Slitherine

devoncop wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:34 pm That is one of the most shocking things I have read on this forum.

Words cannot express how pathetic such behaviour is.

Well done Pete for your actions which have my unqualified support.

Yes, well done Pete. I really do not understand why someone would cheat. Yes, it's great to win but through the satisfaction that your plan worked and you out witted your opponent. What satisfaction you would get loading the dice is beyond me. Hope they can do something to prevent this type of thing.

Division B

desertedfox - German Foot Tribes 260-599 AD with Roman 379-424 allies

challenges

lydianed - Moorish 350-698 AD with Byzantine 493-550 AD allies

PW = 4321

PM sent

Pretty outgrageous behaviour but no real surprise someone is employing this technique. I guess the question is are there others that have gamed the system as well? I'd say 99% of the games I played seemed to go fairly although occasionally you get the odd battle when your elite cataphracts get routed by light archers at that critical juncture in the battle and several other melees seem to go against the odds. Is it worth trawling the data to see if there are other offenders. I certainly hope not and certainly enjoy the games and the banters with most of my opponents in this community but maybe some review of the reloading activity would give peace of mind given one has been uncovered.

ulysisgrunt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:34 pm Perhaps it would help, and alleviate suspicion if, as a matter of courtesy, you informed your opponent that you had to re-start a turn?

Like: "Hi, had a small glitch with my internet last night and had to restart my turn 233 times"!

devoncop wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:27 pm Whereas I intend to take the opposite approach. I have already decided to only enter the 1600 pts default Divisions next season having seen how this season has gone despite them not being my preferred eras.

I am thinking same. This season I've enjoyed most the Biblical (where I got roflstomped in most matches, but I still had fun even though being beaten, because I think I understand *why* I was beaten) and EMA, as they felt to me to be more tactical and I felt I was more in control of things going on. The 1200 point eras to me feels much more like I am rolling the dice and then see what happens, and then attempt to adjust to the dice-results. I love the Classic Antiq era, but I think I'll skip it next season (yes, I know there will be a possibility some games will be 1600 points, but the thought of have to choose an army before the season starts and before you know if majority of matches will be 1200 or 1600 points matches (especially as those who prefer 1200 point matches *know* they will be playing 1200 point matches only) just doesn't tickle me the right way).

My personal view would be to keep it all more or less as it is. People feel strongly on both sides. Adding options adds confusion. I guess if we expect to play 1200 pts in Classical and two players come together who want 1600 pts then all well and good.

Classical and Late Antiquity at 1200 pts
Biblical and Early Middle Ages at 1600 pts

You have half and half to keep everyone happy. I would rather play everything at 1200 myself (when setting up a game you have to go back to remembering what the heck the points total is supposed to be for a particular section). Guaranteed that with the number of players some will set up games with the wrong points total.

At least if you fix the points as suggested above people will be less likely to get confused, everyone can choose which section to join, and more importantly, have fun.

grumpydaddy845 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:39 am
Like: "Hi, had a small glitch with my internet last night and had to restart my turn 233 times"!

'The Diligence and Dedication at Delivery' or otherwise, to put it fancy, 'Amat Victoria Curam' -the slogan of all FoG2 cheaters!

The important question now is just one,
Did someone from Slitherine told anything about what they intend to do about that? I think that it has to be resolved by them before the new DL start..

We are going to do the trial in Classical Antiquity next season. I do like the idea of players choosing their preference of 1200 or 1600pts and hopefully it can be rolled out right across the tournament in Season 10 so that all sections will be operating with the same system. I don't expect too many problems but it will require players to check the first post in the "Arrange Your Matches Here" threads to make sure they have set up the match correctly. One of the things the trial will do is show how much confusion (i.e. wrong set ups) there is likely to be. There will probably be a bit at the beginning because some players do not read any instructions, but after a few weeks I think everything will settle down. There is a difference between introducing a new system into a smaller tournament and a much bigger one like the FOG2DL though.

My only concern is the proportion of matches played under the new system at 1200 and 1600pts. At the moment, in the core league sections (so excluding the Themed Event which has a separate format) the matches are split 50/50 between 1200 and 1600 although Biblical (at 1600) is half the size of the other sections and will likely stay that way until another DLC from the period is released. And the poll showed a slight preference for more 1600pt matches. So I don't really want the proportion of matches at 1600pts regularly falling below 50%, although if they come in at a range of between 40% and 60% across the various sections of the tournament then that will be OK, I think.

The Themed Event has been struggling to attract players for some time now and may not survive when we open up the Late Medieval section. But we might be able to give it a new lease of life if we make it completely a 1600pt section, possibly with the option of playing at 2000pts for those that like the bigger battles. That would increase the proportion of larger battles offered in any season by a few percentage points.

I don't think this is an issue that should cause people to drop out. There is not that much of a difference between 1200 and 1600pts, although I can understand if some players enter only 3 sections instead of 4 because of the time factor. But it is not like we are using different rules or anything. The other thing I am not sure about is whether some players will mix their default selections so that they get a better balance of matches throughout the season.

NikiforosFokas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:24 am The important question now is just one,
Did someone from Slitherine told anything about what they intend to do about that? I think that it has to be resolved by them before the new DL start..

It is under discussion. Remember that this blew up over a weekend, so they have not had much of a chance to discuss it yet. However, I can say that a number of options are under consideration.

NikiforosFokas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:24 am The important question now is just one,
Did someone from Slitherine told anything about what they intend to do about that? I think that it has to be resolved by them before the new DL start..

I have sent a PM to Iain McNeil and I know Richard has been talking to people at Slitherine so now the weekend is over we should be getting a response. I hope so anyway.

Hearing that from you makes me optimistic Richard.
Thanks for the update.

Division E

Tratmot (Roman) beat baldrick52 (Frankish) 43 -11

LEAVING the last place ... for now =)

I sent a message detailing concerns and feedback from this thread to AlbertoC and Iain McNeil over the weekend, too. Let's see what they say!

SLancaster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:54 am You have half and half to keep everyone happy.

Not quite true though. Classic Antiq is the most popular era and has the biggest variety of competetive armies to choose from. I personally would find it a more "everyone happy" -solution if the 1200 and 1600 point divisions would rotate from season to season. I quite well understand Pete's reluctance to this, as it would make comparing seasons with each other problematic, and very likely would lead to people who like 1600 points to skip the 1200 point seasons and vice versa (meaning the league admin would have more work at the start of each season shuffling slots in the divisions for all the people not joining this season or coming back for this season).

As it is going to be (after next season, if things go as Pete has roadmapped), people in the future *have to* choose an army which is competetive in 1200 points, no matter if they themselves would prefer to play 1600 points (and might get to play a couple 1600 point matches each season). Personally I feel this is in fact a worse model than the current model. Now I at least have a choice to play 1600 point battles (even though not in my favourite era), in the future I am forced to play 1200 point battles no matter what era I choose (as 1200 point battles will be the default, and I have organised enough gaming and sports events the past few decades so many times I know most people won't read any rules, and choose what ever is default, and then wonder why things are not what they expected).

Swuul wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:11 am

SLancaster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:54 am You have half and half to keep everyone happy.

Not quite true though. Classic Antiq is the most popular era and has the biggest variety of competetive armies to choose from. I personally would find it a more "everyone happy" -solution if the 1200 and 1600 point divisions would rotate from season to season. I quite well understand Pete's reluctance to this, as it would make comparing seasons with each other problematic, and very likely would lead to people who like 1600 points to skip the 1200 point seasons and vice versa (meaning the league admin would have more work at the start of each season shuffling slots in the divisions for all the people not joining this season or coming back for this season).

As it is going to be (after next season, if things go as Pete has roadmapped), people in the future *have to* choose an army which is competetive in 1200 points, no matter if they themselves would prefer to play 1600 points (and might get to play a couple 1600 point matches each season). Personally I feel this is in fact a worse model than the current model. Now I at least have a choice to play 1600 point battles (even though not in my favourite era), in the future I am forced to play 1200 point battles no matter what era I choose (as 1200 point battles will be the default, and I have organised enough gaming and sports events the past few decades so many times I know most people won't read any rules, and choose what ever is default, and then wonder why things are not what they expected).

We are basically in agreement. I organise some tournaments as well and you have to make things clear and unambiguous.

The way I see it, the present format has just come about and this is where we are. The Digital League has been very successful so why change it dramatically? Rotation of points per season and choice of points depending on the player seems a bit confusing, I think.

I think in the other tournaments larger armies are used. Half of the Digital League uses large armies so it is already there.

The oddest thing to me, as some have alluded to, is that he did this so often. What a curious way to spend your time. I feel quite sorry for him in some ways. On chess.com, cheating has long been a big issue and they seem rather sophisticated in detecting it. Interestingly, discussion of it on the forum is not really allowed and people refrain from using the 'C' word, which probably helps in fostering a positive atmosphere. Of course, cheating takes a different form in FoG but it is just as complex.

It seems to me inevitable that people who get passionate about the game might be tempted after a bit of terrible luck to restart their turn and I am not too bothered by this. Perversely, we may now get worried when the opposite happens and we benefit from some good outcomes, like a cavalry charge that routs three units in successive flank attacks. Then we may get worried that our opponent thinks we are being naughty and even (and I am being frivolous) restart the turn to get a more equitable outcome. Then c****ing becomes very tortuous.

More seriously, I will in future warn my opponents if I have to restart (usually a result of the server being temporarily down, which happens occasionally). Transparency is the best policy. Even better would be the simple expedient (though it may be difficult technically) for the programme to indicate when this has happened.

Final point - a great development for FoG2 would be the chance to play each other 'live' and this, while posing problems related to time differences etc., would solve the problem.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:53 am Half of the Digital League uses large armies so it is already there.

Correction, 9/21=43% of Digital League uses 1600 point armies, 57% uses 1200 point armies. In this poll 56% informed they would want to use larger armies. That is quite a difference, one would like to say the exact opposite.

Hi guys,

we are aware of the issue. Dkalenda had been detected as suspicious behaviour and was contacted by the team and received an official ban warning. He explained he had a problem with his internet connection and we explained that did not matter and any further discrepancies would result in a ban. After this his download rate returned to normal.

However separately in messages to the league organizer he admitted he was cheating, though didn't accept there was anything wrong with cheating. As a result he has been permanently banned.

We are looking at tightening up the rules for multiplayer, but its a fine line between preventing cheating and penalizing genuine players, which is why we've always taken a manual moderation approach to this rather than allowing the system to impose automatic penalties, but we are going to look at the options we have available. It may be time to enforce more automated penalties to prevent something like this happening again.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

The Slitherine Team

IainMcNeil wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:58 am Hi guys,


We are looking at tightening up the rules for multiplayer, but its a fine line between preventing cheating and penalizing genuine players, which is why we've always taken a manual moderation approach to this rather than allowing the system to impose automatic penalties, but we are going to look at the options we have available. It may be time to enforce more automated penalties to prevent something like this happening again.

Ian,

I am not sure automated 'penalties' are required but transparency probably is - such as the proposal of including when your opponent re-downloads a turn in the turn summary or notification email. I became interested in this thread/topic after an opponent, who suffered a streak of bad luck, started indirectly accusing me of cheating in a recent tournament game. As a new player, I didn't even know that was possible. Now, he has moved that to a formal accusation. I can't prove a negative, but encouraged him in his efforts to get an answer that he can live with by contacting your team. I have only ever once had to re-download a turn, in my you-tubed televised massive defeat against Ludendorf in which I failed to kill a single unit. Given recent events, it is hard for me to take his accusation personally, as it is indeed apparently possible to cheat this way. Being an online activity, opponents have no way to judge my character...... unfortunately, as it stands now, I have no way of defending my character either. Needless to say this has dramatically impacted his and my enjoyment of the game. Thank you for all your efforts.