The Dustbin

[harveylh]

Indeed though the words were written by Voltaire and put into the mouth of his heroine so I will maintain he deserves the credit

On a serious note I have had to forfeit my last round of matches in the 20th Anniversary tournament (where I was in a personal best position after the second round) because I have lost faith in the integrity of competitive games for now so I really do hope this matter gets properly addressed.

I disagree, you choose to forfeit, you did not have to. You were not forced. I have played more Digital League games than most, 207 as of the end of season 7 (#4 behind the league leading 240 of Ulysisgrunt) and I also play numerous non-league games. The only person I have ever felt was restarting turns to cheat was dkalenda and I had raised concerns about him to Pete for a couple of seasons. It was unfortunate that it took as long as it did to catch his cheating and I am sorry you have lost faith. However I believe Slitherine will come up with a better method.

Harvey

[stockwellpete]

The only person I have ever felt was restarting turns to cheat was dkalenda and I had raised concerns about him to Pete for a couple of seasons. It was unfortunate that it took as long as it did to catch his cheating and I am sorry you have lost faith.

And those concerns were always referred up the chain (to Richard, then to Slitherine) and the answer always came back to me as "nothing proven".

[devoncop]

Indeed though the words were written by Voltaire and put into the mouth of his heroine so I will maintain he deserves the credit

On a serious note I have had to forfeit my last round of matches in the 20th Anniversary tournament (where I was in a personal best position after the second round) because I have lost faith in the integrity of competitive games for now so I really do hope this matter gets properly addressed.

I disagree, you choose to forfeit, you did not have to. You were not forced. I have played more Digital League games than most, 207 as of the end of season 7 (#4 behind the league leading 240 of Ulysisgrunt) and I also play numerous non-league games. The only person I have ever felt was restarting turns to cheat was dkalenda and I had raised concerns about him to Pete for a couple of seasons. It was unfortunate that it took as long as it did to catch his cheating and I am sorry you have lost faith. However I believe Slitherine will come up with a better method.

Harvey

Well in the sense we all have a choice about everything we do then you are correct.

Just like Mike Marchant uses his choice to express greater tolerance over this issue for which i respect his choice, I choose to have zero tolerance towards it.

I had great concern about a still current player who thankfully has now risen out of my Division a couple of seasons back. I did raise it but there was no feedback so I have no idea if it was investigated but what was going on was fairly blatant.

Anyone who believes the dkalenda case is unique can buy a bridge off me.

[julianbarker]

I have tried to read this entire discussion, but maybe I have missed it, but how exactly does one raise concerns one may have about suspicious or unusual behaviour?

[MikeC_81]

It is unfortunate that you have lost faith devoncop. I totally agree that it doesn't feel good right now. The thing is I have always stated that Sitherine doesn't need to do anything more than provide transparency and let the player base sort this issue out ourselves.

I personally believe most people are reasonable and will not be obtuse over the occasional reload. Information allows us to track when it is happening and how often and relieves Slitherine of the burden of tracking and trying to to be fair while retaining their customer, a fundamental conflict of interest.

It has been a working week now with no updates.

[Najanaja]

There is no adjudication by yourself Pete. Regardless of the reason for a download it gives that player an advantage which the game was not designed with the intention of. It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay. As such if you require a redownload then you have effectively forfeited the match unless your opponent is willing to give you grace with the expectation that in competition no such grace is required or expected. So critical juncture would be defined as the person deciding if something was fishy or not regarding an opponents redownload. They require no proof nor justification but simply to make the choice that assuages their conscience. I suspect that such a move will cripple cheating and also avoid the blame game especially if everyone agrees to abide by such stipulations prior to the tournament. If by chance you live somewhere that has a spotty connection or own a PC that is prone to crashing then you probably should be relegating your matches to friendly ones only as such problems are not an acceptable excuse for redownloading during a tournament without receiving an unfair advantage.

I think this is a bit extreme. I occasionally am not able to upload a turn. Mostly this seems to be a server problem and seems to happen in the early hours of the morning UTC. The approach I take is to inform my opponent of the reload and try to make the same moves in the repeated turn. I know other players do this too because they tell me so.

We are all just playing games here....

[Najanaja]

There seems to be an assumption in these discussions that a replayed turn is always advantageous to the player making it. This is obviously not the case, the vagaries of the dice are just as likely to produce a worse combat result second time round.

It is also possible that a turn that must be reloaded is at the manoeuvre stage of the game where no RNG is involved.

Overall, I think the effect on the game of a single replayed turn is being over-stated here and is in no way comparable to what the offender did.

[phoyle3290]

Division C

phoyle3290 – Hunnic, Western 376-454 AD with Germanic Foot Tribes 260-599 AD allies defeats Bluefin - Scot-Irish 50 BC-476 AD - 52-10

Tough match for Bluefin. I had a pretty big chain reaction following his last turn that drove my score up. If his chariots arrived a little earlier (had to go around a large forest), the battle most likely would have been much different.

Good playing and thanks for the game!

[Karvon]

As a person who's got crappy internet atm, fixing it being complicated by the fact I'm living with the inlaws, I think I've had to reload half a dozen times or so in the past year of playing - that includes both friendly and tournament play. It's never happened more than once a game that I can recall. I always explained the situation to my opponent and never had anyone give me any grief about it so far. I don't remember it ever giving me an advantage, usually replaying out about the same, though once I did get screwed in a replay rather badly resulting in a chain rout.

I've had opponents reload a hand full of times in the same span, but never more than once a game, and in each case, they shared, what I considered, a reasonable explanation and apology. I've never had any ill feelings about it.

I wouldn't join a tourney where a reload would mean an automatic loss as I feel that's too extreme a penalty for a rare but unpreventable occurrence.

I think there should be some threshold, which Slitherine could determine based on their historical analysis of server data, that, if crossed, should autogenerate a log report of the game at its close and send it to the players. If one felt aggrieved, they could take it up with their opponent, tourney organizer and/or Slitherine. I think players who get flagged more than a handful of times should be banned from MP for a period of time. Repeat offenders facing longer, and possibly permanent ban.

[rs2excelsior]

Division D

rs2excelsior (Viking, Ireland 900-1049 AD with Scots 851-1051 AD allies) beat Bluefin (French 888-1049 AD) 64-47

A hard-fought battle on a map that was, frankly, awful for the French. However, my opponent declined the reroll I offered, so we fought on the map we were given. The center was dominated by a massive rough terrain hill, with small open areas on the flanks. Viking shieldwalls and huscarls deployed on either flank, while the Irish and Scots took the center.

The French deployed back and to the flanks, with some massed archers and crossbows in the center. My medium infantry pushed forwards, driving off the French skirmishers and massed ranged units. On the left, the Viking infantry blunted the attacks of the lancers and heavy foot, and supported by their mounted huscarls started pushing the French back. The mediums came off the hill and went to join the fight on the left flank. On the right, French mounted and dismounted lancers advanced against the Viking infantry, which formed a three-sided square to try and resist being outflanked. The French cavalry did manage to get in around the rear, however, and that force was mostly destroyed - although they also broke the dismounted lancers opposing them. After coming out into the open the medium auxiliaries proved rather fragile and I was worried they'd collapse and tip things, but the French just didn't have the numbers and despite heroic resistance from the dismounted lancers they were overwhelmed. It looked like it might be a draw on time, but an autobreak or two on the second to last turn pushed it over the edge.

Not a good picture of the forces at the end, but one of the overall map, to show just how tough a fight this was for the French with minimal medium options:

20200804212551_1.jpg (599.84 KiB) Viewed 1451 times

And that's it for me this season. Tons of fun, as always, and thanks to everyone for playing - and Pete for organizing this awesome event! See y'all next time!

[MikeC_81]

As a person who's got crappy internet atm, fixing it being complicated by the fact I'm living with the inlaws, I think I've had to reload half a dozen times or so in the past year of playing - that includes both friendly and tournament play. It's never happened more than once a game that I can recall. I always explained the situation to my opponent and never had anyone give me any grief about it so far.

Surely though given that you were more than open in explaining when it happened, you wouldn't object to Slitherine just telling players by default when reloads have occurred and how many right? That is literally what I am asking for. Many players support my proposal of transparency. Even Pete is onboard with some type of report auto-generated each game.

@Slitherine - Give us the data. Stop hiding it. Let us be adults and deal with it because you guys have admitted that you don't have the manpower. Each tournament manager can have their own rules and thresholds and everyone is free to join the tournaments with the thresholds they feel comfortable with.

[Karvon]

As a person who's got crappy internet atm, fixing it being complicated by the fact I'm living with the inlaws, I think I've had to reload half a dozen times or so in the past year of playing - that includes both friendly and tournament play. It's never happened more than once a game that I can recall. I always explained the situation to my opponent and never had anyone give me any grief about it so far.

Surely though given that you were more than open in explaining when it happened, you wouldn't object to Slitherine just telling players by default when reloads have occurred and how many right? That is literally what I am asking for. Many players support my proposal of transparency. Even Pete is onboard with some type of report auto-generated each game.

@Slitherine - Give us the data. Stop hiding it. Let us be adults and deal with it because you guys have admitted that you don't have the manpower. Each tournament manager can have their own rules and thresholds and everyone is free to join the tournaments with the thresholds they feel comfortable with.

I have no problem with that concept, though I think it would be better to include the log in the server email when the game is over.

[Morat]

Division F

Morat (Ostrogoths/Franks) beat hscic (Palmyrans) 50-14.

A game were the stubbornness of the Ostrogoth cavalry overcame stiff Palmyran resistance. After initial skirmishing, the Ostrogoths took on the Palmyran centre and broke it while holding off the Palmyran assault on the flank.

Thanks to hscic for a good game.

M.

[Cunningcairn]

Indeed though the words were written by Voltaire and put into the mouth of his heroine so I will maintain he deserves the credit

On a serious note I have had to forfeit my last round of matches in the 20th Anniversary tournament (where I was in a personal best position after the second round) because I have lost faith in the integrity of competitive games for now so I really do hope this matter gets properly addressed.

I think you are incorrect. I have also experienced results that can only be described as cheating but they cannot be as they occur in my turn. The game regularly gives extreme results and always has. No matter what is done to stop cheating by reload every time someone has a reload their opponent will assume the worst due to the frequency of extreme events.

[paulmcneil]

As a person who's got crappy internet atm, fixing it being complicated by the fact I'm living with the inlaws, I think I've had to reload half a dozen times or so in the past year of playing - that includes both friendly and tournament play. It's never happened more than once a game that I can recall. I always explained the situation to my opponent and never had anyone give me any grief about it so far.

Surely though given that you were more than open in explaining when it happened, you wouldn't object to Slitherine just telling players by default when reloads have occurred and how many right? That is literally what I am asking for. Many players support my proposal of transparency. Even Pete is onboard with some type of report auto-generated each game.

@Slitherine - Give us the data. Stop hiding it. Let us be adults and deal with it because you guys have admitted that you don't have the manpower. Each tournament manager can have their own rules and thresholds and everyone is free to join the tournaments with the thresholds they feel comfortable with.

I hate to say it, but I completely agree with MikeC on this

[Nikobeg]

Division F

Nikobeg (Vikikng) vs Hscic (Lombard) 51 - 2


Thank you. To all players and organizers.

[stockwellpete]

I personally believe most people are reasonable and will not be obtuse over the occasional reload.

Yes, most people will be OK, but not all people. That is the point. As an organiser I always ask myself, "What are the likely worst case scenarios if I do this?"

[stockwellpete]

I wouldn't join a tourney where a reload would mean an automatic loss as I feel that's too extreme a penalty for a rare but unpreventable occurrence.

I wouldn't run a tournament on that basis either.

I think there should be some threshold, which Slitherine could determine based on their historical analysis of server data, that, if crossed, should autogenerate a log report of the game at its close and send it to the players. If one felt aggrieved, they could take it up with their opponent, tourney organizer and/or Slitherine. I think players who get flagged more than a handful of times should be banned from MP for a period of time. Repeat offenders facing longer, and possibly permanent ban.

Yes, this method makes the most sense to me. In the new system a record must be kept by Slitherine when a player receives a warning so that a second occurrence can be dealt with more robustly, if appropriate. In terms of the threshold that would generate a report at the end of a game then certainly 3 excess downloads in a game should be enough. If the system could discount excess downloads in the first 4 or 5 turns of a game (the manoeuvre stage) then I would set the threshold at 2 excess downloads. That way completely honest players would not be flagged for the occasional single internet or server glitch.

[devoncop]

I wouldn't join a tourney where a reload would mean an automatic loss as I feel that's too extreme a penalty for a rare but unpreventable occurrence.

I wouldn't run a tournament on that basis either.

I think there should be some threshold, which Slitherine could determine based on their historical analysis of server data, that, if crossed, should autogenerate a log report of the game at its close and send it to the players. If one felt aggrieved, they could take it up with their opponent, tourney organizer and/or Slitherine. I think players who get flagged more than a handful of times should be banned from MP for a period of time. Repeat offenders facing longer, and possibly permanent ban.

Yes, this method makes the most sense to me. In the new system a record must be kept by Slitherine when a player receives a warning so that a second occurrence can be dealt with more robustly, if appropriate. In terms of the threshold that would generate a report at the end of a game then certainly 3 excess downloads in a game should be enough. If the system could discount excess downloads in the first 4 or 5 turns of a game (the manoeuvre stage) then I would set the threshold at 2 excess downloads. That way completely honest players would not be flagged for the occasional single internet or server glitch.

Sorry but why on earth are we contemplating "a warning so that a second instance can be dealt with more robustly" ?

If a player has been warned by Slitherine then given how high they are setting the bar then cheating has been conclusively discovered.

That should end their participation in MP games full stop.

At the very least anyone playing someone who had been warned should be made aware so they can choose whether to play them.

[stockwellpete]

Sorry but why on earth are we contemplating "a warning so that a second instance can be dealt with more robustly" ?

This is where you are becoming a fanatic.

Anyone who triggers the system, for whatever reason, should get a "warning PM" asking for an explanation. Some of those explanations will include such things as "my internet was playing up" or "there was a thunderstorm" (hopefully Slitherine will not send these PM's if it is their own server on the blink). When the pattern of excess downloads is reviewed some of these explanations will get a "pass", others may not. But they should all remain on record. If it happens on a second occasion with the same player in the same way, then I would want to refer it all to our FOG2DL adjudication panel - and one possible outcome of that could be that the player is asked to leave the tournament.

If a player has been warned by Slitherine then given how high they are setting the bar then cheating has been conclusively discovered.

No, it hasn't. A player posting 4 excess downloads across turns 2 and 3 is almost certainly not cheating. See my example a few pages where even MikeC_81 agreed with me.

That should end their participation in MP games full stop.

At the very least anyone playing someone who had been warned should be made aware so they can choose whether to play them.

Make your mind up. Are they banned or not in your "brave new world"? I strongly suggest that you do not enter Season 9 unless you are fully committed to completing your matches. It is not fair on the other players.