No-communication games

[drwr]

By far, the biggest drain on my resources for operating RSW has been attempting to enforce the no-communication rule. Over the years, various individuals have, to various degrees, attempted to circumvent the rules forbidding communication between players in games like this. Furthermore, even when this kind of cheating is not going on, other players in the game are constantly suspicious of it happening, and I have to investigate accusations of cheating and determine whether or not it's founded. This is difficult to do.

My apologies to anyone over the years I've wrongfully accused of cheating; and conversely, to anyone who lost to a no-comm cheater that I failed to detect.

Well, I'm done with all of that. It's just not worth it. The Internet is just not meant for no-communication games.

As of today, I've removed the no-communication option for new games. The currently-pending no-communication games can play out to completion, and then we will have only full-communication games in the future.

David

[esoteric]

Wow, bummer. Those are actually the games I'm more likely to sign up for since I don't have to directly deal with people!

[Arioch]

David,

I sent you a mail regarding that. I really can understand your point of view, especially because there always will be player who think that others are cheating, and especially as you do not know if some players have contacts in real life (friends, neighbours or whatever) you never can assure that there is no cheating, so I guess it was the wised step to remove that option.

In fact, I have a divided view about non-comm games. On one side it is challenging to play without communication and so without allies, on the other side as you never can assure the non-comm option there will often be situations where you suspect that 2 players co-operate because they make moves which seem to be co-operated, but I always had the opinion that this is mere contingency than co-operation. I have experienced 2 games where one player gave his worlds and/or keys to another one just because - in my view - he was in a hopeless position and wanted to get out and strengthen another player who is an enemy of the one he was loosing his war with, but this easily could be viewed as cheating. In fact, in agrees2p this happened to me, I got gifts from another player and really did not know why, after the game has ended I analysed it and saw that at the point where he starts to gift worlds to me his position was somewhat hopeless because of the fact that he had nearly lost all his keys and did not seem to have a chance to withstand against his foe... So I can understand that step but I also can understand that others may see this as cheating...

So, who really can judge this without at least having one or more players disadvantaged - either those who play fair or those who may cheat... no one can really judge that without sitting beside of them when they do their turns.

I will miss the non-comm games but I am not too sad about disabeling that option...

Greets
Arno aka Arioch

[esoteric]

Were there really questions about agrees2p?

I was the gifter in that game but was not the first... While there is intended to be no Comm out of game, there is Comm IN game by way of gifts which I absolutely try to use to advantage and so should everyone, otherwise you're missing out on a whole dimension to that format. Conditional combat is another good one.

On Turn 6 (apparently) Arioch actually gifted a world to me which I typically take as a sign 'let's play nicely together and not immediately be dicks'. There's a number of things to infer from this action which one can better judge from subsequent activity as to the true intentions (partnership, ruse, 'eyes needed here', something else...).

End of game gifts from me followed a simple analysis- I was exerting force against (apparently) phx1jim. Having had no hope of affecting the raider and having had some aspect of alliance with Arioch (he was invading but so were all other players so I burned my own homeworld), some degree off benevolence was attempted: While I was trying to take away phx1jim's homeworld I was trying to preserve the industry (kill population), simultaneously drawing Arioch (posi) in through a series of gifts (planetary stepping stones) so he could occupy and have a unique advantage over the Raider. phx1jim got a little crafty on me and I had to burn the whole thing down at the end since numbers and timing were tight. Apparently the message was missed.

It's that simple. If people can't wrap their head around that kind of behavior, go for true no Comm games (no gifts, no conditionals) or just stay away entirely should they ever be reinstated.

[drwr]

There are, indeed, a lot of these kinds of transactions that happen in a no-comm game; and a lot of people complaining about them as evidence of cheating. There are also things that happen that appear to be evidence of advanced synchronized strategies between multiple players (such as simultaneous attacks on a single homeworld), but which might in fact simply be coincidence or the natural result of multiple players seizing the same opportunity. Then there are cases when people really are cheating and are coordinating resources and strategies in a real and meaningful way.

It's really hard to tell the difference between all of these cases, even when you have the advantage of seeing all player's orders. And that's the fundamental problem: players may or may not be dishonest, but someone needs to be responsible for investigating any complaints; and that investigation is difficult and time-consuming, and the cost of making a wrong determination is high.

I don't need that kind of trouble in my life any more.

David

[somnos]

It really is a shame that this game format is gone. I was a big fan because I could be in more games without the baggage of a lot of email coordination with allies.

And I could communicate with gifts and other behaviors. I've won anonymous games as a merchant by gifting worlds then flying in doubly loaded and dropping metal. They see my gift, they see the surplus metal and voila - I have an ally in an anonymous game. By giving gifts to as many players as I wanted to stay neutral to me I was able to fight only 1 player at a time. Strategy was both easier and more complex - I had to track turn by turn the things I did or saw (e.g. - Didn't get ambushed by Sauron - he has declare me ally).

El
Somnos

[phx1jjm]

David,
We have been without the non-comm games for 16 months. I would like to see them reinstated. Could we be removed from the non-comm game probation?
Hopefully we can all be good sports from now on.
Merry Christmas to us??
Zar

[drwr]

I don't know. I like the idea of no-communication games in principle, but I don't think the underlying problem here has changed at all.

It's not so much that people were cheating, it's that it can be impossible to *tell* whether people are cheating. And that makes other people suspicious, which I have to somehow deal with. Unless someone has a better idea of how to deal with this, I don't see anything good coming from reinstating no-comm games.

David

[phx1jjm]

After playing so many games the last year or so, I find it hard to communicate with anyone outside of the message system. I know one or two outside of the game where I could use email but when it comes to RSW, i use the message system exclusively.
The only way I know who is playing a position is if someone uses a player name in other games IE ZENCAT.
For non comm games with FBI, the players use random names so it is impossible to indentify who is playing the position.
My guess is that RSW does not have a randomizer name generator, if it did that would probably solve the problem.
My solution is to just ignore anyone who whines about cheating, if they dont like it, dont sign up for it.

[drwr]

You underestimate people's ingenuity. RSW does have a random name generator; and furthermore it scrambles absolutely everything it can about the map (world numbers, fleet numbers, and the like). A player really has to go out of his or her way to even determine who the other players in the game are, let alone which worlds the potential allies might have in common.

But the worlds themselves are still identifiable based on the number of connections, number of fleets and ships and such; and over the years, several different people have been caught (and confessed) to using this kind of information to coordinate strategies with allies in-game. The ability to coordinate gives you such an advantage over other players who don't coordinate, that it becomes a very difficult temptation to resist. People convince themselves that they're just being resourceful, and ignore the thought that they're stepping outside of explicitly specified rules.

But, OK. I'll consider reinstating the games and we'll see what happens.

David

[drwr]

OK, no-communication games are reinstated. They're required to be members-only now.

Let the games continue!

David

[phx1jjm]

Whoo Hoo!!
Lets start one up....well not saying that I will be in it but i might. then again I might not so dont ask me...