Status of "Cheat" Mods

[Seleucids]

Let's not waste any more time on ProGUI arguments and just leave it to the hosts. Detection of ProGUI automation is quite trivial; even if the user hides it in some intricate mod Matryoshka (or by some other technical spoofing methods), the gameplay will instantly reveal it. 

We should instead focus on other potential cheat mods and detection of cheat usage, such as revealing info, stats change etc. 

Also cheat mods are no longer fashionable because they patched up a lot of the javascript vulnerabilities from an engine level. Old cheats no longer work. 

Edited Monday at 02:19 by Seleucids

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

The reason this discussion was created was because players were frustrated that there is no "official" status for the mod, even though it is very clearly against tos. The problem with "letting hosts decide" is that there is no discussion required to clear a player to use the mod. If I wanted to use a handicap for example, I would ask the host first and the host would allow me or disallow me. In the case of progui, users simply enter a host and don't mention a thing since they don't care whether everyone agrees that they use it. This is primarily how progui users get away with it, in ~75% or more cases most of the players in the TG are unaware of the cheats. If I was able to give myself a 1.1x handicap without anyone in the host knowing then surely it would be cheating; since progui provides an unfair advantage it should be treated the same.

Edited Monday at 02:30 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Seleucids]

7 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The reason this discussion was created was because players were frustrated that there is no "official" status for the mod, even though it is very clearly against tos. The problem with "letting hosts decide" is that there is no discussion required to clear a player to use the mod. If I wanted to use a handicap for example, I would ask the host first and the host would allow me or disallow me. In the case of progui, users simply enter a host and don't mention a thing since they don't care whether everyone agrees that they use it. This is primarily how progui users get away with it, in ~75% or more cases most of the players in the TG are unaware of the cheats. If I was able to give myself a 1.1x handicap without anyone in the host knowing then surely it would be cheating; since progui provides an unfair advantage it should be treated the same.

Sounds like what you want is a mod detector and a ProGUI free TG. 

You can try to make a mod detector on your own which shows the list of mods being used by the players. As I said before, ProGUI is easy to detect just from the replay even if they try to hide it. You can use ffm's script to live read the replay file to detect traces of ProGUI. 

But there are more hidden mods such as my abstractGUI which only changes the art folder. If I embed that into something legit like autociv, you won't be able to see it. Whether abstractGUI counts as a cheat is another story; I saw the thread being limited to only approval by moderators so clearly someone is not happy. 

[Atrik]

Bullshit asymmetry principle (Brandolini's Law) is again what @BreakfastBurrito_007 and alike use when the argument goes on. So I'll make this last reply and then let them post whatever.

12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

why don't you support features that allow everyone to know what mods you are using? lol

@seeh made a feature in autocivP to display mod usage. You have also statements on this very thread that I'm all for features that would display mod usage.

11 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

though it is very clearly against tos

It's not. It's actually within the game licenses that anybody can mod the game. You can make a circular reasoning with the  tos stating that cheating isn't allowed in ranked games. But you can absolutely use mods in ranked, compatible or not (you can make a ranked game with ponies ascendant mod afaik). As long as all parties are in the know there aren't any problems. That would be true for any game modification.

11 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

If I wanted to use a handicap for example, I would ask the host first and the host would allow me or disallow me.

You don't do it for autociv. Some very old players like Dundean consider it as cheat. So why don't you? You shadowy cheater! (It was even the first mod to introduce auto production lol )

11 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

in ~75% or more cases most of the players in the TG are unaware

lol. I'm done with this thread.

Edited Monday at 14:14 by Atrik

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Yea please be done peddling your cheats. I'm trying to get the 0ad playerbase to stand up for themselves as well as the game's integrity and dignity. Its very clear to everyone that you don't adequately or honestly inform other players about your mod (ie asking to use it) when you have people like Dakara or RangerK show up here upset after more than two years of playing against this cheat without knowing.

[myliverhatesme]

0AD allows mods. Mods allow moving units and queueing research/units automatically. So if you don't want people doing that then don't make that moddable.

Instead of calling people cheaters I think it would be better to distinguish between mods that display information that's already available, add maps, etc. vs mods that effectively are AI and actually do things for you.

Hosts could have an option like "disable AI mods" and if a function call is made in the mod that's not allowed the user is kicked from the game and needs to disable the mod.

[Dunedan]

2 hours ago, Atrik said:

13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

though it is very clearly against tos

It's not. It's actually within the game licenses that anybody can mod the game. You can make a circular reasoning with the  tos stating that cheating isn't allowed in ranked games.

Actually the Terms of Use are very clear that everything which grants unfair advantages isn't allowed in multiplayer games, no matter if they are rated or not:

Quote

8. Not undermine the intended gameplay or purposefully gain unfair advantages in multiplayer matches (for example cheating, using exploits or bugs).

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

12 minutes ago, myliverhatesme said:

Instead of calling people cheaters

Your suggestion is good, I think visibility is great especially when mod users are not forthcoming about the mods they use. At the same time we need to stand up for ourselves and not sugar-coat the effect of this mod. Its not my fault the mod provides an unfair advantage, I call it what it is: a cheat.

[myliverhatesme]

7 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

Actually the Terms of Use are very clear that everything which grants unfair advantages isn't allowed in multiplayer games, no matter if they are rated or not:

 

But what counts as an "unfair advantage"? Who determines what's "unfair"? I think the BoonGUI stuff in ModernGUI gives me an advantage. But who's to say whether it's unfair. That's why I was trying to create an explicit distinction between mods that handle production and move units automatically vs. ones that don't.

[strat0spheric]

crazy that people possessing and using a tool that gives an advantage over others without the tool can't name it as it is .....

parallel universe ?

a) what counts as fair: same conditions for all parties

what counts as unfair: not a) !

it is so simple.

 

Edited Monday at 17:22 by strat0spheric

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, myliverhatesme said:

Who determines what's "unfair"?

The developers of the game. 

[myliverhatesme]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The developers of the game. 

Cool. Where's that definition at then? All I see is vague wording.

[myliverhatesme]

2 hours ago, strat0spheric said:

crazy that people possessing and using a tool that gives an advantage over others without the tool can't name it as it is .....

parallel universe ?

a) what counts as fair: same conditions for all parties

what counts as unfair: not a) !

it is so simple.

 

So are BoonGUI and autociv okay? You completely ignored my point.

[strat0spheric]

43 minutes ago, myliverhatesme said:

So are BoonGUI and autociv okay? You completely ignored my point.

my post wasn't meant to be a reply to your specific post, but to all the others who obviously use autotrainers and stuff and don't call it an advantage. Which is ridiculous cause that's the reason they use it. To gain this specific advantage. Andyes this is not a), as stated above.

But surely a graphic enhancement of the ui and some nice shortcuts and seeing allied stats as with the normal autociv when used as intended is not really giving you an advantage in the gameplay.

 

[Classic-Burger]

10 hours ago, myliverhatesme said:

Cool. Where's that definition at then? All I see is vague wording.

Opens a post about the ambiguity of cheating.

[strat0spheric]

18 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Yea please be done peddling your cheats. I'm trying to get the 0ad playerbase to stand up for themselves as well as the game's integrity and dignity. Its very clear to everyone that you don't adequately or honestly inform other players about your mod (ie asking to use it) when you have people like Dakara or RangerK show up here upset after more than two years of playing against this cheat without knowing.

Unfortunately, the playerbase doesn't seem to bother or is not informed enough. I personally don't undertand why this topic is not getting more attention.

The thing is atm i don't see many options from a player perspective to deal with the problem. I mean a player could add a flag "noProGui / autotrainer users" to the games he hosts. But how could he make sure that this rule is followed, when you cant determine the mods used by a player?  

Or, could this problem be approached from the other direction? If the ProGui-community would be more self-aware about the advantage they possess and honestly express the use of it (e.g. adding a ProGui flag to their username)? I mean using it is one side of the problem, but disguising it is the other side.

But, what would happen to the community in these cases? Would it split the community ?

In my opinion, the discussion in this thread leads to 2 other measures that address the developers and the "WFG-authorities":

1. Provide a technical solution that shows the used mods of a player in the lobby

 and more important:

2. Define more clearly what is considered "unfair advantage" according to the TOS and add this definition below the welcome message in the multiplayer lobby (just where there is already written: "It is a violation of the terms of use..."! (At least the word auto-trainer should be listed there) -> remove the grey area and the room for interpretation

If there is no consensus on the 2nd point. This will never be solved. ... and all the RangerK's and Dakaras and myself and so on will be left frustrated and at a certain point leave the game or use the sh** themselves...

Edited Tuesday at 10:32 by strat0spheric

[ffm2]

The host should be able to allow/disallow mods. This ticket was created in that direction https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7166 . Another reason to have this control as host is that during testing the rc's some members did not want to play without their mods and can't be reached by arguments. During the game OOS's occurred and everyone was blaming the mods. It should also be easier to share OOS logs by automating ziping a dated file from .config/logs/mainlog.html, oos_dump.txt and the replay file. It's a bit tedious to convince the players to go find the files and share them.

[Atrik]

@strat0spheric you are the one creating smurfS to hide, and bs again attributing to mod user "hide" the mod because it fit very well with the narrative that it's shadowy.

1. Hosts are aware when someone join and use the mod. @BreakfastBurrito_007 is mad because his drama has often little effect, and he wish more people would make as much drama as he does.
2. Some host like @chrstgtr and @roscany enforce rule "no auto-trainer".
3. This topic has a tone of attention, you can check the views of this one, it's through the roof even if it's uninteresting and have been discussed 10+ times before.

Basically every thing you say is a lie. Possibly, you think that you are in the right, just like @BreakfastBurrito_007 for "the game's integrity and dignity" but you are clearly flat out lying and hiding.

[strat0spheric]

11 minutes ago, Atrik said:

@strat0spheric you are the one creating smurfS to hide, and bs again attributing to mod user "hide" the mod because it fit very well with the narrative that it's shadowy.

1. Hosts are aware when someone join and use the mod. @BreakfastBurrito_007 is mad because his drama has often little effect, and he wish more people would make as much drama as he does.
2. Some host like @chrstgtr and @roscany enforce rule "no auto-trainer".
3. This topic has a tone of attention, you can check the views of this one, it's through the roof even if it's uninteresting and have been discussed 10+ times before.

Basically every thing you say is a lie. Possibly, you think that you are in the right, just like @BreakfastBurrito_007 for "the game's integrity and dignity" but you are clearly flat out lying and hiding.

hi Atrik,

wdym with creating SmurfS? I hosted many games and i am not aware of the mods players use. I don't even know how i could be. This is beyond my technical skills. I am sorry.

I dunno how everything i said is interpreted as a lie, Atrik. What exactly do you think i lied about ?

I think there is no need to get personal.

Edited Tuesday at 14:25 by strat0spheric

[TheCJ]

Please be civil guys.

Also, never attribute to malice what can be explained with ignorance.

On that note; as much as I enjoy playing with you @Atrik, I think you are mistaken in this case. I could be wrong, but judging from my experience and the messages in this and other threads, there are certainly players that do not know about who uses ProGUI and who doesnt.

I myself played atleast 10-20 teamgames with you before I ever went to the forums and got to know about proGUI. Now granted, since then I know you use it and I still love playing with you, but there was a time I didnt know. And others (especially newer players) will be the same.

 

Now, I got a question to the "other side" ( @BreakfastBurrito_007, @strat0spheric, @Dunedan):

Would I not be "allowed" (technically), to host a "hack vs hack" game, where everybody is encouraged to use as many cheats as possible? Even if it is absolutely clear that it's a "hack vs hack"? 

I mean, its definitely not "intended gameplay" and it would also not be "same conditions for everyone" since they would use different cheats. But I am certain there are people who would have fun playing this. Its like playing a very "silly" mod of the game. AoE2 also has "AI tournaments", where scripters pit their Bots against one another.

 

Thing is, I believe everyone in this thread agrees that visibility is key. Atrik said himself he would like everyone to know that hes using proGUI (or atleast he said he think they already do). And it would also be better for the host.

But until there is a implementation of that in the game, I would like to ask;

1. The host of a game to specify allowed mods in the title ("tg progui welcome" or "tg vanilla")

2. The users of "questionable" mods to declare which mods they are using before the start (if the title of the tg does not specifically allow said mods)

Both does not take much time and might alleviate the issue at hand.

 

Edit: Then we could also more undoubtedly take disciplinary action against people that are noticed to use such mods without declaring them, as it becomes clear it was done in a deceiving manner.

Edited Tuesday at 14:38 by TheCJ

[strat0spheric]

30 minutes ago, Atrik said:

Hosts are aware when someone join and use the mod.

.. this is definetly not the case

[Atrik]

19 minutes ago, strat0spheric said:

wdym with creating SmurfS? I hosted many games and i am not aware of the mods players use. I don't even know how i could be. This is beyond my technical skills. I am sorry.

It's a very small community and everybody knows everybody. At least in the games i play, players selectively seek other competitive players, and that's a even smaller circle.

9 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

Would I not be "allowed" (technically), to host a "hack vs hack"

Not everything is perfected in the trainer panel I made (and that is a small part of ModernGUI tbh.....) but It's so much better/fun to have a centralized production panel that's it's very likely that some future RTS would have a system alike. In other words, the trainer panel is a UX improvements idea, and I think it's successfully superior as to have individual  panel for each production building. Again, not saying it's 100% mature but it's kinda sad that a lot of people made their opinion on it based solely on impressions and on what @BreakfastBurrito_007 will make sure you hear about at first.

[TheCJ]

Ah, sorry Atrik, I was purposefully exaggerating, trying to make a point. proGUI is way too weak to be used in a proper "hack vs hack".

I consider proGUI a "non-harmful-cheat", much like autocivs building hotkeys or that panel with your teams resources on display (I think its also from autociv?).

[strat0spheric]

22 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

1. The host of a game to specify allowed mods in the title ("tg progui welcome" or "tg vanilla")

2. The users of "questionable" mods to declare which mods they are using before the start (if the title of the tg does not specifically allow said mods)

I agree on the 1st suggestion as a direct measure but on the 2nd i have my doubts this will be ever done... As i mentioned. This requires the self-awareness that there is an issue.

3 minutes ago, Atrik said:

t's a very small community and everybody knows everybody. At least in the games i play, players selectively seek other competitive players, and that's a even smaller circle.

That is true, but i still don't know who uses it and i don't want to ask everybody. As this question would have to be raised every now and then as there are always new players starting to use it. It is only you and 1 more i know of that are using it.

[Dunedan]

41 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

Would I not be "allowed" (technically), to host a "hack vs hack" game, where everybody is encouraged to use as many cheats as possible? Even if it is absolutely clear that it's a "hack vs hack"? 

I mean, its definitely not "intended gameplay" and it would also not be "same conditions for everyone" since they would use different cheats.

If everybody in a match explicitly agrees to the usage of cheats, I wouldn't consider using them an unfair advantage. From my perspective that'd be fine and similar to a game where the "cheats" setting is enabled.

However, I believe that's a pretty rare scenario and not what this thread is about.