir

[ January 26, 2004, 08:42: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

[Jasper]

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

Sure, security is never perfect. However, finding a _host_ who can't figure out how to copy and _host_ a game is worlds harder than find someone either not able|willing to decompile C.

Honestly, this isn't that hard! The real problem is getting it to work without making hosting a pain in the ***... That, and I'm not sure the demand really warrants it, considering there is only one developer for Dominions.

After some reflection, I see a better way than what I described earlier, based upon notifying players of hosting rather than asking for permision to host. You could have a central server for arranging games and verifying hosting, while still leaving game processing to players' machines. Plus, there's alot of synergy with generating turn info/history XML for sharing or making web pages, collecting game mechanic and AI statistics, bug reporting, etc. Damn, this would really kick ***!

But I digress, and this is probably not the forum for such discussion...