16-10-2003 07:38									#1
	Do you think GCA is cheating? 2 Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

See this:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=99134

	16-10-2003 07:42									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I voted yes.

	16-10-2003 07:43									#3
	Remove this text

Definitely now! Still just my opinion though. If it's proved that they aren't then I will be happy to eat my words, but I don't think there is any possible way short of cheating they could get the results they do CONSISTENTLY like they have been!

	16-10-2003 08:06									#4
	Support Apolyton

yes



it will be very difficult I think to convince anyone of this.

	16-10-2003 08:22									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, we didn;t cheat and we got their Army and all of the spears that were at that city. And we only lost 2 MI's. It could be cheating and it might not be. No matter what else, it really won't matter in a few turns, as they will be history anyways

I voted Abstain on this one. There is no real way to prove that they had cheated.

E_T

	16-10-2003 08:23									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't find their strategy suspect enough to even think of cheating, but not ever losing to a Merc is very fishy.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to remain open to both possibilities until the numbers have been run.

	16-10-2003 08:49									#7
	Put an end to popups!

If we trade units straight up, we will win.


This will make winning that much more enjoyable.

(much like I'm enjoying the cubs' suffering tonight )

	16-10-2003 09:08									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by asleepathewheel (much like I'm enjoying the cubs' suffering tonight )

DIE!

:P


After reviewing the latest turn info... I voted yes.

	16-10-2003 10:38									#9
	Remove this text

While statistical probability will certainly raise the question of whether or not they cheated, it will not prove it. What will prove whether or not they cheated is whether someone other than GCA can reproduce GCA's results with their own save, as sent to them by the previous team.

The goal of making the argument based upon the statistical probability is to encourage Mongoose to take the appropriate step of using the admin password to access the save sent by the previous team and attempt to reproduce the results GCA obtained. He can send this file to another impartial judge as proof that he's not tampering with it himself, as well.

If the impartial judges can reproduce GCA's results without playing with the RNG, then we respect that GCA did not cheat and that closes the matter. If means of monkeying about with the RNG are necessary or, god forbid, no amount of doing anything within the game itself can reproduce the results GCA obtained, that will be the proof of cheating.

Until then, all we have is some very strong suspicions. Since I happen to agree that this situation is especialy suspicious (especially given past behavior by the same team), I'm checking on it. We have the right to at least present our case and have the save checked to be SURE by someone else.

	16-10-2003 11:24									#10
	Re: Do you think GCA is cheating? 2 Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yes

There's no way in hell one could win so many battles on their turn withour ever losing a single unit. You lose from time to time a unit or two due to the RNG, even when the odds are strongly in your favour, and this is not even the case.

	16-10-2003 11:32									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

I vote Yes.
But I dont think it can be verified. Lets kill them anyway, and let them suffer.

	16-10-2003 11:51									#12
	Put an end to popups!

The curse of the RNG

We cannot prove anything, because due to the RNG the outcome of battles is just that: random. Theoretically it is possible to win 10 fights in a row, even if you have only 1% chances to win for each battle. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.

We can't prove they are cheating; all we can do is to raise suspicions after which they may be more cautious. Let's just kill'em.

Firaxis should limit the randomness of the RNG.

	16-10-2003 12:24									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It is limited. We're playing with "preserve seed on", so Mongoose or any (other) impartial judge should be able to reproduce GCA's results. See Arnelos' post above.

Even if he's able to reproduce it, if he still needs a very odd action sequence, this will be proof enough, I think.

I will vote 'yes'.


edit: BTW, an impartial, neutral poll would have the option "probably not" included.

	16-10-2003 13:03									#14
	Got spare money?

I think that it is possible to prove if they cheated or not.

1. If someone else can reproduce the exact same outcome from the save that was sent to them (not a copy of what they have, but the original from GWT), then we can be sure they have not rigged the RNG in some way.

2. If some wierd course of events must be taken during the turn, then cheating is likely. The cheating would be that they are purposely manipulating the RNG to get desired results. Weird things include: disbanding workers; setting builds to wonders when you have no desire to build them; conducting diplomacy for no reason; attacking...doing something else...then attacking again; you get the picture.

There may be things that even Apolytoner's are not aware of that may change the RNG. That is why we take our case to Mongoose. We get him to look into it quietly. We let him know that the odds of what has happened so far are very very high and that we would like confirmation (not only from him, but from someone else as well, like gramphos or Ming or MarkG). Then some investigation can be done. Of couse it is possible that GCA is just very "Lucky", but I would like to check on that luck.

	16-10-2003 13:04									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

How is it limited? Because of the "preserve random seed on"? That only guarantees that reloading and doing everything in the same order will give the same results. Changing the battle orders will give different results, so how is it limited?

I meant by limited that:
a) the outcome of battles should be less random and
b) the results during a turn should be the same, regardless of what you do and in what order in that particular turn

Of course a judge can reproduce the results GCA has obtained. They will give just them the proper order how things were done:
"first we attacked with a sword, then with a horse, then again with a horse, then with a sword," etc. How can one prove that they reloaded until they got the perfect battle orders? Unless the turn orders include some really strange things (like those BigFree mentioned), it can't be proved. Or so I think.

I hope I'm wrong.

PS Which doesn't mean that I don't support our actions we are about to take in regard to this matter.

Last edited by Tiberius on 16-10-2003 at 13:11

	16-10-2003 14:50									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think we both have a different picture of the concept "limited".

What I meant is:

GCA can't get every possible outcome from their battles.
They can only get the outcomes determined beforehand by the RNG. However, because they can change their order of their actions, the range (set) of outcomes can be fairly large.

We can make this set smaller by having more catapults in our stacks. There are two effects:

• Catapults will "use up" RNG numbers, forcing GCA to use two numbers (one for the catapult, one for the defending unit) for the same action.
  
• Catapults will cause their losses to be bigger.
  

Last edited by BigFurryMonster on 16-10-2003 at 15:00

	16-10-2003 15:43									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It is limited, because even if it's possible to get unlikely results in a small test of, let's say, 10 attacks, a longer test of much more units (like for example all the attacks done during a war) must be close to the probabilities that the attack and defense values of the attacking and defending unit suggest. Otherwise they are cheating. The longer the number of battles in which they are "lucky" the more evident is their cheat, because on the long run the numbers must be very similar to the given percentages.

	16-10-2003 16:15									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

A jury will hang a man until dead on odds far more likely than 1 in 1.2 million that they are wrong.

People will by lottery tickets hoping to change their lives on odds far more likely than 1 in 6.4 million that they're wrong.

Companies design products meant to transport people and/or save lives that have fail/safe ratios WELL under 1 in 6.4 million and they consider their products 100% safe for use. The modern airplane industry at its height of safety did not have "1 in 6.4 million" odds, and we considered air travel the safest bet on the planet - we sent our wives, kids, grandparents, hopes and dreams on those odds.

I don't care what industry standard you use - when you approach the percentages we're talking about here, the legal system, the industrial system, the commercial system, they all say the same thing:

GCA is cheating. At this point they're either cheating so badly they WANT to cause a ruckus and get out with some dignity screaming about how they were framed, or they're genuinely stupid enough to think that we really will just smile and nod as multiple horsemen kill NMs and retreat without us ever losing.

If Mongoose doesn't accept this as cold hard fact, we need to reconsider participation in what is clearly not only a rigged game (nice bottlenecks - bullshit), but a rigged game with chump odds.

Or I'll ask Mongoose to buy a lottery ticket from me for my own personal lottery - only 1 in 6.4 million he'll win, but he believes that's possible, right?

On to a more relevant question, since we can reasonably expect Mongoose will play the save and find us right:

What exactly are we going to ask for as punishment? I'm not willing to accept "Replay the turn with normal play." CDC died horribly under the gun of these cheating bastards, and THEY deserve better than that, even if you ignore us entirely.

	16-10-2003 16:36									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Oh wait, I forgot one:

If a game was released that crashed only once in 6.4 million loads, they'd call it "Perfect and bug free."



We *ARE* certain. Let's get Mongoose onboard.

	16-10-2003 17:09									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If they're prepared to cheat like this would they be prepared to cheat in other ways, like downgrading to and using some of the earlier exploits to say get a load of free units.

Although if they were to do this they wouldn't need to reload to win every battle.

	16-10-2003 17:27									#21
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by E_T Well, we didn;t cheat and we got their Army and all of the spears that were at that city. And we only lost 2 MI's.

Your right ET, but for one exception. When we attack, the numbers statisticly favor us (and, by those stats, we win most of the time); when CGA attacks, the numbers still favor us (and they win ALL of the time).

	16-10-2003 19:39									#22
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Nobody gets this lucky, consistently over time. I've played a LOT of CivIII, and I've seen some truely wacky combat results, but one thing is certain: if you're getting extreme luck (good or bad), it's going to swing the other way, probably soon. If this was the first turn of combat where they got really lucky, fine. I've seen runs of luck like that before. But no, this is a pattern, and it's been going for a while now.

How many GLs have they gotten? How many Numidians have they killed w/o losing a single unit? No ****ing way.

-Arrian

	16-10-2003 20:13									#23
	Got spare money?

I have to admit I hesitate more and more... the luck really shines too much on GCA... the evidence Arnelos gathered is impressive and difficult to dismiss - though if it was me, I would have attacked with (elite) horses first, not swords - they can retreat while scratching the mercs, pushing them lower in the defense chain, making it possible for the swords to fight MIs with reasonable odds. I think GCA has limited means to find out if we are in our GA or not, correct? So they may care less about losing horses to mercs - preferring to inflict losses on our mighty MIs instead. But still... it is really weird...

However - Fried asked a very good question. What are we going to do if mongoose confirms our suspicion?

For me, the game would be ruined, because it would be obvious that whatever happened in the CFC/GCA and GCA/CDG wars was also rigged... one whole team got wiped out and another one seriously crippled by cheating. I am sorry to say I would have no interest in continuing...

	16-10-2003 20:20									#24
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon What exactly are we going to ask for as punishment? I'm not willing to accept "Replay the turn with normal play."

I know we've put a lot work into this game, but I would be tempted to just quit and start another one with Conquests. I'm not saying this because of our poor position. If GCA has been cheating all along, the game is tainted and therefore any ultimate result we get will not be a true reflection of our skill as a team (or CDG's). I suppose we could find consolation in the fact that the other continent did not cheat and they're the favorites to win this thing, but that's a depressing idea in itself.

And when we do start that Conquests ISDG, one of the basic rules will be mandatory combat reports. What an idea!


Dominae

	16-10-2003 20:44									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree with Dominae & Vondrack - if they're cheating (and it sure as hell looks like they are), I have little interest in continuing. Which really sucks for the teams on the other continent, btw, since they are powerhouses, and the game would be pulled out from under them through no fault of their own.

-Arrian

	16-10-2003 20:58									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree as well. Apolyton does not deal with cheaters. If it is conclusive and mongoose agrees, then I think we should resign from the game.

Then again though, could it be possible that they are reloading the save and they just aren't aware that it illegal? (In fact, is it specifically written in the pledge that it illegal to do?)

What if they come out and say, "Oops! Didn't know we couldn't do that, won't happen again."? I guess that is about as likely as a horseman winning against a NM fortified on a hill with catapults....

	16-10-2003 21:24									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

How about this argument from GCA:

"We don't enjoy doing heavy micromanagement like all you other teams seem to love. We prefer doing battle. We obviously like winning (and getting Great Leaders), and so we reload to determine what the best chances are in any given turn. We put as much work into this as you guys put into your heavy economic analyses. Reloading and micromanagement are just two tools available to any civ player. The relative advantage we gain in reloading is comparable to the advantage gained from hardcore micromanagement (Apolyton is a case in point). Therefore we do not feel we have any particular advantage here. And even if we did, you guys can have it too (and you should, if you want to win)."

What do we say to that?


Dominae

	16-10-2003 21:48									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

1) The amount of effort expended is irrelevant.

2) The potential advantages from reloading when attempting to generate GLs FAR outweigh the advantages of micromanagement.

3) Reloading isn't available to anyone who even makes an attempt at playing honorably (see: CFGOTM, RBCiv Epics). Micromanagement is.

So, yeah, if GCA isn't cheating, then I'm the Pope.

(How does the possibility of ejecting GCA and putting CDG in control of their civ sound as a possible punishment, actually? Or am I being stupid?)

	16-10-2003 22:08									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by vondrack I have to admit I hesitate more and more... the luck really shines too much on GCA... the evidence Arnelos gathered is impressive and difficult to dismiss - though if it was me, I would have attacked with (elite) horses first, not swords - they can retreat while scratching the mercs, pushing them lower in the defense chain, making it possible for the swords to fight MIs with reasonable odds. I think GCA has limited means to find out if we are in our GA or not, correct? So they may care less about losing horses to mercs - preferring to inflict losses on our mighty MIs instead. But still... it is really weird...

Since they did not start our GA, I did what I could to minimize the possibility of the GA starting, which meant attacking NMs with Swords rather than horses where possible. It's entirely possible that they attacked all of the NMs with Horses as you suggest, but that would actually make the chance that they did all of this without starting our GA LESS likely, which in turn makes the case that they were probably cheating MORE likely... I aimed, where possible, to maximize their chances of victory or at least minimize their chances of losing to a Numidian Mercenary to depress the chance of cheating as much as possible... basically, I was TRYING to give them the benefit of the dbout if it was their specific intent to prevent us our Golden Age.

	16-10-2003 22:15									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I abstained in the first poll. This time I have voted differently.

And I am sad.