PBEM Secure Suggestion

Have a suggestion or some feedback? Dont keep it to yourself - share it!

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

PBEM Secure Suggestion

Postby michl » Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

In order to make a secure game really secure I propose that the side, which is NOT having the first turn, creates the file and sends it w/o any movement to the opponent, who is then having his first turn.

Reasoning:
I want to avoid that the player having the first turn has the ability to start the game again once he has thrown some unlucky dices in his first battles.
Not saying that this happens 8)

This shouldn't be a big issue to get implemented and would make our world a little bit more equitably (hope this is the right word in English!)

Michael
michl
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 8:32 pm
Location: Anger-Germany

Postby Robjess » Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:47 pm

Funny you should mention this :) We suggested the same thing to SSG a few weeks ago :)
User avatar
Robjess
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5126
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Joe » Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:10 pm

The word is "equitable"

And of course, if security is turned on, the ability to continue a game on a different PC if I need to go away on business.

While my body is in the office, my mind is elsewhere :)
Joe
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:32 pm

PBEM secure suggestion

Postby Carl Myers » Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:09 pm

Of course, you would not look to find out your opponent's leadership, airstrike, barrage and interdiction availability. And you would never ever restart the game several times in order to minimize your opponent's leadership, airstrike, barrage and interdiction availability. VBG
Carl Myers
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:46 am

Re: PBEM secure suggestion

Postby Joel137 » Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:11 am

Carl Myers wrote:Of course, you would not look to find out your opponent's leadership, airstrike, barrage and interdiction availability. And you would never ever restart the game several times in order to minimize your opponent's leadership, airstrike, barrage and interdiction availability. VBG


If coded into the game, so that player 2 actually starts the game, then this shouldn't be an issue.
User avatar
Joel137
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:19 am
Location: Brookings, South Dakota

Re: PBEM secure suggestion

Postby Twinkle » Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:02 am

Carl Myers wrote:Of course, you would not look to find out your opponent's leadership, airstrike, barrage and interdiction availability. And you would never ever restart the game several times in order to minimize your opponent's leadership, airstrike, barrage and interdiction availability. VBG


Why would I ever need to? no point in making it easier to win... 8)

I greatly approve of this addition to pbem-game security. In fact I believe that it should be a "must add to BiN thing".

BTW: you can never see your opponent’s leadership, airstrike etc. in secure mode (and only by cheating in non-secure mode). And if player two starts the game, without seeing anything... well, everything solved (as Joel137 already pointed out).

Joel137: I agree time to get started with one or two new pbem-games. Just as soon as I have started an AtD-pbem against ACTCochine.

Best regards
/twinkle
User avatar
Twinkle
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 2366
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Joel137 » Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:34 am

Twinkle,

I agree that this ought to be a must add for BIN,

Chochise suckered me into a game as well, so I think our re-match will have to wait awhile, I'm probably over committed now and my SO is getting a bit PO'ed with my "face" time with the monitor :roll:
User avatar
Joel137
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:19 am
Location: Brookings, South Dakota

Postby Roger Keating » Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:08 pm

In BIN it will work like this.....

The non-secure game will be similar to KP.

The Secure game will be started by the second player. The first turn will be setting up the details and sending those details to the first player. The first player will then play their first turn and the game will be officially started.

There is another idea floating around. The setup player decides what side they would like to play and what VP advantage they would be willing to 'bet' to get it. The second player then decides what side they would be willing to play, based on that bet. The first turn is then started, or the turn sent back to be played, with the appropriate points going to the assigned player and play starts.

For example, the first player in ATD says they will play the Germans with a 800 VP start. The second player can either accept this in which the turn returns to the first player and they start with a 800 point advantage or the second player can reject this in which case they start as the Germans with the 800 point start. This may be a great way to start a ladder game. We are still looking at this so any ideas welcome.
User avatar
Roger Keating
SSG
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Twinkle » Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:58 pm

Roger Keating wrote:There is another idea floating around. The setup player decides what side they would like to play and what VP advantage they would be willing to 'bet' to get it. The second player then decides what side they would be willing to play, based on that bet. The first turn is then started, or the turn sent back to be played, with the appropriate points going to the assigned player and play starts.

For example, the first player in ATD says they will play the Germans with a 800 VP start. The second player can either accept this in which the turn returns to the first player and they start with a 800 point advantage or the second player can reject this in which case they start as the Germans with the 800 point start. This may be a great way to start a ladder game. We are still looking at this so any ideas welcome.


Might be really entertaining as the set-up player cannot bid for more than he is willing to give his opponent in return. But it will for sure give an advantage to the more experienced players, instead of helping the less experienced, as I think that it will give the more experienced player one extra way of manipulating/tricking his opponent to a loss. This in addition to my newly acquired collection of Voodoo dolls. Now I just need to dig up all those old books about ESP experiments... :wink:
User avatar
Twinkle
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 2366
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Graf Starhemberg » Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:18 pm

Is it possible to to create a secure PBEM system while making it possible to play the game turns on different PCs? Sometimes I have some spare time at work, and one or two ladder turns would fit in perfectly. :wink:

Considering cheating, eliminating the starting "advantage" is fine, but isn´t it for the second player then still possible to cheat every turn when he has KP installed on two systems?

And where will the line be drawn between playability and security?
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Graf Starhemberg
Major
Major
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:19 am
Location: Austria

Postby Robjess » Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:35 pm

Roger was considering creating another level of security that was somewhere between the current 'non secure' and the current 'secure'.

This level would simply be a password only type of security. But I dont know if thats going to get the go ahead or not.. but this type of security may enable you to play on other machines.. but it then introduces other 'security risks' like people restarting their turns if they have a crappy one.. which of course is probably the biggest issue..
User avatar
Robjess
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5126
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby michl » Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:04 pm

I actually like Roger's proposal very much. This is more than I had thought of initially. Could add some interesting factors to some scenarios, especially ATD. Even better would be if you can set a certain amount of points if you reach a certain target, e.g. 1,500 extra points for taking Smolensk (I would need them right now, right - Twinkle :wink: ). You probably think I'll never get there, but wait and see.[/quote]
michl
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 8:32 pm
Location: Anger-Germany

Postby Twinkle » Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:52 pm

michl wrote:... Even better would be if you can set a certain amount of points if you reach a certain target, e.g. 1,500 extra points for taking Smolensk (I would need them right now, right - Twinkle :wink: ). You probably think I'll never get there, but wait and see.


Hi Michl, I don't think that you will reach Smolensk (at least not this time). The latest directive from Stalin is to form the impregnable fortress Smolensk, and to keep it at all cost... :D (I might need to wait until tomorrow evening with the processing of our last turn.)

Rob; I agree that the paramount effect of secure game setting should be to prevent players from re-loading a bad turn, and to let player number two start the scenario is a great idea. Let's just hope that it will work like that in BiN.

best regards
/twinkle :wink:
User avatar
Twinkle
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 2366
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Robjess » Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:02 pm

There is no reason why that wont work in Bin, Im not programmer but I would expect that that would be something very very easy to implement.. and it sounds like its pretty much been adopted.
User avatar
Robjess
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5126
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Joel137 » Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:46 am

Roger Keating wrote:In BIN it will work like this.....

...

There is another idea floating around. The setup player decides what side they would like to play and what VP advantage they would be willing to 'bet' to get it. The second player then decides what side they would be willing to play, based on that bet. The first turn is then started, or the turn sent back to be played, with the appropriate points going to the assigned player and play starts.

For example, the first player in ATD says they will play the Germans with a 800 VP start. The second player can either accept this in which the turn returns to the first player and they start with a 800 point advantage or the second player can reject this in which case they start as the Germans with the 800 point start. This may be a great way to start a ladder game. We are still looking at this so any ideas welcome.


I think I'd prefer outright bidding, but I like this as well. Naturally, it should only be an option, even with secure games.

And also, it shouldn't be an excuse not to do as good a job as possible in developement with the VP's in the scenarios that ship with the game. I don't think SSG would do that, but I feel like it should be explicitly stated.
User avatar
Joel137
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:19 am
Location: Brookings, South Dakota

Next

Return to Feedback/Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron