tom wrote:

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

One other option I have considered is using our resident math / coding geniuses to put together a system for analyzing the weekly game log file and flagging up potential cheaters for review.

The log file would be modified so that there would be no personally identifiable information. For example IP addresses would be hidden via hashing function so they are still unique but not identifiable. Similarly player names would be referenced by a unique id number instead of their player name.

Based on the following information:

GameID
Seat
Timestamp
Action
IP

It should be possible to flag up likely cheaters - e.g. players who play on the same IP who take turns immediately after each other who rarely attack each other and where one player always wins if it gets down to 2 players at the end.

I don't understand.  What's the point of anonymously flagging accounts when you're going to have to look at the individuals' games at some point anyways to verify that there's actual cheating?  Or are you talking about making this information public ..or semi-public for members to evaluate?

Sorry I should have been clearer.

I am looking for help from someone with statistical / analytic / mathematical experience to assist with putting together a system / algorithm / procedure for flagging up likely cheaters from a sample week or months log data.

As I can't pass on any personally identifiable information like IP addresses to a third party (as this would be a breach of privacy) personal information in this log data would need to be hashed to make it anonymous.

Once a system has been put in place this would be a regular process which would run in the background each week and pass names for checking to me or another admin. There would be no need for hashing / obscuring information as this would be a purely internal function.

+1 for that process

Hi all,

How do I report someone that seems to be hacking the game? (Unless there is some way to add 99 armies to a country legitimately)

Details:

http://www.wargear.net/games/player/69720

Going through the history at frame 955 he has 18 troops on Libya, then in the next frame he adds 49 troops to it.

Then in frame 1061 he just goes all out and adds 99 troops to one of his countries, then wins the game.

The only reason I looked through the game is I wondered how I had been kicked out, (I was doing so-so) and the winner had 45 armies on one country at the end of the game.

I read through all the posts here and this seems to be a multi-play thread, so I apologise in advance if I've written to the wrong thread. I just did a forum search on 'cheat' and this was number one :)

all the best,

Lee

nekopa wrote:

 

http://www.wargear.net/games/player/69720

I don't see any problems with the numbers.  What I'm confused about is how he was able to cash two sets of cards at turns 950 and 951.  Checking his previous turn, he did not appear to eliminate anyone.

M57 wrote:

nekopa wrote:

 

http://www.wargear.net/games/player/69720

I don't see any problems with the numbers.  What I'm confused about is how he was able to cash two sets of cards at turns 950 and 951.  Checking his previous turn, he did not appear to eliminate anyone.

The turn before he eliminated Nekopa and received his 5 cards.  Everything looked legit.

Ok, I don't want to accuse someone wrongly. The next card cash (at the end of the game) is for 19 armies. How did he get 99? Is it something to do with the map (special elimination bonus) Although I have played the map before, and eliminated people, but never got so high a troop bonus.

And he eliminated me in round 1051... After he somehow got 50+ troops to add

L

Beastlymaster wrote:

The turn before he eliminated Nekopa and received his 5 cards.  Everything looked legit.

This is not what I see.  Nekopa took his turn from 926 to 935. Nekopa was not eliminated until after the six cards were cashed at turn 1018

M57 wrote:

Beastlymaster wrote:

The turn before he eliminated Nekopa and received his 5 cards.  Everything looked legit.

This is not what I see.  Nekopa took his turn from 926 to 935. Nekopa was not eliminated until after the six cards were cashed at turn 1018

And even if he did cash, he got a lot more armies than the cards would allow for (90+ cashed vs 18 card cash value)

Am I missing something? I've only been playing for a year, and only with close friends. I don't really care about the rankings and stuff, I just enjoy a good strategy game. I just wanted to warn my friends not to invite people they don't know, as this kind of stuff can happen.

Thanks for looking into it folks, I don't want to waste your time, but I though this looks like a hack of some kind.

nekopa wrote:

And even if he did cash, he got a lot more armies than the cards would allow for (90+ cashed vs 18 card cash value)

At turn 1061 he received 39 units at the start of his turn for bonuses.  Add to that 17 and 18 for two sets of cards and he should have received a total of 74 units.  From there it looks like he had at least an additional 15 armies in reserve from turns 1019 and 1020 from eliminating you, which he appears to have not placed when he received them.

The numbers can get high pretty quickly once players start to get eliminated.

I just checked.  players are allowed to hold an unlimited number of cards and an unlimited number of units in reserve for that board.   Bottom line, I can't get the numbers to line up perfectly, but they don't look out of line.

Thanks for explaining it, now I feel like a jack ass and have to go and make some apologies.

Guess its my fault for playing drunk :s

Thanks for your help and sorry if I wasted your time.

L

Yup it all looks fine to me.

tom wrote:

I think you need to calm down on the accusation Toto. If you have a concern then PM me directly and I'll look into it. In the case of these two players whilst they play each other a lot (and are probably friends in real life)  they operate off different IPs and have a nearly even win record. They are clearly two separate people and are not cheaters.

The classic characteristics of a multiple account cheater are two players playing each regularly where one player almost always wins. If you're not seeing that then you're probably not seeing cheating.

Well Tom, I followed your advice to calm down, despite I still have a lot to say about it. I even promised myself not to talk about cheaters no more, as it's spoiling my pleasure.

Here I'm back NOT to accuse but to ask some experienced players to look at this game http://www.wargear.net/games/view/73758 and give me their point of view.

Do they think this game was fair ? Again I am not saying Sako and Xander-Crews are the same person, but I feel like I had to face the Tanzanian National Team.

I know it's not relevant but I read on Sako's wall 3 messages in french (not much spoken in Tanzania) from Moris :

c'est Romain?

17th Jun 2011 17:48

Message from Moris

 

Tiens.. un nouveau tanzanien sur wargear ! t'es qui sako ??

#1 of 3

On Moris' wall, Sako's reply was : "yes I am Romain" and then giving details about another FOGGED game http://www.wargear.net/games/view/71262 where they both play.

Ouais c Romain. T grave dans la merde sur la carte de France. Moi jai une grosse partie du quart sud est et du centre. mais le bleu va me casser les couilles

Message from Moris

 

ok! j''espere que tu voulais pas garder cette deuxieme identité secrete, paske du coup j'ai dit a Ju que c'était toi, je savais pas que t'avais un autre compte.. Fais toi en un troisieme au cas où ;) a+

#1 of 1

What else ? I find strange that Xander-Crews never played a single ordinary game but has preferd to join directly 4 tournaments, 2 of them with Sako in them. But this is his right to do so.

So, I am paranoid ?

I'd say Xander-Crews and Sako played as a team from nearly the beginning, maybe from the beginning. 

could just be one of those blank-cheque associations... alliances that go from game to game, sorta like some people do in tourneys regardless of situations. They could also just be after your high ranking scores or something.

Gimli wrote:

could just be one of those blank-cheque associations... alliances that go from game to game, sorta like some people do in tourneys regardless of situations. They could also just be after your high ranking scores or something.

What you call blank-cheque association is what I call cheating. Two players will decide in advance never to attack each other's continents, and to start fighting each other only once all the other players are eliminated. In this case of cheating, victories will be split between them so I won't be very obvious when looking at the stats.

I don't believe a supposed newbee, being only involved in 4 tournaments and not even one public game, would care about getting more points by eliminating the highest ranked player.

But thanks to you and Smoke for giving your valuable opinions.

There's no indication from the logs that they are the same player - consistently different IP ranges and timestamps don't indicate it either.

tom wrote:

There's no indication from the logs that they are the same player - consistently different IP ranges and timestamps don't indicate it either.

Thanks Tom. Good you checked that, but it obviously doesn't mean they did not act like a team.

I bet they are both from France (or Belgium) and Moris, General patton, and Neneleking too. Could you check that from the IPs ?

It sounds like in this case the players should be tracked over multiple games.  Then, if they have an alliance in multiple games, this provision would apply (from the Help section):

"Are alliances allowed?
Alliances in games are allowed and usually make sense from a strategical point of view. However, pre-conceived alliances are NOT allowed or tolerated. Player's that are found colluding in multiple games will be at risk for being banned."

Since they are not the same player, IMO the above would have to be proven before any action taken against them.  Innocent until proven guilty, correct?

~ATH

AttilaTheHun wrote:

It sounds like in this case the players should be tracked over multiple games.  Then, if they have an alliance in multiple games, this provision would apply (from the Help section):

"Are alliances allowed?
Alliances in games are allowed and usually make sense from a strategical point of view. However, pre-conceived alliances are NOT allowed or tolerated. Player's that are found colluding in multiple games will be at risk for being banned."

Since they are not the same player, IMO the above would have to be proven before any action taken against them.  Innocent until proven guilty, correct?

~ATH

I agree with you ATH, but because I wrote about it, they will not get caught now. My fault.

Innocent until proven guilty ?  Yes, I agree on that, USUALLY. But not when the same IP is used or when it's proven they are RL friends/relatives. In this case, I don't believe 1 second they are from Tanzania (Tom will confirm this I am sure) and thus it's not by chance that they have choosen the same improbable country. In my mind, they are guilty, until proven innocent.

Both IP addresses are from Tanzania.