Status of "Cheat" Mods

[guerringuerrin]

@ffm2 @real_tabasco_sauce I also wondering. that one turn with 70 commands could be also an autociv pause? U know with autociv u can make orders while paused

[Norse_Harold]

13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

No clean player should have to ask a progui user not to use it, it should be up to the person who wants to use it to ask if they may. The default should be that no one is allowed to cheat. Also not all cheaters will be honest or participatory negotiators as we have seen.

Your choices resemble someone who wants a "really strong" cabinet installation. The person overtorques every screw and ends up breaking all of the screws or else the surfaces they're installed in. The end result is something very weak.

If you force everyone to take an extreme side then you end up with a substantial number of people taking the wrong extreme side -- that of hiding ProGUI use.

Instead, one could say, "I will design and build it according to physics principles." And then one uses screws the way they were designed, which causes the cabinet installation to be very strong in the end.

If you acknowledge that there are limits to the effectiveness of technical means of enforcing rules about cheating and that there are varying opinions about whether ProGUI is cheating then the solution can be designed to accommodate the physics of the technical enforcement and the psychology of those varying opinions. Then few or no people will hide ProGUI use. That's the most important goal, right?

Eradication of ProGUI is a secondary goal of yours, right? ... right?

13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Surely also you may see why having equal numbers of progui users per team is balanced for the teams but unfair for the players.

This is another question on which people have varying opinions. Is it balanced for the team but unfair for the players to have 1200 rated players in the same team game as 1800 rated players?

Edited November 3 by Norse_Harold

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@guerringuerrin I think if it was an autociv pause situation, then we would see a different profile of actions per turn: probably a huge peak followed by some relative decay. To me the profile visible with a peak of 70 is consistent with a group of ranged units walk into range of a group of targets.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

stockfish was also pretty open about his use of cheats.

[Norse_Harold]

"Many hands make light work."

A significant amount of the labor of Proposals 2 and 3 can be done by people who don't know how to write C++.

Anyone who wants to see these proposals implemented, please make mock-ups of how the GUI would look. You can use image editing software like MS Paint or Photoshop. Take a screenshot of the starting point in the 0ad interface and modify it to add the GUI elements that are necessary.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

18 hours ago, Norse_Harold said:

This is true, BUT it's reactive, and it disrupts balance. We want a proactive way to know who is using ProGUI so that we can balance teams or enforce rules before the match starts. Proposal 1 doesn't do that. Proposals 2 and 3 do that.

It seems like the proposals are not mutually exclusive.

We could have user mods visible under the player profile, and even in game setup, a button that requires users to use signed mods, and a similar button that activates a mod whitelist which could be determined by the user in settings.

Between these options there would be good options for hosts to determine what mods are allowed or not including a user friendly and intuitive option, and an more customizable option.

Edited November 3 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Norse_Harold]

1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

It seems like the proposals are not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, knowing the usual pattern of open source software development, often when there's an approximate feature implemented then it's used as leverage to silence people asking for a proper feature to be implemented.

Also, Proposal 1 is likely to make the problem worse because of player psychology. They'll start to actively hide use of ProGUI.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

2 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

Is it balanced for the team but unfair for the players to have 1200 rated players in the same team game as 1800 rated players?

Its fair for the players because everyone is playing the same game and has the same opportunities to succeed.

I'm not as hardline about banning progui as some, but I think the status quo needs to change. Frankly, it is not a matter of opinion whether progui provides an advantage, so users need to request when they want to use it, like a handicap in other games.

The reason I am not concerned with progui going "underground" is that players actually do a great job of enforcing the rules so long as everyone is in agreement. "no cav" a22, ("no bolts" eventually didnt have to be said), we even started having "no merc cav" games in a25. The reason there is not widespread agreement right now is because of disinformation regarding progui, lack of awareness, and the monumental effort required to get widespread multilingual agreement to disallow something when its easier to just start the game. The problem is that all negotiation work is on numerous clean players to come to an agreement to disallow it, when it should be the work of the mod user(s) to ask for permission to use it.

[Norse_Harold]

5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The reason there is not widespread agreement right now is because of disinformation regarding progui, lack of awareness, and the monumental effort required to get widespread multilingual agreement to disallow something when its easier to just start the game.

This seems like a lot of assumptions to me. It could also be that there is not widespread agreement because it's not that big of an advantage. It's also possible that users want to see less micromanagement of economy and more tactical combat. If players were using mods that made resources out of thin air, invulnerable units, and clairvoyance, then there would be widespread agreement that those mods are cheats, despite language barriers.

3 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The problem is that all negotiation work is on numerous clean players to come to an agreement to disallow it, when it should be the work of the mod user(s) to ask for permission to use it.

There is no means of negotiating during gamesetup if we don't know up front who's using ProGUI and who isn't. That's why ensuring that ProGUI use is only overt should be the primary goal.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

It's also possible that users want to see less micromanagement of economy and more tactical combat.

If players want that, they shouldn't force their vision of how the game should be played on other players that don't have the same advantage.

I expect few to 'play underground' like you mention, maybe half of current users. But I concede that more options like I outlined above is better for everyone. Shoot, it could even be under a dedicated tab, called "mod allowance", "fairness", or something else.

[strat0spheric]

23 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

This seems like a lot of assumptions to me. It could also be that there is not widespread agreement because it's not that big of an advantage. It's also possible that users want to see less micromanagement of economy and more tactical combat.

If an option for hosts would be implemented, that enables or restricts the participation with the controversial mods...  no assumptions would be required anymore, as you will have numbers and figures about how many  use this option... this would  give a clear picture about what the players prefer and raise awareness as well

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

38 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

There is no means of negotiating during gamesetup if we don't know up front who's using ProGUI and who isn't.

There is if someone volunteers the information that they want to use progui. Then a discussion can be had about whether to allow it. If someone starts the game with it hidden and someone discovers it (very easy to do), then they are simply banned from the host, just like with any cheat.

38 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

It could also be that there is not widespread agreement because it's not that big of an advantage

everyone would agree that an unfair advantage is not allowed, no matter how small. Also its worth pointing out that it is quite a substantial advantage anyway. Also these are not assumptions that I've made, they are observations. Usually what happens is a player out of 8 asks a progui user to abstain, the user deflects/ignores/makes excuses about why they deserve to have this advantage (not honest negotiations), and then the objecting player is put as a spec by the host because they see 1 player not ready.

The core of the problem is that offenders wield a negotiation advantage as long as there is no official stance or action about progui, which brings us back to the very beginning of this topic.

I certainly agree with tabasco that a variety of the proposed solutions could work, but I'm certain that a requirement for an effective solution is to make it so that the working, default assumption is that progui is not allowed.

Edited November 3 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[guerringuerrin]

2 hours ago, Norse_Harold said:

"Many hands make light work."

A significant amount of the labor of Proposals 2 and 3 can be done by people who don't know how to write C++.

Anyone who wants to see these proposals implemented, please make mock-ups of how the GUI would look. You can use image editing software like MS Paint or Photoshop. Take a screenshot of the starting point in the 0ad interface and modify it to add the GUI elements that are necessary.

you think this could work for proposal 2? 
Players can check mods by clicking in a new Mods button on the right menu, and it will show all the users set as players and the mods they are using. This text will change dynamically in the same fashion as others game setup stuff.

Additionally, there's a gear icon on the left side of every player that opens a window where u can check if mods are signed. If possible, this gear icon could change colour to red (or we can think another kind of notification) so the host can be notified there's some issue to look at.
Maybe gear could be the same as the Petra setting and put it in the same place. idk if that makes some conflict

Edited November 3 by guerringuerrin

[hyperion]

1 hour ago, strat0spheric said:

If an option for hosts would be implemented, that enables or restricts the participation with the controversial mods...  no assumptions would be required anymore, as you will have numbers and figures about how many  use this option... this would  give a clear picture about what the players prefer and raise awareness as well

Someone able to write automations should have no problem writing a patch to bypass such checks. So the highest difficulty for anyone to use such changes is either download and install a mod or a modified engine. Something everyone can do. Providing a mod or a modified engine is perfectly legal due the software license under which pyrogenesis and 0ad is published, arguing it's not moral isn't going to help.

IMHO, the only thing worth looking into is what @ffm2 does with the script checking for abnormal patterns in the replay. Then if the heuristics in the script trigger for a ladder game you file a report and moderation can decide to take action based on written rules. If you host a non ladder game you are free to ban whoever for whatever reason you want. If you join a non ladder game you have no say in the rules nor should wfg.

[Norse_Harold]

13 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

you think this could work for proposal 2? 

Great, thanks. What a refreshing sight, someone helping.

The more detail, the better. Do we want to add an icon next to the names of players who are using certain mods (which can be specified somewhere by the hoster)? This could help with rapidly balancing teams. If someone would make a pixel art icon suitable for it then it would be helpful.

And, what should the interface look like that allows hosters to define required and optional mods? Where should it be located?

Atrik, do you want to help with these tasks? It would be great if you would have some buy-in to these proposals.

Edited November 3 by Norse_Harold

[Atrik]

1 hour ago, Norse_Harold said:

Atrik, do you want to help with these tasks? It would be great if you would have some buy-in to these proposals.

Sure, if I can! I know this proposal would help for a lot of things others then just the transparency benefits. Too often some players crash or oos for having known (by the community) conflicting mods, outdated map mods (listed as compatible) etc..

[guerringuerrin]

5 hours ago, Norse_Harold said:

Great, thanks. What a refreshing sight, someone helping.

The more detail, the better. Do we want to add an icon next to the names of players who are using certain mods (which can be specified somewhere by the hoster)? This could help with rapidly balancing teams. If someone would make a pixel art icon suitable for it then it would be helpful.

And, what should the interface look like that allows hosters to define required and optional mods? Where should it be located?

Atrik, do you want to help with these tasks? It would be great if you would have some buy-in to these proposals.

This could be a basic starting point for the setting area of this feature and I think u could use same new gear icon with different background colour to notify the host about some issue in the mods setup and a new column could be added to that window. 

 

Edited November 4 by guerringuerrin

[chrstgtr]

8 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The reason there is not widespread agreement right now is because of disinformation regarding progui, lack of awareness, and the monumental effort required to get widespread multilingual agreement to disallow something when its easier to just start the game. The problem is that all negotiation work is on numerous clean players to come to an agreement to disallow it, when it should be the work of the mod user(s) to ask for permission to use it.

Again, let's be honest about the genesis of ProGui. 

The reason why it was difficult to "ban" is because the community was overly deferential to ProGUI's creator who refused any requests to voluntarily stop using ProGUI. Look at its introduction thread. People were tripping over themselves to say how the creator's efforts were pure and to avoid the use of the word "cheat." But, when asked not to use ProGUI, the mod's creator declined the request. In game lobbies, people said they though ProGUI was unfair. But those same people didn't want to be "mean" and ban the creator, who, again, refused to voluntarily cease their use of ProGUI. The creator then would say things like "if you don't like it, don't play with me." At some point along the way, other players decided to avail themselves to the advantages of ProGUI and used the mod. In short, ProGUI wasn't banned because the creator relied on others' hesitancy to outright ban the creator.

Then one day I decided to host games and ban the use of ProGUI. The creator, again, refused to stop using the mod (notably, every other player accepted my host's rules with minimal pushback). The creator was then was not allowed to play in games I hosted. The creator then told everyone how it was unfair that they were not allowed to play and how they were being picked on. Soon thereafter, most other host during the hours I am active instituted rules that banned the use of ProGUI. 

So, again, if we are honest about why ProGUI has been difficult to ban is because the creator refused to compromise at all. 

6 hours ago, hyperion said:

Someone able to write automations should have no problem writing a patch to bypass such checks.

This is specious. Most users of ProGUI downloaded it. They did not create it. If you want to ban ProGUI stop letting the creator publish it in mod.io and advertise its github version on the forums. 

If you are really concerned with someone writing a patch to bypass checks then the obvious solution is to ban the creator of ProGUI, who, as I outline above, has been resistant to any rule making around their mod. 

@guerringuerrin's work seems promising to me. 

[hyperion]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Then one day I decided to host games and ban the use of ProGUI. The creator, again, refused to stop using the mod (notably, every other player accepted my host's rules with minimal pushback). The creator was then was not allowed to play in games I hosted. The creator then told everyone how it was unfair that they were not allowed to play and how they were being picked on. Soon thereafter, most other host during the hours I am active instituted rules that banned the use of ProGUI.

I consider it perfectly fine you banning this user when you host, no reason required, being insulted for it, I consider bad behavior that should be sanctioned where reasonably possible. But going on a witch hunt or donning the justice knight kit to harass progui users isn't any better in this regard and I have seen statements of this happening too. I have no recipe handy for making the lobby a less toxic place.

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

This is specious. Most users of ProGUI downloaded it. They did not create it. If you want to ban ProGUI stop letting the creator publish it in mod.io and advertise its github version on the forums.

Nothing will change with suggested anti cheat measures like only signed mods or make all mods visible. Still only a download and install is required to get around it. You can't ever make it any harder than that for those willing to cheat. Commercial game studios started to install malware (hooking into kernel and taking ownership of your pc) to try to fight this problem, don't think this is a route to pursue for 0ad.

What has potential is analysis of replay data and screen recordings, as that is much much harder to get around.

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

If you are really concerned with someone writing a patch to bypass checks then the obvious solution is to ban the creator of ProGUI, who, as I outline above, has been resistant to any rule making around their mod. 

The usage of progui, should it be written down, should be a bannable offense in ladder games, not using it in SP for instance or in games that a user hosts.

I'm not concerned it might happen, it will happen. If just saying this is bad, don't do it would work, there wouldn't be a need for prisons, there wouldn't be drug addicts and MP lobby would be a nice place where everyone gets along with each other. It's not the late 1960 where everyone believes in fluffiness.

PS: Just to be clear, some suggestions have merit on their own and would make for nice additions, just not as anti cheat measures. And making the game much less attractive for those that do not cheat, just in vein hope to fix cheating that way should be avoided.

[Stan`]

Just for the record I've added @ffm2's idea to replay pallas locally. Wanted to go live today but I forgot to push Still need to tweak some settings as the graphs are quite crowded.
 

[Atrik]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

So, again, if we are honest about why ProGUI has been difficult to ban is because the creator refused to compromise at all. 

I don't understand what exactly you are talking about, you have rules in your hosts that I follow.
And I've never insulted @chrstgtr in game/lobby for banning me from his room as @hyperion is assuming. I remember. I just asked for explanations on the reason of the ban. The only times I maybe did insult @chrstgtr it was on the forum after he was twisting my words to unreasonable extent.

[ffm2]

40 minutes ago, Atrik said:

you have rules in your hosts that I follow

You are just gaslighting at this point. Here is the replay file and some analysis.

 

On turn 15 player 6 (Atrik) set 3 rallypoints and unloaded 3 separate groups (typical for proGUI/quickstart):

turn 15 200
cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[396],"x":981.6212158203125,"z":304.53472900390625,"data":{"command":"gather","resourceType":{"generic":"food","specific":"meat"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/fauna_chicken","target":421},"queued":false,"pushFront":false}
cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"units/gaul/cavalry_javelineer_b","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[396]}
cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[396],"x":917.7904052734375,"z":340.63238525390625,"data":{"command":"gather","resourceType":{"generic":"food","specific":"fruit"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/fruit/berry_01","target":414},"queued":false,"pushFront":false}
cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"template_unit_support_female_citizen","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[396]}
cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[396],"x":974.557861328125,"z":300.42596435546875,"data":{"command":"gather","resourceType":{"specific":"tree"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/tree/bush_temperate","target":5897},"queued":false,"pushFront":false}
cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"units/gaul/infantry_spearman_b","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[396]}
cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[396],"x":974.557861328125,"z":300.42596435546875,"data":{"command":"gather","resourceType":{"specific":"tree"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/tree/bush_temperate","target":5897},"queued":false,"pushFront":false}
cmd 6 {"type":"unload-template","all":true,"template":"units/gaul/infantry_javelineer_b","owner":6,"garrisonHolders":[396]}
cmd 8 {"type":"walk","entities":[516],"x":921.650146484375,"z":964.2492065429688,"queued":false,"pushFront":false}
end

In the attached Figure one can see some other huge spikes. E.g. form real_tabasco_sauce at turn 4346 which can be explained by normal gameplay. Its unload all, the same entity. Typical for teleporting through a building. It would not benefit the user to do it more than once in that turn, especially here with 0 entities inside.

turn 4346 200
cmd 6 {"type":"set-rallypoint","entities":[7332],"x":1002,"z":298,"target":411,"data":{"command":"gather","sound":false,"resourceType":{"generic":"metal","specific":"ore"},"resourceTemplate":"gaia/ore/temperate_01","target":411},"queued":false,"pushFront":false}
cmd 5 {"type":"leave-turret","entities":[]}
cmd 5 {"type":"unload-all","garrisonHolders":[10125]}
cmd 5 {"type":"leave-turret","entities":[]}
cmd 5 {"type":"unload-all","garrisonHolders":[10125]}
cmd 5 {"type":"leave-turret","entities":[]}
...

Do you still claim not to use proGUI in the games of chrstgtr? Do you twist it that way, this was actually not proGUI but quickstart?

chrst_gtr_host_atrik_progui_2024-10-19_0002.zip

[Atrik]

14 minutes ago, ffm2 said:

Do you still claim not to use proGUI in the games of chrstgtr? Do you twist it that way, this was actually not proGUI but quickstart?

Imagine caring about Quickstart and making some drama about it. Still remember that game where i sent you 200 resources at start and then I crushed you.  You r brain just got on the path to seek excuses for our level difference. No 7 resources gain from Quickstart is going to make any differences. I disable Quickstart in chrstgr host when i think about it. If you can't stand the 'unfair advantage' just fcking download the mod at once, it's not even form me so you can feel good about this; If you have so much fun setting the rally points fast fast at game start, then good for you, why would you jealous me then?

[guerringuerrin]

6 hours ago, hyperion said:

Nothing will change with suggested anti cheat measures like only signed mods or make all mods visible.

At least making mods visible would give all players better access to that information, instead of everyone gradually finding out when someone mentions it or says someone else is using a mod. Sure, there will be cheaters who manage to disguise their mods somehow, but it’s better than nothing. And giving an important part of the community some kind of response (even if it's not perfect) is important.
 

3 hours ago, Atrik said:

If you can't stand the 'unfair advantage' just fcking download the mod at once, it's not even form me so you can feel good about this; If you have so much fun setting the rally points fast fast at game start, then good for you, why would you jealous me then?

The same argument can be applied to the smart queue in proGUI. Throughout the various debates on this topic, some of us have tried to discuss it respectfully, but it never seems to get anywhere.

The benefits of automation are obvious. The advantages of Quickstart are hardly noticeable in the long term, but they still serve as a good example of the perks of automation. However, the benefits of smarttrain are clearly significant. And you always end up arguing that you're just as good without the mod enabled. But we don’t need a scientific study to reach a consensus that most players might experience significant downtime in their barracks due to the fast-paced nature of the game during intense moments.

6 hours ago, hyperion said:

But going on a witch hunt or donning the justice knight kit to harass progui users isn't any better in this regard and I have seen statements of this happening too.

I agree that we need to find appropriate ways to address this issue. Personally, I haven’t liked how some players have approached it, and I don’t think the solution is to attack @Atrik or players who use the mod. But I also recognize that the situation is quite frustrating because every time we get back into this debate, Atrik ends up saying that smart train doesn’t offer any advantage, that it’s just a GUI improvement, and we end up right back where we started instead of making progress. 

Given the challenging conditions under which this project is being developed and the few hands available to work on it, it would be good if we tried to resolve our differences, take responsibility for our contribution to this conflict, try to build trust, and strengthen collective work.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

It’s never the right answer to say “if you are unhappy with other players having an advantage, get that advantage instead of complaining”

the bottom line is host should 1) know what mods players are using 2) be allowed to ban the use of cheats without retribution or briefing, and 3) some tools in game setup would be great for helping identify mods, prohibiting unsigned mods, and/or only allowing a user-determined  list of mods.

@Stan` I like the idea of using a script in replay pallas, would it be done on upload to flag replays or something users can run if they like?