RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:19 am
This is much to do about nothing.[:)]
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: Itdepends
If the seed is set as Bill says when the scenario is selected then you could use this to exploit/cheat turn one without the Allied players help.
1.Select scenario
2.Save japanes password and then copy the save game file
3. Open original file. Save dummy allied password (as Japanese player)
4. Open file as Japanese and run combat replay.
If you don.t like the result start from step 1. If you do like the result, use the copy of th file you saved at step 2 for all your future opponents.
I.e. This assumes the historical first turn outcome is set once the seed is set when selecting the scenario (which is what Bill implied)
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
This is much to do about nothing.[:)]
ORIGINAL: tomamars
Way out of this mess is rather simple one. How long does it take for IJ player to create first sav game with those settings and send it to Allies? 1 min? And how long does it take to view results of the 1-st turn? 30 min? How about 10 1-st turns to choose from one of your liking? 5 hours? So solution is rather simple, all allied player needs to do is to observe if file IJ player sent him was ACTUALLY created few minutes ago or few days (or months) ago. Even if an exploit was indeed possible, there is a simple way to counter it by just paying attention.
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
It requires you to set the allied password, which is breaking the process.ORIGINAL: Quixote
Aurorus is correct about the potential exploit. Instead of arguing back and forth about what should happen when starting a new game with the same Japanese seed turn, try actually doing it. I did, and the result of the same Japanese seed turn, when sent to two Allied opponents with completely different passwords, was two exactly identical turns. These weren't similar results or close results factoring in fog of war, they were identical. Each Allied player lost exactly the same ships, exactly the same number of aircraft, and suffered exactly the same amount of damage to each and every ship hit. The experiment is easily repeatable if you care to try.
Note that this potential exploit only applies to Historical Dec 7th starts, and still may not mean his opponent was knowingly cheating. It's certainly possible his opponent simply re-used an already prepared first turn without knowing about the exploit (since none of the veteran players here seemed to know about it either), but Aurorus isn't crazy to have at least considered the possibility.
I'm sorry, that's not a cheat. that's not following the process and the allied player allowing the IJ player a free turn. since both players are involved, kinda hard to call it a cheat.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Just like I'm going to say the same thing every time I have to respond to this. I should really just go back up and find my reply that lays out how it works and quote that every time.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, not really. This is prevented because the Japanese player has to select the scenario, enter a password, and send to the Allied player before doing anything. The Allied player then opens that file, enters a password, and sends it back.
That file would then have the exact same replay generated for it every single time it was reloaded. In order to re-run the first turn until optimal results were achieved, the Japanese player would have to receive the file back from the Allied player each time - starting from scratch, each time, so both players would have to enter passwords.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: tomamars
Way out of this mess is rather simple one. How long does it take for IJ player to create first sav game with those settings and send it to Allies? 1 min? And how long does it take to view results of the 1-st turn? 30 min? How about 10 1-st turns to choose from one of your liking? 5 hours? So solution is rather simple, all allied player needs to do is to observe if file IJ player sent him was ACTUALLY created few minutes ago or few days (or months) ago. Even if an exploit was indeed possible, there is a simple way to counter it by just paying attention.
The Japanese player could run the turn that the Allied player sent to him repeatedly, until the cows come home, and always get the same results.
Always.
Every time.
Just like I'm going to say the same thing every time I have to respond to this. I should really just go back up and find my reply that lays out how it works and quote that every time.
Until there's word from Matrix....according to michaelm:-ORIGINAL: paradigmblue
However, if the seed is based on the allied save, as others have suggested, that may be moot, but I think that its important not to dismiss the possibility.
ORIGINAL: tomamars
1. Allied and IJ player decide to have a game
2. IJ player creates first save and sends it to Allied player
3. Allied player inspects time save file was created and / or changed and takes it ONLY if it was created in last few minutes - e.g. not being pre-prepaired
4. Allied player confirms the save and sends it back to IJ player
5. IJ player views combat report and starts working on his turn.
But maybe it's best to let Matrix people have their oppinion on this one...
ORIGINAL: paradigmblue
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Just like I'm going to say the same thing every time I have to respond to this. I should really just go back up and find my reply that lays out how it works and quote that every time.
Except that from what I saw, you're missing a step on how this exploit is said to work.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, not really. This is prevented because the Japanese player has to select the scenario, enter a password, and send to the Allied player before doing anything. The Allied player then opens that file, enters a password, and sends it back.
That file would then have the exact same replay generated for it every single time it was reloaded. In order to re-run the first turn until optimal results were achieved, the Japanese player would have to receive the file back from the Allied player each time - starting from scratch, each time, so both players would have to enter passwords.
Let's walk through a potential scenario:
1. Japanese player starts a new PBEM game, sets their password and saves in slot 10.
2. Japanese player re-opens the slot 10 save, sets an allied password, and saves in slot 11.
3. Japanese player re-opens the slot 11 save, runs the turn, and views the combat results.
4a. If the Japanese player likes the results, they then send the save in slot 10, which is still ready for the allied player to set the password.
4b. If the Japanese player doesn't like the results, they then go back to step 1, and start a new PBEM game.
The exploit doesn't come from running the save save over and over, but by instead creating new games over and over and being able to check the results.
I've tested this myself, and it seems to work. The question is if the results would be the same if the allied save was done on a different computer, which I don't know.
ORIGINAL: tomamars
1. Allied and IJ player decide to have a game
2. IJ player creates first save and sends it to Allied player
3. Allied player inspects time save file was created and / or changed and takes it ONLY if it was created in last few minutes - e.g. not being pre-prepaired
4. Allied player confirms the save and sends it back to IJ player
5. IJ player views combat report and starts working on his turn.
But maybe it's best to let Matrix people have their oppinion on this one...
ORIGINAL: paradigmblue
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Just like I'm going to say the same thing every time I have to respond to this. I should really just go back up and find my reply that lays out how it works and quote that every time.
Except that from what I saw, you're missing a step on how this exploit is said to work.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, not really. This is prevented because the Japanese player has to select the scenario, enter a password, and send to the Allied player before doing anything. The Allied player then opens that file, enters a password, and sends it back.
That file would then have the exact same replay generated for it every single time it was reloaded. In order to re-run the first turn until optimal results were achieved, the Japanese player would have to receive the file back from the Allied player each time - starting from scratch, each time, so both players would have to enter passwords.
Let's walk through a potential scenario:
1. Japanese player starts a new PBEM game, sets their password and saves in slot 10.
2. Japanese player re-opens the slot 10 save, sets an allied password, and saves in slot 11.
3. Japanese player re-opens the slot 11 save, runs the turn, and views the combat results.
4a. If the Japanese player likes the results, they then send the save in slot 10, which is still ready for the allied player to set the password.
4b. If the Japanese player doesn't like the results, they then go back to step 1, and start a new PBEM game.
The exploit doesn't come from running the save save over and over, but by instead creating new games over and over and being able to check the results.
I've tested this myself, and it seems to work. The question is if the results would be the same if the allied save was done on a different computer, which I don't know.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Guys, none of that matters.
We know that the seed is set not when the Japanese player ends his turn, but when the Allied player ends his turn (Allied player can alter orders with just 1 change and change the seed this way between 2 otherwise identical turns).
Stuff about re-running a turn.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I will continue to rebut it until my computer burns out.

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Guys, none of that matters.
We know that the seed is set not when the Japanese player ends his turn, but when the Allied player ends his turn (Allied player can alter orders with just 1 change and change the seed this way between 2 otherwise identical turns).
But in this case, the allied player can't issue any orders because of the historical first turn, and as such can't change the seed.
Stuff about re-running a turn.
We're talking past each other here, I think. This scenario has nothing to do with re-running the same save over and over. It's about testing out a first turn save and being able to see if it's the result you want, and if not, creating a *new* (as in starting at the scenario selection screen) save and testing the new one. If the seed is generated by the Japanese save, this allows the Japanese player to essentially create new seeds and test them one by one.
Again, not by re-opening the same turn over and over, but by using this method to peek at the first turn results, and creating a new game with a new seed if it's not to their liking.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
OK, I finally understand what you're saying here... Basically, that the IJ player can run their historical first turn any number of times against a dummy password, saving a fresh copy each time prior to the Allied password setting, until they got a result they liked. Then, that file would be sent to the Allied player. This is rendered moot if you are playing with historical first turn set to off, as the Allied player would enter orders after the Japanese player last touched the turn.
This relies entirely on the seed being set when the Japan player loads the scenario for the first time, and not when the Allied player enters their password. You could be right, but I'm not so sure. From observation, the seed seems to be set either when the Allied player closes out their turn or when the Japanese player loads the turn and generates the replay after receiving the turn from the Allied player (this observation comes from lots of experience with sync bugs, and running over 1200 PBEM Japan turns thus far*). Why would the first turn be any different?
ORIGINAL: BillBrown
If you look at post #57 of this thread you will see that Quixote has all ready tested it and the RNG seed is set
when the Japanese player sets up the game.
ORIGINAL: BillBrown
If you look at post #57 of this thread you will see that Quixote has all ready tested it and the RNG seed is set
when the Japanese player sets up the game.