Cheating

[gabeeg]

You want to experience cheating first hand or see how public forums can become full of nasty accusations...play online chess :)

I am new to Blitz and am just starting my second PBEM "training" game and it has been a great experience. I very much appreciate that hands down everyone seems respectful, helpfull, friendly and is in it to learn and have fun win or lose.

The desire to cheat in a game escapes me....if you win by cheating, you really have not won anything...you know you cheated. Does it mean more that others think you are a good player than to actually be a good player? How is that fun? Happily wargamers seem driven by different motives, wanting to learn and experience the thrill of a good battle than just win for public laurels.

[low_bidder]

I had an amusing experience with a non-blitz player once. He was an former Italian artillery officer, or so he claimed. I found him at a user group. Anyway I had noticed that his turn counter was incrementing twice for every turn. That and the fact that I never got any op fire shots raised my eyebrow. So about turn 16, when he had 32 loads, I asked him what was up. He explained to me that he liked to play a 'practice' turn before playing the 'real' turn.
I suggested that some players would consider that cheating. He got offended. I might be naive, but I felt he was serious about not thinking he was cheating. Since there was no real reason for him to cheat. So the 'cheaters never win' theory doesn't apply to those that don't think they are cheating.
In Law a crime requires motive.
As far as how much cheating there is, I look at the number of 'fixes' the Cammo Group AND Matrix have put in the game a think there had to be a reason.
Call me cynical, but when I see someone on the ladder with 70 wins, no loses or ties I figure they have found a way to play outside the system, so to speak. To many random events in this game for the die to always fall one players way.
I know people at the Wargamers were caught 'juicing' their OOB's. Nothing like having all your units with 100 Experience to get the die to fall your way. A certain someone lost their player of the year dingus for that.

[2ndLt_Fjun]

Call me cynical, but when I see someone on the ladder with 70 wins, no loses or ties I figure they have found a way to play outside the system, so to speak. To many random events in this game for the die to always fall one players way.

Glad we don't have anyone on the ladder with 70 wins, no losses or ties. Even Narwan has managed to pull out a draw or two.

But I don't agree about the random events. Sure, the game is a long coupled path of random dice rolls, but you can affect the probability of each dice roll to make it as advantageous as possible for you in so many ways by knowing your units capabilities and using sound tactics, both on the bigger level and in micromanaging the units. Looking at the top ELO players I've seen both Narwan and Cross play first hand from the receiving end and they are extremely good. I'm not surprised to see their score line and they don't need to cheat to win. This is a game of skills, at least in the long run, and 25 turns of a game is usually long enough to prove that.

Having a long streak of wins/high ELO etc. is also about choosing favourable conditions where the opportunities to win are even, i.e. not playing years, scenarios or settings that are unbalanced enough to more or less per default give you a loss. For example Vesku is also a very good player but more "brave" in choosing different types of scenarios. Used the quotation marks sicne there's nothing right or wrong. Either way is fine in my eyes. If you like to play meeting engagements in 1944 only that's fine too.

Sometimes it's easy to look away from your own lack of skills and instead blame a more skilled opponent of cheating.. ;)

[Cross]

Having a long streak of wins/high ELO etc. is also about choosing favourable conditions where the opportunities to win are even, i.e. not playing years, scenarios or settings that are unbalanced enough to more or less per default give you a loss. For example Vesku is also a very good player but more "brave" in choosing different types of scenarios. Used the quotation marks sicne there's nothing right or wrong. Either way is fine in my eyes. If you like to play meeting engagements in 1944 only that's fine too.

This is very true. One of the main reasons for my high ELO is because I have 'specialized' in the type of game I play. I almost exclusively play as the WW2 British and because I'm not a huge fan of desert warfare, it's mostly 1943-1945.

The reason is not to 'beat the system' and get high on the ladder, it's because my interest - since I was 9 years old - is WW2 British military history. I've tried playing as the Germans and Russians and just don't enjoy it.

There's plenty of players, with a lower ELO than me, who would beat me soundly if I attempted to play as the Russians. And I love to play against dedicated German players who know how to field a KG.

[low_bidder]

Call me cynical, but when I see someone on the ladder with 70 wins, no loses or ties I figure they have found a way to play outside the system, so to speak. To many random events in this game for the die to always fall one players way.

Glad we don't have anyone on the ladder with 70 wins, no losses or ties. Even Narwan has managed to pull out a draw or two.

But I don't agree about the random events. Sure, the game is a long coupled path of random dice rolls, but you can affect the probability of each dice roll to make it as advantageous as possible for you in so many ways by knowing your units capabilities and using sound tactics, both on the bigger level and in micromanaging the units. Looking at the top ELO players I've seen both Narwan and Cross play first hand from the receiving end and they are extremely good. I'm not surprised to see their score line and they don't need to cheat to win. This is a game of skills, at least in the long run, and 25 turns of a game is usually long enough to prove that.

Having a long streak of wins/high ELO etc. is also about choosing favourable conditions where the opportunities to win are even, i.e. not playing years, scenarios or settings that are unbalanced enough to more or less per default give you a loss. For example Vesku is also a very good player but more "brave" in choosing different types of scenarios. Used the quotation marks sicne there's nothing right or wrong. Either way is fine in my eyes. If you like to play meeting engagements in 1944 only that's fine too.

Sometimes it's easy to look away from your own lack of skills and instead blame a more skilled opponent of cheating.. ;)

70 was a random number. I was throwing no stones and apologize if I offended.
What I was saying about random events was the tend to average out over the course of the game. If they don't, they are NOT random.

I always get in trouble when I do this, but communication REQUIRES common terms;
ran·dom (ran′dəm)

noun
impetuous and haphazard movement: now only in at random, without careful choice, aim, plan, etc.; haphazardly

Etymology: ME randoun < OFr randon, violence, speed (in a randon, violently) < randir, to run violently < Frank *rant, a running, akin to OHG rinnan, to run

adjective

1. lacking aim or method; purposeless; haphazard
2. not uniform; esp., of different sizes: said of stones, etc. in certain types of masonry
3. Statistics of statistical sample selection in which all possible samples have equal probability of selection

So if an event can be affected by skill, it IS NOT Random.
Yes, a more skilled play should be better able to cope with random events and even take advantage of them on occasion. And better knowledge of a certain era, period or OOB would count as a skill.
None of which matters if their opponent has re-set their experience levels to 100 for their OOB.
Try it sometime and see. Use the editor to set your units to 100 experience then run a trial game. You always see the enemy first and seldom miss that second shot.

---

Cross, you up for a game? I haven't played WW2 vs a human since version 2.0 I really don't enjoy WW2 that much since it strikes me as too sci fi. Fair fights are fun, but they are NOT war. WW2 wasn't about fair fights.
That said, I'm getting real burned out on MBT. I spend most of my playing time picking it apart and looking at the flaws instead of enjoying the good parts. That means I need a break. So I was thinking about posting a challenge and seeing which sharks show up. I only have the un-modded latest version loaded. No CD since I seldom played the game. If I get into it, I'll order the CD. I swore when Cammo refused to do anything about the SP guns that play like they have a turret that I wouldn't play WW2 again. I'm old enough to know one should never say never.
I'll play the krauts but I would rather play the USA. Patton driving Monty back into the sea at Falaise. Or trying to.

[Trident]

I once played a fellow that advanced through a minefield, over a prepared defensive position without losing a single armored vehicle, it would be like landing on Omaha beach on June 6, 1944 and not sustaining any casualties. I checked the loads on turn 3, he had loaded the game 600 times. Game over. Why do people create Ponzi Schemes? Because they can. :[)

[Gila]

I once played a fellow that advanced through a minefield, over a prepared defensive position without losing a single armored vehicle, it would be like landing on Omaha beach on June 6, 1944 and not sustaining any casualties. I checked the loads on turn 3, he had loaded the game 600 times. Game over. Why do people create Ponzi Schemes? Because they can. :[)

Never had that happen with me.
Thankfully,i've found after over 40 games in pbem all have been honest.
If i get " has player reloaded" i do want to know why?
But on the rare occasions that does happen,it's a computer freeze up problem.
Give one maybe two then it's a scrap.

[Narwan]

What I was saying about random events was the tend to average out over the course of the game. If they don't, they are NOT random.

So actually you're not talking about random events but 'random' outcomes. There's a huge difference between the two especially as these outcomes do average out over the course of a game. Because that means that one specific outcome may be random, the aggregate outcome over a number of runs gets predictable. And whatever's predictable can be affected by skill. In fact I would define skill as the ability to reduce the randomness of the final outcome (so not of a specific single event but of the overall outcome).

Now that I'm thinking about it, I haven't even been able to come with an example of a single 'random' event that can not be affected by skill. Not saying there aren't any but there can't be that many. Anyone care to have a go at me with an example? See if I can 'skill' it away?

Narwan

[2ndLt_Fjun]

So if an event can be affected by skill, it IS NOT Random.

The dice roll in itself is truly random, but if you consistently set your throw up so that for example 1-4 is a successful throw and 5-6 is a failure, you'll always win in the long run if the number of random throws are high enough.

when I see someone on the ladder with 70 wins, no loses or ties I figure they have found a way to play outside the system, so to speak. To many random events in this game for the die to always fall one players way.

Your point was that the random events evens out over the long run so that even a good player will lose eventually. My point is that it's not randomness that matters, it's probabilities (to speak in terms of statistics). Never mind :)

[Cross]

Cross, you up for a game? I haven't played WW2 vs a human since version 2.0 I really don't enjoy WW2 that much since it strikes me as too sci fi. Fair fights are fun, but they are NOT war. WW2 wasn't about fair fights.
That said, I'm getting real burned out on MBT. I spend most of my playing time picking it apart and looking at the flaws instead of enjoying the good parts. That means I need a break. So I was thinking about posting a challenge and seeing which sharks show up. I only have the un-modded latest version loaded. No CD since I seldom played the game. If I get into it, I'll order the CD. I swore when Cammo refused to do anything about the SP guns that play like they have a turret that I wouldn't play WW2 again. I'm old enough to know one should never say never.
I'll play the krauts but I would rather play the USA. Patton driving Monty back into the sea at Falaise. Or trying to.

Thank you for the invite, but I can't right now.

I usually only play one opponent at a time. (Which btw, is probably a good way to improve your ELO, at the expense of your overall ladder standing.)

Right now I'm playing a campaign against Arkan. It's battle 4, and I just took out an Elefant! My poor british guns don't have a hope against it's 22cm front armour, so I attacked it from the front and flank - at the same time - until I scored a side hit.

But he still has a Tiger that has so far survived all 4 battles. I've close assaulted it, hit with a 6 Pounder, hit with a PIAT, and in this battle I hit it with a 500lb bomb. Still haven't even damaged the thing! :(