So how 'bout those Mets? [Archive]

Stormbinder

August 9th, 2004, 09:27 PM

Well this is the message I was set to post:

---------------------------------------------------

It is a real shame. Cheating is such a hollow victory, it doesn't even seem worth doing.

If you count how many hours you spend on a typical game (days of your life) it is extemely hurtful to have that time wasted by someone who is not playing fairly.

A lot people have very mixed feeling about Norfleet, but in general I think many people (including myself) respected him for his knowledge and skill in winning his games.

But now who knows how many other games he never would have won unless he he gave himself a slight (undetectable) advantage. Seriously, if he would have only cheated 1/10 as much in this game it would have gone unnoticed, but still would have been a tremendous advantage.

I am just very thankful that most of the community here would never dream of cheating in this way. I mean we are not 14 year old kids screaming obcenities, dissing each other mothers, and fragging each other in some 3D shooting game.

It has amazed me how technically savy, proffesional, friendly, intelligent, and open the typical Dominions player is. I hope our community can stay this way.

Very good post Maltrease.

I also can't possibly understand what kind of pleasure the person can get from such hollow victories? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif Especially considering such long hours(days) all of us invest in typical MP Dom2 game.

I also have a strong hope that our fellow players community will be better from now on, with this matter brought to the closure. I know I've participated in a lot of flamewars directed at Norfleet myself, together with other players. You know, now that I think about it, I can not think of any good explanation why I would feel such a strong negative emotions toward that person. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif Something about him ruining my game and his personality in general annoyed me to no end. /threads/images/Graemlins/crazy.gif I went overboard several times in the past because of it, unable to fully control my feelings.

It's very strange, considering that I am in RL mature and adult person and should know better that to have such feeling toward some anonymous person on the internet over a computer game. Maybe part of the reason is that, as Mal said, we are investing so much of our time into this game, that it become very personal. I don't know...

Anyway, I am glad to see this Norfleet's saga finally finished, in such clear and satisfactory conclusion. I am also quite positive that none of us, Dom2 players, would think of trying to follow his footsteps. The community in general is nice, mature and intelligent. And Norfleet was...well, he was Norfleet.

Enough said.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Zapmeister

August 9th, 2004, 09:31 PM

And Norfleet was...well, he was Norfleet.

My worry is that he's still here. Not called Norfleet.

Demosthenes

August 9th, 2004, 09:41 PM

The thing that really stuns me is the massive level of disrespect heaped on the other players when someone pulls this crap. It says "Your time and effort mean nothing to me".

I guess that would be the logical extension of the Norfleet philosophy as has been expounded in so many other threads. Most notably in my mind, the "Sabre Cherry is NOT dead" thread from two months ago in which I believe I said that Norfleet's attitude was the "enemy of functional society."

But to be honest I respected the guy for his unwavering bull****. I really was expecting him to be able to prove his case and show us all a new amazing strategy for mass gem collection by Turn 20. I guess I should have learned from the style of diatribe in the whole GG fiasco. If one compares the retorts from that whole scandal, Norfleet and his alter-ego's tones at that time were amazingly similar to this week's.

I have to say I learned a lesson from this, again. Again meaning I guess I should have learned this one already... Don't trust anyone. Hmmm....

But wasn't that Norfleet's whole ethos?

The lesson is that people who think that no-one can be trusted, cannot themselves be trusted. One believes that society is a reflection of whatever world-view they have and they go out and manifest that reality upon others. Most people are reasonably good and consciencious. Be careful of anyone who tells you otherwise.

August 9th, 2004, 09:48 PM

I would have liked to post the Last post, but in order to stop it before the replies went like wildfire, I closed the post.

If you feel this is unfair to the community then I am the one to blame.

A flame war, even if warranted (the flaming portion) is not something I would like to promote within the forum and have very actively attempting to avoid.

The point at which the thread name was changed, and the tone taken as obviously deragatory I closed it in the hope that the personal flames would not be kindled to childish levels. (Since Norfleet said he was leaving at least, that persona)

This does not mean I agree or disagree with either side of the coin (I am actually vehemenantly opposed to cheating in any form) but I don't want to turn it into a cruxification.

If you would like to talk about how cheating is possible, explainations, rational discussion about the act and not specifically flaming Norfleet for doing it (We all know it is wrong, underhanded, coincidentally timed and on my part, unexpected) or the reasoning behind it I am fine with such.

But as Norfleet has/is been a subject of repeated personal attacks I had no desire for things to spiral out of control while I had business to do and couldn't watch the forum like a hawk for a few hours.

Thank you for your willing or unwilling cooperation on this matter.

JB

PashaDawg

August 9th, 2004, 10:19 PM

I was one of those Newbies in the game. It was one of my first MP games. Until things got out of hand, there was a great deal of excitement. The legions of death were HUGE and the rest of us were banding together to defeat the evil fetid empire. I came away learning to pick your fellow players carefully (even though I don�t know many of you yet). Also, Storm was very free with good advice in long emails that I have saved for the official archive. I expect that they will be coming out in his forthcoming strategy guide (hee hee), and I won�t do anything at this point to violate his future copyright, etc., etc. Anyway, it was fun while it Lasted, and now I am free for a new game! (Newbie lamb for slaughter & looking to sharpen my claws� any takers?) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gandalf Parker

August 9th, 2004, 10:42 PM

Maltrease

August 9th, 2004, 10:51 PM

I had always found Norfleet interesting. Certainly some of his views on life and other issues were different. But thats cause Norfleet is Norfleet, just as Gandalf is Gandalf, and I am... the mighty Maltrease.

Stormbinder

August 9th, 2004, 11:03 PM

I guess I should have learned from the style of diatribe in the whole GG fiasco. If one compares the retorts from that whole scandal, Norfleet and his alter-ego's tones at that time were amazingly similar to this week's.

Hold on. Was you in my "Song of Ice and Fire" game on GG that Norfleet have ruined, Demosthenes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif If so, what was your nick there, on GG Boards? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Or did you just read our game thread and compared that alter ego with Norfleet, whom you know from shrapnels Boards?

But in any case, you are absolutely correct, they were very similar, depite their efforts. So I am not too concerned about Norfleet appearing under some other name anytime soon. If he will, we would likely to discover it pretty fast. If everything else fails, watch for some newbie who would write 2500 Posts in few months... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I have to say I learned a lesson from this, again. Again meaning I guess I should have learned this one already... Don't trust anyone. Hmmm....

But wasn't that Norfleet's whole ethos?

The lesson is that people who think that no-one can be trusted, cannot themselves be trusted. One believes that society is a reflection of whatever world-view they have and they go out and manifest that reality upon others. Most people are reasonably good and consciencious. Be careful of anyone who tells you otherwise.

Indeed. Though my life I have came to the personal conclusion, that it is well worth to keep generaly good opinion about people around you, unitl they have proven otherwise. Sure, you'll certanly run in some jerk now and then, and may suffer as a result. But it is better than to become very suspisious toward all people, not trusting anyone and puting all kind of psyhological heavy defenses around you and shooting at everyone who dares come close... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

At least this is my opinion on this matter, and it have been working quite well for me.

Evil Dave

August 9th, 2004, 11:07 PM

Indeed. Though my life I have came to the personal conclusion, that it is well worth to keep generaly good opinion about people around you, unitl they have proven otherwise. Sure, you'll certanly run in some jerk now and then, and may suffer as a result. But it is better than to become very suspisious toward all people, not trusting anyone and puting all kind of psyhological heavy defenses around you and shooting at everyone who dares come close... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

At least this is my opinion on this matter, and it have been working quite well for me.

Cool! Somebody else who explictly plays the "super rational" solution to the Prisoners' Dilemma. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Stormbinder

August 9th, 2004, 11:42 PM

On the one hand Norfleet had the most deleted Posts, and generated the most deleted Posts, of anyone else in this forum. From his early standings on the subject of software cracking to his latest one of turn-file cracking.

HOWEVER he also generated more conversations, debates, discussions, polls, than anyone else (I believe ThinkTank might be second). When I was an old DnD game master I would survive such encounters by thinking "Well I am blessed for meeting such a unique person. What an interesting NPC he will make." The personality description on my NPC's were often just a name of someone I had once known which no one else seemed to get along with but I was always smiling thinking what a great NPC they would be.

What can I say? Im diplomatic.

Hmm. Now let's not go too far here. It seems to me that it may be a bit *too* much diplomatic approach Gandalf. It almost sounds like you are sorry to see Norfleet gone, after he was undenyably exposed as cheater. /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif

I mean - let's face it. The guy has certanly cheated in a large number of MP games he had played, possibly in all of them, although we will never know it for sure. He have hacked the very game whose forum you and Zen are moderating, and he have spoiled countless hours of playing experience for a lot of honest players and customers with his cheating.

Wouldn't you ban him for what he have done, if he would not quit himself after he was publicly exposed? In any computer MP game I have played so far, and I have played quite a few, the forums and Company's policy on the cheaters is very clear. They are baned. Yet here you sound almost as if you are sorry to have him gone after the fact that he is a cheater was exposed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

I agree with some previous posters, I also find(or at least used to find before "Fire and Ice" game) Norfleet to be sometimes funny, usually in some perverted sort of way. Yet I strongly believe that the Moderators policy on the official board should be very clear on cheaters - they should be baned, period. No excusses. You don't want to send message to the community that it is ok to cheat, as long as you can post a lot of bull****, some of which maybe funny, 24h per day, do you?

Forgive me if I am blant here, but I think that aproaching the cheaters in "diplomatic" way is not a good idea. I know that you are nice and extremely helpful person Gandalf, but I just think that it is important that the position toward cheaters should be very clear and hard. Otherwise the MP community will go down the drain.

I hate to say but so far neither you not Zen have not made any official statements on this matter, other than locking my thread with no explanation to public.

Now, I understand very well that both you and Zen do not want any sort of flamewars on the board. But I don't think that just closing the thread with no final post explaining why it was closed, and later maintaining official silence on this matter is the right thing to do either.

/shrug Just my two cents.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Karacan

August 10th, 2004, 12:03 AM

To add an opinion: The Dominions-board will be much, much less interesting to read. I for one enjoyed his quips, attitude and witty remarks - stolen or not.

By the way, nowhere in the dev's Posts it's said that Norfleet hacked something. I certainly have no idea how to achieve those masses of gems, and I find it very unfortunate that Norfleet is not willing to share his side, though likely hard to believe.

*shrug*

It ain't over til the fat lady sings. But she probably missed a note right now.

Demosthenes

August 10th, 2004, 12:23 AM

Hold on. Was you in my "Song of Ice and Fire" game on GG that Norfleet have ruined, Demosthenes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif If so, what was your nick there, on GG Boards? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Or did you just read our game thread and compared that alter ego with Norfleet, whom you know from shrapnels Boards?

I was not in that game. I was in Dom2 lurk mode for a while having been on vacation and pulled out of a few MP games at GG. I read all the pertaining threads at the time though. My point was that his method of defending himself was nearly identical in both instances. Vague responses and proud refusals to explain himself.

Hmm. Now let's not go too far here. It seems to me that it may be a bit *too* much diplomatic approach Gandalf. It almost sounds like you are sorry to see Norfleet gone, after he was undenyably exposed as cheater.

Hell I'm sad to see him gone too. The guy's crazy and quite possibly dangerous to others but he sure contributed a lot around here. I'd like him to visit and continue to discuss the game. He would have to of course be big enough to live with the reputation he has garnered and understand if he is not welcome in MP games, but that's life.

We haven't even heard his "honest" explanation. He said it was not something he could control. Those are serious words from Norfleet.

I think this may have to go in the "Wait and See" file for now.

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 12:29 AM

What do they say? Better the enemy you know than the one you dont know? There will always be "norfleets". Hmmmm how about that. He created a new word needing to be defined in the newbie guide. Im sure at some point someone will post something and the reply will be "dont be such a Norfleet".
For someone to norfleet, norfleeting, a norfleetism.

Also, as an internet admin managing many forums and Online games, I know that people sent away like this are rarely gone. They simply come back as someone else. Of course, the effort they take not to be recognized instantly means they must refrain from the actions that made them "go away" so the problem is fixed anyhow and not worth making too much effort to catch them at it.

August 10th, 2004, 12:31 AM

I'm pretty amazed that you seem to think you have concrete and irrefutable proof in which to do a 'instant-right-now-banning'. Or you seem to want lightspeed 'justice' as far as how things are done. I'm sorry if deliberation as far as 'Should someone be IP Banned' from a forum that he is supposedly leaving in any regard is taking too long for you or feel you need a play by minute review of (if any) action that is taken or opinions expressed.

As far as I know, KO and JK have had a hard time accessing the Beta Forums since the upgrade and the Moderator Forum so the conversation could not even be held until that is fixed and they can view/access such Posts and 'evidence' presented.

I don't like your tone or implication one bit, with how much I've had to work with you Stormbinder, I'd think you'd give people a little more slack who have given you an incredible amount in the past and present.

If you want swift and heavy handed justice without proper consideration, I can certainly provide that in equal amounts on both sides of the coin in the future.

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 12:32 AM

[quote]

I was not in that game. I was in Dom2 lurk mode for a while having been on vacation and pulled out of a few MP games at GG. I read all the pertaining threads at the time though. My point was that his method of defending himself was nearly identical in both instances. Vague responses and proud refusals to explain himself.
[quote]

Gotcha. I though that maybe you are like our AhhhhFresh player in that game, who loves to have different nicks on different Boards. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif And yes, you are absolutely correct about similarities.

As for "something that he could not control" - I think he was refering to the voices in his head, telling him what he must do. AFAIK, half of the crazy guys have them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 12:39 AM

Zapmeister

August 10th, 2004, 12:51 AM

Someone definately doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I certainly believe in "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that's where I find myself. The notion that Stormbinder would have the ability (no offense, Stormbinder) or motivation to fabricate files framing Norfleet is laughable.

What bothers me is the fact that Stormbinder has done so much work, resulting in such great benefit (assuming the popular conclusion is correct, which as I said seems beyond doubt) and yet is getting vilification instead of thanks. Puzzling and disturbing.

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 12:52 AM

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 01:21 AM

What bothers me is the fact that Stormbinder has done so much work, resulting in such great benefit (assuming the popular conclusion is correct, which as I said seems beyond doubt) and yet is getting vilification instead of thanks. Puzzling and disturbing.

Are you really interested? Consider this...
Maybe its because most people dont feel that the end justifies the means. In this case the means would be the tone and threads we all had to put up with. Norfleet may have been the one in the wrong, but the way such things were presented left more people on Norfleets side than on Stormbinders.

August 10th, 2004, 01:27 AM

Considering this is coming from someone who 'Banned' Norfleet months ago, I would have to venture a guess that your mind was made up long before any 'proof' or 'hard work' was given. The problem with the bandwagon is it's always ready for more members, on their way to other places.

As I have said before, and maybe it's not being clear. IF: This is Cheating (which it appears to be at least to some) THEN: Some sort of 'official' action as far as forums go will be taken. IF: Illwinter and Co. feel the need or inclination to judge and lay down a punishment THEN: It will be administered and more than likely provided to the community though the reasoning or depth of the first IF may or may not be revealed.

If you want to take a guess at what stage this is in, look at the beginning.

August 10th, 2004, 01:30 AM

I would also like to say, that cheating has been going on previous to this one incidient, by more than one person before in the past and more than likely will in the future. There is a reason that "Cheat Prevention" was implemented. Not some, by the fly "This would be a cool feature" type of decision. But one based on need.

So take it for what it's worth, but if Norfleet was cheating then he was most certainly not the first, and most certainly wasn't the Last, and most certainly was known about to a degree.

The_Tauren13

August 10th, 2004, 01:33 AM

Maltrease:
...and fragging each other in some 3D shooting game.

i object. i spend half my life playing counter-strike http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

i for one am very sad to see norfleet gone. as a person, i really liked him, and it seemed to me he always contributed to the forums in a positive way. but then, i never had to suffer the indignity of playing against him and his 'cheats', in which case i might see things differently. i mean, when playing counter-strike, i always want to see cheaters/hackers hung from the ceiling by their balls.

Cainehill:
Or that a bombastic flake with an obsession and a grudge was framing someone

who are you to talk about a grudge obsession? this coming from the guy who never passes up a chance to yell at Cohen, who even seems to have reformed now

imo norfleet's eagerness to leave is practically a confession. probably he will come back; i think he would be bored to death if he didnt play dom II. one can always hope that he will come back under a new name, continue contributing to the forums, but give up his cheating habits. unfortunately, that kind of thing never happens http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

on a side note, what does the title of this thread refer to? 'Mets' meaning?

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 01:38 AM

well of course ends justify means. what else could?

which isn't to say that the general implied point about tone and presentation on storm's part isn't w/out a lot of merit.

otoh, we might wonder why there was seemingly so little interest on the part of "the powers that be" (Moderators, beta testers, etc...) in the norfleet phenomenon - its not like there wasn't a tide of complaints about the overpoweredness of clams, of VQ's, of castling; all originating specifically in these games. No one thought that where there was so much smoke there might be fire? It has been months since those first examples of norfleetian excess. But the response of many was just to insist that there couldn't be a problem, whether the problem turned out to be norf or game mechanics, and to not even pursue any investigation into the source of all these complaints upon their own initiative.

storm may well have been distasteful in his public pursuit of norfleet, but in the end his hounding actually gave results.

personally, i'm glad to know that castling and clamming are likely not such big problems as they originally appeared to those many of us who experienced their supposed effects first hand.
Considering this is coming from someone who 'Banned' Norfleet months ago, I would have to venture a guess that your mind was made up long before any 'proof' or 'hard work' was given. The problem with the bandwagon is it's always ready for more members, on their way to other places.

well, i believe zapmeister has actually played games w/ norfleet, unlike some others.

August 10th, 2004, 01:48 AM

I'd have to say if Norfleet was cheating he either A.) Didn't give much credit to the people he was playing (considering his paranoia I'd not bet on this) or B.) Didn't care (that follows in with a conversation I had with him previous). Since it was such an obvious and easily trackable game that he was 'caught' in, on another's server, without hidden access to the game files, master password enabled, score graphs enabled, and others. If he really wanted to keep any sort of cheating on the down low, it would be uncommonly stupid to do it in an extreme that was not reasonably explainable with file proof.

Take it for what it's worth, but I doubt this 'situation' occured without cooperation from the perpetrator.

Zapmeister

August 10th, 2004, 01:50 AM

Considering this is coming from someone who 'Banned' Norfleet months ago, I would have to venture a guess that your mind was made up long before any 'proof' or 'hard work' was given.

I deny that. I am not a witch-hunter, but I am prepared to accept what I regard as damning evidence when it's presented. Even if I don't like the person that's presenting it (which I do) or do like the person it's damning (which I admit I don't).

August 10th, 2004, 01:51 AM

well, i believe zapmeister has actually played games w/ norfleet, unlike some others.

So have alot of others, though you may not care to consider that.

Also, if one cheats in one game, that must mean you cheat in every game from your very beginning to the very end, yes? Or more appropriately, if one has cheated, that means he has always cheated regardless of game(s)?

I'm not saying that he couldn't/wouldn't. But I doubt it could be said for every, *single* game.

August 10th, 2004, 01:58 AM

Well certainly you feel the need to give accolades to something that is only circumstancial evidence. KO gave a breakdown, which is very damning in and of itself but could hardly be construed as 'irrefutable proof' especially considering that it hasn't been found out how to do it.

Until a way is found out how this is accomplished and can be understood I am more concerned with it's impact and not that it was done. Once it can be found out how to do it, either Gem Stockpile or Magic Item placement and then it could be said that /these are the weaknesses in the cheat prevention code/ and /with these weaknesses X is possible/ then I will say irrefutably that X = Cheating. And go from there.

If it's found that there is no sane way in which something like this could happen, or happen with only one parties participation I am not prepared to place full blame and furious witch hunting on any one individual.

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 02:02 AM

I've played many games w/ norfleet. Unlike some who talk, I have experience of it. I have no vendetta against him, and actually have some fondness for him, but these apparent excesses are not new. your speculation that he set himself up to be caught, or something like it, is tenuous at best. perhaps he got overconfident, or bored, or took a calculated risk; or, most likely, to my eyes, could not not do it.

August 10th, 2004, 02:05 AM

I've played games with him too, one under this name and a few under other names. Does that mean I can say that his clamhoarding and castling tactics are more/less abusive because I've seen them firsthand with/without cheating? Or does that mean that all those arguements from people who felt things overpowered are no longer valid at all because of the perpetuator was cheating and thus any arguements against him/them are tainted by cheating?

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 02:09 AM

or course the previous arguments, which were based in the real experience of their effects, are tainted. to what degree is impossible to determine, however. But we made these arguments based on direct observation.

now, as to games you've played w/ norfleet, I can not say. The first MP game i was ever in you and norfleet were as well; however, I do not believe you directly encountered him during the duration of that blitz.

Zapmeister

August 10th, 2004, 02:10 AM

One has to ask why he didn't forward his own .trn file to Illwinter, supporting his case for innocence and scoring an incredible coup against Stormbinder.

His actual behaviour was to mutter something about implausible events outside his control, withdraw from all games and disappear.

Circumstantial? Perhaps. But damning nonetheless.

August 10th, 2004, 02:10 AM

If he could not, not do it, as an obsession, I could see that maybe happening. Though from a logical perspective such a thing would more than likely be done in minute degrees in order to avoid detection from other players if he intended any serious sort of cheating.

For some reason, Calculated Risk doesn't seem fit when you consider the sheer numbers presented and their unfeasibility of explaining if one gets caught. Though it could be certain that overconfidance could play a part.

August 10th, 2004, 02:15 AM

Days and days ago I Norfleet spoke to me in IRC saying he was tired of Dom2 and the drama/etc (During the entire Stormbinder v Norfleet Deathmatch or whatever it was during planning . I couldn't tell you which turn it was in that particular game but it says to me if you are tired of a game, and are not playing or don't intend to play or intend to play with another persona, you wouldn't care if you were caught cheating or not in that kind of circumstance. At least in my experience that is the case.

As for Norfleet not sending in his turn or 'defending himself' whatever conclusions you come up with are yours, there could be any number of reasons based on your own perspective, but the common consent is it didn't provide a majorly positive reaction.

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 02:22 AM

I think the likely obsessive nature of it makes a certain truth of norfleet saying that it was not of his doing, that it was something beyond his control, which on the face of it seems a stretch.

Zapmeister

August 10th, 2004, 02:23 AM

As for Norfleet not sending in his turn or 'defending himself' whatever conclusions you come up with are yours, there could be any number of reasons based on your own perspective, but the common consent is it didn't provide a majorly positive reaction.

Not sure what you mean by this. But I'm done on this topic, with my final comment being that if the possibility of fiddled files being sent to Illwinter is the only pro-Norfleet theory, then Esben Mose Hansen is part of the conspiracy:

Mose had made a copy of this file, in case Norfleet will try to "hack" it once again and he send it to Illwinter.

August 10th, 2004, 02:30 AM

I mean. That no matter which way you look at it. Norfleet refusing to send his file or even continue discussion means there is no good way of looking at that refusal. Meaning it couldn't be construed as a Pro for Norfleet's Side of the Story.

I sincerely doubt Mose was apart of any conspiracy having to deal with this. Though, as I said before I find it very hard to see how you could cheat without the fatherland file, unless there is a way for a .trn or .2h to modify the structure of the fatherland to produce an effect.

It may be that there is some sort of ingame code weakness that allowed some in game command or combination of commands to produce some sort of gem production.

Or it could be a weakness in the Ebsen server and someone could hack into the server and adjust the fatherland file to their desire.

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 02:35 AM

well, in one of the "Retarded" games on mosehansen, Norfleet was able to perform the eminently useful task of force-hosting the game (as one of the participants had dissappeared w/out going AI) - an option that was not available publicly, certainly. I always had to wonder about the security of esben's server after that.

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 02:54 AM

Consider this Gandelf: If you personally would be on the receiving end of this crap in the first place, and had the game which you have created and invested so much of your personal time and energy ruined in such a way it was, maybe you would feel slightly different about it, don't you think? You know, it's always quite easy to judge about "ends" and "means" from the side. In fact, to be honest with you, my own position would be more similar to yours as well, if I would be in your shoes. But to be totally fair, you have to take into consideration the fact that it is hard to expect from the party which was on the receiving end of such things (twice by now), to remain 100% cool and calm and take everything with a good sense of humor. >;(

/Edited out a Personal Email from Kristoffer O./ - Zen

To Zen: I didn't suggested to you that you ban Norfleet before the Illwinter would take a chance to look and decide what's going on here. But I do feel that it may not be the best solution in this situation to just lock the thread with no explanation, as it was another silly flamewar and nothing more, instead of at least saying something on this matter before you lock it, even like posting your personal opinion. After all you are the most experienced player around, not just a forum moderator. You have read yourself blatant lies that Norfleet said about this game, answering my questions. You have read the numbers that KristoferO and me posted on the board. Do you honestly think that there is any way short of cheating to have 5000 gems in such game by turn 23 ?!?

But that's ok, I didn't expected anything else from him, so it doesn't bother me at all. But when instead of saying "thanks", you , the forum moderator and very dedicated Dom2 MP player on your own, keep calling me "another side of Norfleet's coin", as if it was me who had cheated, I do feel a bit hurt by it, frankly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I don't think that somebody who exposed cheater, should be equaled with the cheater, just because that somebody was *really* hurt and irritated by this very subject of cheating, which happened to him in his own game, but he didn't have hard proof of it at that time. But if you really think that there is no real difference here between the cheater and the one who was cheated, and who spend a lot of time gathering and preparing all these evidence to expose cheater, to the benefit of the entire players MP community, I am not going to argue with you. I am leaving it up to you to decide.

Stormbinder

The_Tauren13

August 10th, 2004, 02:59 AM

well put, storm
i for one appreciate your work to expose norfleet, and have no doubt that he cheated
although your previous norfleet hating may seem to spoil your reputation, it just means you were the right man for the job to expose him (anyone seen I, Robot?)

It may be that there is some sort of ingame code weakness that allowed some in game command or combination of commands to produce some sort of gem production.

this is a possibility to be considered. with his parting words, norfleet called what happened a 'glitch'. he may mean he found some sort of bug that allowed him to produce these gems, and was simply extorting it.

Demosthenes

August 10th, 2004, 04:06 AM

on a side note, what does the title of this thread refer to? 'Mets' meaning?

As I don't think anyone touched on this...

The Mets are the American baseball team from New York. The title was a joke on American colloquialism at changing the subject. As in "Nice Weather We're Having?"

i.e. I posted that within a couple minutes of the Ermor thread being locked.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Maltrease

August 10th, 2004, 08:39 AM

I am also very thankful that Storm took the time to track this down and prove his case. As other have said it is was certainly a difficult task for him to do against the chiding and disbelief by many people. His history with Norfleet obviously makes it difficult to accept Stormfleets comments at face value, but here there does not seem to much question about the soul of the issue.

Its always easier to look the other way and forgot about it. I am very glad Stormbinder stuck this through.

Its just my opinion, but I don't think a "Sorry" or "Thank you" is uncalled for.

Mardagg

August 10th, 2004, 10:05 AM

first of all,big thanks to stormbinder for catching Norfleet.
As a matter of fact I never played a MP game ,where Norfleet stayed longer than a few turns before going AI.
Thats why I never believed that Norfleet used "different" methods in playing the game,even though several players I knew from former games warned we,that he may be cheating.I,thus,maintained neutral regarding this.

From my point of view,its clear that he cheated now:

1.Several players always thought this,which made me at least thinking about it.
2.In my recently started MP game,Norfleet left the game after we all got a cheat detection message about him,playing Caelum(unexplainable wealth increase,or something like that).
After all,this game has also master password activated,so there would have been possibilities to proof that he did not cheat(or otherway round).
3.Now we have incredible huge numbers,which are by NO means achievable by turn 23 through normal play.

Now,I cant understand though ,why there are still some people that dont believe in this and ,furthermore,are "hacking" on Stormbinder instead of being grateful for the time he(and others) have invested to catch a cheater.
Also I find it very sad,that some Posts apparently are deleted,as it seems even those of the developers.
IMO,the explanations for this are not sufficient.
This is a serious theme,not just a normal topic, and all people should be allowed to post their opinions,as long as they are not extremely offending,and,more important,to read all other opinions.
IMO,the topics about this should stay open for at least a week or so,deleting it after this period would be ok,if felt necessary .
I seriously think,that,in this special case, deleting lots of replies and closing whole topics will hurt the communitiy a lot more,than just letting everyone post what he wants to say,at least for a while.

Even if we dont know,how he was able to do it,we have only 2 possibilities:

1.Norfleet or a friend of him did manipualte the game.
2.Unlikely,but:
Someone else manipulated the game,so that Norfleet can be called a cheater,at Last.

Regarding 1.:

It may be that he was exploiting a bug here,or manipulating the turn files,or hacking into the Mosehansen server.
Regardless what he did,its always cheating by intention.
He always had the possibility to contact Illwinter, and tell them about what he is able to do,to prevent this in further games.

Regarding 2.:

To achieve those numbers,which are now revealed,he had to cheat right from the start of the game,most likely every turn.
So,even if it was someone else,who altered the game so that he got lots of gems every turn,Norfleet didnt tell anybody of this and just used it to his advantage.
This is also cheating,nothing more and nothing less.

August 10th, 2004, 10:52 AM

It might be said that in certain circles, Norfleet was known to have behavior that would be considered cheating but could not be proven directly as such, but it was well known that he is/was at some time.

Esben Mose Hansen

August 10th, 2004, 11:02 AM

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 11:06 AM

As for Illwinter's position - here are some excepts from KristofferO letter to me, that he send after you locked that thread:

... Everyone knows norfleet cheated and many suspected as much before. I believe most players are satisfied with the fact that norfleet is exposed. Very few would give norfleet any credit for his Last remark
...
You have won. You were right. Everyone knows it. Savour it.
...
Good luck in the future and I hope you find more worthy opponents.

/Kristoffer

And once again Stormbinder displayed _his_ glaring lack of ethics / common courtesy, quoting a private email publicly, just as he used wiretaps to quote from conversations (ie, logged irc chats and publicly posted them, akin to illegally tapping a telephone line).

I'm not saying that Norfleet is necessarily innocent of cheating. I'm just saying that I find Stormbinder's actions, attitudes, and diatribes disgusting and reprehensible - and he wants to be thanked for this?

To the point of sending harassing private Messages, asking if I have the "guts" to say I'm sorry to Stormvomit, after having been told I didn't want private Messages from him.

Stormbinder, to once again quote your acronom : I'm sorry you didn't FOAD.

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 11:20 AM

Yeh. Someone definately doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt". After all - hypothetically, it'd be more likely that the host or the person with the master password was doing any digital manipulation of game files.

If Norfleet was being framed, why would he agree on the numbers of the battle? I liked Norfleet as much as anyone, but I find the framing scenario very unlikely. I have to say that Norfleet's guilt is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In that light, we must assume that Norfleet has probably cheated in more games, which brings the different flamewars into a different light.

Or that some of the people with an agenda against him went "beyond the pale". I certainly don't think you (as the host) had anything to do with it.

But something irks me, from a logical point of view. Supposedly Norfleet had _17_ dwarven hammers on turn 22 or 23. To me, that's nuts - maybe at turn 40, or 60, someone might have use for 17 hammers.

But at turn 23, it's conspicuously wasteful - you can't _use_ that many hammers, even if the cost of creating them was negligible. That's something fishy, to me.

It seems just as likely to me, that someone figured out how to cheat and used that to frame Norfleet in so hugely blatant and obvious a way that he could start calling out, in what was for him an oddly reasonable tone of voice, "Say, partner, can you explain what I think I see here?"

Knowing the forged evidence is so damning that the jury will already have decided to hang, no matter the explanation : "I don't know how those stolen cattle got into my pen. The 17 dwarven sheep in the bedroom? No sense even talking about them."

As I say - given the animosities involved, this seems as credible as someone going so far off the deep end as to actually forge 17 dwarven hammers while cheating. (If you're capable of cheating so massively on gems - _WHY_ do you need all the hammers?)

Another fishy thing, from another game : How does an artifact (the Holy Grail) simply disappear from the magic item stash, with a message saying "Suddenly the Chalice was not found in the laboratory anymore".

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 11:32 AM

I don't think that possibility is very convincing caine, whatever the characters involved. Norfleet did not say, hey this isn't the game I was playing (as if he had been set up), but instead tried to put forth various bull**** explanations (such as about having used sorceresses for ravensfeast and getting 40 death gems from burninating provinces). And, frankly, I find Norfleet much more likely to have had the necessary skills for the job.

As to the chalice thing, that's just the message you get if someone wishes the artifact away from you. You can wish it back if you want http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The_Tauren13

August 10th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 11:48 AM

otoh, we might wonder why there was seemingly so little interest on the part of "the powers that be" (Moderators, beta testers, etc...) in the norfleet phenomenon - its not like there wasn't a tide of complaints about the overpoweredness of clams, of VQ's, of castling; all originating specifically in these games. No one thought that where there was so much smoke there might be fire? It has been months since those first examples of norfleetian excess. But the response of many was just to insist that there couldn't be a problem, whether the problem turned out to be norf or game mechanics, and to not even pursue any investigation into the source of all these complaints upon their own initiative.

I thought you were smarter than that. Norfleet was in fact a well worn topic of discussion in the dominions developer forum. And in the shrapnel Moderators forum. Norfleet had sanctions against him and a watchful eye on his actions well before Stormbinder started being so loud. You sound like a high school kid who is mad that he doesnt know what goes on in the teachers lounge.

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 12:01 PM

August 10th, 2004, 12:03 PM

Now that I've had a chance to reread this, (I was half asleep from waking up earlier, so I have adjusted my response to accurately reflect what is written instead of my half-asleep understanding)

To Zen: I didn't suggested to you that you ban Norfleet before the Illwinter would take a chance to look and decide what's going on here. But I do feel that it may not be the best solution in this situation to just lock the thread with no explanation, as it was another silly flamewar and nothing more, instead of at least saying something on this matter before you lock it, even like posting your personal opinion.

I closed it because it was going to *become* a silly flamewar. Because it was taking on the tendancies of it. And maybe I should let flames ride if it's cheating? Maybe, but I don't want to be quick to jump the gun on accusing or saying irrefutably such things happened or not, though in this case it may be obvious to all but a few. Here is from an earlier post about my personal opinion:

I don't think my personal opinion should be tacked on the end of every closed post. Since my personal opinion could be very much the opposite of the reason why the thread was closed down.

If you want my personal opinion on the subject. It is: Cheaters suck. I don't like them. But they happen, in every game you play. At least to some degree you can control such things, but as it is now I haven't found an excessive amount of cheating in Dom2 as opposed to say ... Blizzard games (For obvious reasons). I think it's personally very low to cheat, and to cheat in a forum that you seem to want and have a helpful presence within. I also think it's abhorable to use cheating against newbies, constantly, anhillating them constantly and without mercy by cheating when it's perfectly servicable and easy enough to do without cheating.

Sort of like murder is bad, but murdering a 2 year old kid is an uncommon sort of low bastard.

Now, with that said, I'm not going to foam around about it, just a sad fact of life.

After all you are the most experienced player around, not just a forum moderator. You have read yourself blatant lies that Norfleet said about this game, answering my questions. You have read the numbers that KristoferO and me posted on the board. Do you honestly think that there is any way short of cheating to have 5000 gems in such game by turn 23 ?!?

No I don't personally think so. But as I said previously that it may not be him alone, and I don't see how it can be done. That the game was tampered with is not an issue, that it was tampered with in favor of Norfleet or "for Norfleet" is not an issue. How he did it, and why to that extent are a few questions I have personally but yes, as far as I'm concerned Ermor cheated in that game and that game and Ermor was Norfleet. Conspiracy theories aside, I have no reason to think that Norfleet was not capable, had motivation and had previous record of doing such in the past.

But that's ok, I didn't expected anything else from him, so it doesn't bother me at all. But when instead of saying "thanks", you , the forum moderator and very dedicated Dom2 MP player on your own, keep calling me "another side of Norfleet's coin", as if it was me who had cheated, I do feel a bit hurt by it, frankly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

No, the other side of the coin as far as conversation and discussion about such things. We both know you have a tendancy to get yourself worked up on certain issues, this happens to be two of the main issues that you get worked up, combined! I never said you cheated, that you were even in the same Category as a cheater or that I do appreciate the fact that you have found enough proof to damn him for his actions and exposed him for cheating and thus tainting those who play the games he was in.

I don't think that somebody who exposed cheater, should be equaled with the cheater, just because that somebody was *really* hurt and irritated by this very subject of cheating, which happened to him in his own game, but he didn't have hard proof of it at that time. But if you really think that there is no real difference here between the cheater and the one who was cheated, and who spend a lot of time gathering and preparing all these evidence to expose cheater, to the benefit of the entire players MP community, I am not going to argue with you. I am leaving it up to you to decide.

I never said they were the same. I only said that you haven't seem to have given it enough time to really look into it, especially considering the forum switchover, differences in timezones, and a multitude of factors. I would hope you wouldn't think my objectivity and not instant judgement of ANYONE (including yourself, Norfleet, or any other number of people) is better than rash accustations.

Pickles

August 10th, 2004, 12:03 PM

Keeping it on baseball. It reminds me of the little boy who went up to shoeless Joe Jackson after their bribery scandal player & asked "Joe say it ain't so". I find it hard to believe and do not want to believe that Norfleet was cheating. This from someone who does not know him at all & had decided that I did not like him much, though I mostly valued his presence. I, like Cainehill, started dreaming of conspiracies- though these do not really hold water (they are too wide & Norfleet should have raised the issue of massive wealth himself).
My initial regret was that Stormbinder too had not committed some heinous act & would also be Banned, as his hectoring of Norfleet & Norfleet's goading back were one of the low points of the board. I will try to modify this reaction in light of the fact that N was cheating but it IS my gut reaction.
To those of you in Stormbinder's camp we are the people of Rome who instead of praising Caesar's assassins for freeing them from tyranny, join in hunting them down.

Pickles

ps Baseball details may be wrong I am English, it's from a movie

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 12:13 PM

lol, nothing like. however, the "teachers" in this case actively worked to dismiss the concerns of the students, and put forth as if there were no problem. Have you forgotten the discussions on VQs, on clams, on castling? My own experience is that any concerns I had were dismissed by mods because i "must just be a newbie", and incompetent, if I couldn't deal w/ VQ's or castles...

obviously something was broken, but there was not even a hint of acknowledgement of that fact.

the real discussions, and work, concerning what was going on certainly seemed to have taken place completely outside of the teachers' lounge, which to all appearances was rather out of touch. As is the way such things often go.

Actually those conversations were well followed, and in fact the VQ was changed. The clam conversations are also followed but no solution has come forth. Of course these are a couple of minor points in the overall list of things being worked on. There were also acknowledgments given by the developers and the beta team members. You might take note of the people who did receive answers, specifically the differences between their threads and the wording of them. Again, the end justifiying the means does not fly with everyone if you are waiting for some sort of thank you response.

Im sure if I worded this in the same language and tone that some people use to put their points across, that it would be much better understood. Unfortunately I would get in trouble for that unless I created a new login and sent it anonymously.

johan osterman

August 10th, 2004, 12:14 PM

Or that some of the people with an agenda against him went "beyond the pale". I certainly don't think you (as the host) had anything to do with it.

But something irks me, from a logical point of view. Supposedly Norfleet had _17_ dwarven hammers on turn 22 or 23. To me, that's nuts - maybe at turn 40, or 60, someone might have use for 17 hammers.

But at turn 23, it's conspicuously wasteful - you can't _use_ that many hammers, even if the cost of creating them was negligible. That's something fishy, to me.

It seems just as likely to me, that someone figured out how to cheat and used that to frame Norfleet in so hugely blatant and obvious a way that he could start calling out, in what was for him an oddly reasonable tone of voice, "Say, partner, can you explain what I think I see here?"

Knowing the forged evidence is so damning that the jury will already have decided to hang, no matter the explanation : "I don't know how those stolen cattle got into my pen. The 17 dwarven sheep in the bedroom? No sense even talking about them."

As I say - given the animosities involved, this seems as credible as someone going so far off the deep end as to actually forge 17 dwarven hammers while cheating. (If you're capable of cheating so massively on gems - _WHY_ do you need all the hammers?)

Another fishy thing, from another game : How does an artifact (the Holy Grail) simply disappear from the magic item stash, with a message saying "Suddenly the Chalice was not found in the laboratory anymore".

No need to go all conspiracy minded. The simpler explanation is that Norfleet either hacked the files or used some sort of glitch he discovered, which would be tantamount to cheating. Add to the submitted files that Norfleet has, on more than one occasion I believe, triggered the cheat protections in the game, and also to my knowledge he is one of the very few if not the only forum acitve player that has done this in MP. While it is not irrefutably certain that he did cheat I think it is by far the most likely and obvious explanation.

The chalice dissappeared because the knights of the chalice came and quested for it.

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 12:20 PM

August 10th, 2004, 12:24 PM

lol, nothing like. however, the "teachers" in this case actively worked to dismiss the concerns of the students, and put forth as if there were no problem. Have you forgotten the discussions on VQs, on clams, on castling? My own experience is that any concerns I had were dismissed by mods because i "must just be a newbie", and incompetent, if I couldn't deal w/ VQ's or castles...

No, the reason it was dismissed was because there was no proven factual information in it. The tiring "Norfleet beat me with X and I don't think that is fare" is not a good enough excuse, ever. If someone else replaces it, if suddenly Tauren13 starts beating everyone with Lord of the Gates and Stingers, we're not going to use the logical thinking that he must be cheating and take the concerns of what the issues are (I.E. Lord of the Gates and Stingers) for their value in standard game, not some sort of cheating game.

obviously something was broken, but there was not even a hint of acknowledgement of that fact.

And it was exactly the opposite of what people said "The VQ is broken" and not "Norfleet is cheating with the VQ". In such discussions, newbies were coming up with their own horror stories of getting beat by one handed Vampires with oodles of clams saying it was fact. Maybe an investigation should be done by anyone who stood on the 'pro-nerf' side of the fence of anything, yeah? Damn cheaters.

the real discussions, and work, concerning what was going on certainly seemed to have taken place completely outside of the teachers' lounge, which to all appearances was rather out of touch. As is the way such things often go.

Then the VQ wouldn't have been balanced as it was, for the reasonings that it was. Clams wouldn't have been disregarded as "Something that can be exploited, if you have exactly the right circumstances" and Castles would all cost 600 Gold, yes?

The price of using such broad statements is you tend to selectively forget the past conversations and reasons why things were done or in this case, not done.

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 12:28 PM

heh, nah I don't care. Dom II is filled w/ such a bunch of curmudgeons that such things as apologies or thanks are generally rarer than hens' teeth in a disco.

I don't feel that moderation, and public feedback on the issues was that stellar, but whatever. Illwinter hasn't been ignoring the problems, obviously, and deserve respect for their hard work, and for the even more work they'll be doing in the future.

No it wasnt stellar. They cant participate in these discussions the way that we can. The developers tend to make 1 answer in a thread and then a few pages later people are complaining that the devs are clueless about it even though nothing was said to change the first answer. Beta tester responses are abit more frequent. And of course the most numerous come from the player-tester folks which are appreciated.

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 12:32 PM

lol, as I remember, the "selective forgetting" has more been a policy of this forum, through the wholesale deleting of Posts it does not like.

It was clear to many that something or things were broken. The general response from the forum old guard was to stick fingers in their ears. I certainly couldn't tell if norfleet was hacking files, or if clamming were absurdly abusable, or what exactly. But there was certainly something broken, yet that was actively denied by those who should have remained neutral in the discussions then.

turn files were certainly available to anyone who wished to see what all the fuss was about. I know I didn't refuse any requests to examine them.

Again, I'm glad that some sort of resolution has been achieved. I certainly hope that illwinter is able to figure out a tougher security regimen. However, until then i'm not about to stop playing.
No it wasnt stellar. They cant participate in these discussions the way that we can

actually i wasn't referring to the devs, who, while remaining distant from the fray, certainly evidenced to me a genuine interest in the apparent problems on our part. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
No, the reason it was dismissed was because there was no proven factual information in it. The tiring "Norfleet beat me with X and I don't think that is fare" is not a good enough excuse, ever

again, turn files were available. It was dismissed out of arrogance. No one ever simply made a complaint "oh noes I was beaten that's not possible", but rather wondered how such vast resources were possible w/out a bug or broken game mechanic. People who used the word "broken" were told off in no uncertain terms by Moderators of this forum. Now, that is a fact. I would reccomend rereading some of Rabe's insightful and informative Posts on the VQ issue, for instance.

Truper

August 10th, 2004, 12:43 PM

I thought you were smarter than that. Norfleet was in fact a well worn topic of discussion in the dominions developer forum. And in the shrapnel Moderators forum. Norfleet had sanctions against him and a watchful eye on his actions well before Stormbinder started being so loud. You sound like a high school kid who is mad that he doesnt know what goes on in the teachers lounge.

And so we come to the most patronizing comment yet. "Trust us kiddies, even though we grownups have made no mention in any public place that there has been a problem here at school, rest assured that we in our wisdom have taken steps to insure your safety and well-being. It is not for you to know what's being done, or even that anything is being done, just trust us and everything will be fine. Now just run along and go play in the schoolyard, while we get back to our serious buisiness in the teachers lounge."

It has of course been possible to read between the lines of various occurances in the forums, the patches and elsewhere to infer that there is a real problem, and that things have been done about it, but to my mind an explicit statement from Illwinter and/or Shrapnel acknowledging that a problem exists and stating that solutions are being investegated is not too much to ask for. Since such a statement has never been made, its understandable that some have reached the conclusion that the powers that be have their head in the sand.

August 10th, 2004, 12:44 PM

lol, as I remember, the "selective forgetting" has more been a policy of this forum, through the wholesale deleting of Posts it does not like.

Perhaps a policy of active readers or posters. As for wholesale deletion of Posts? Are you reading the same board as I am? As far as I know, post deletion is the very Last method of moderation that is ever taken and it's not taken lightly. Most often it/they are moved to the moderator forum for viewing of not only other Moderators but administrators. In my time here, I have only deleted a handful of individual Posts and I believe only one thread that was not requested. I have however, had to edit numerous Posts, give plenty of warning PM's and in general wonder at the maturity of people as they get worked up about a /game/.

It was clear to many that something or things were broken. The general response from the forum old guard was to stick fingers in their ears. I certainly couldn't tell if norfleet was hacking files, or if clamming were absurdly abusable, or what exactly. But there was certainly something broken, yet that was actively denied by those who should have remained neutral in the discussions then.

It has been said I don't know how many times for people to send their files to info@illwinter.com for any kind of hokiness. If you didn't get that memo, there isn't much I can do. Actively denied that someone was cheating? I can't remember much of the discussion off hand, but I believe any allusions to 'cheating' were not very prominant and the only instance of it that really cropped up was in Stormbinder's GG game, where much of the general populace doesn't consider 'Playing under another name and denying it if questioned' cheating.

I don't remember any Posts saying "Norfleet hacked the game" but instead said "X is overpowered because Norfleet keeps beating me with it".

Again, I'm glad that some sort of resolution has been achieved. I certainly hope that illwinter is able to figure out a tougher security regimen. However, until then i'm not about to stop playing.

If anything that is all that has been done, maybe more priority given to what was already something that was being pursued (cheat prevention that is). I would hope noone would stop playing, and I would also hope that everyone won't go *** crazy every time they are getting beat in a game and start accusing people of cheating. But if you do think you are, you always have the option of either figuring it out on your own (via your own methods) or sending it to IW for a looksie.

johan osterman

August 10th, 2004, 12:49 PM

I also want to point out that if the part of Kristoffers mail that Cainhill quoted is all that Stormbinder posted, the mail has recieved some editing before being quoted. I was reading over Kristoffers shoulder when he wrote it and the original tone of the letter was not intended to be congratulatory but to say 'you were right, it is there for everyone to see, be satisfied with that and move on' in response to Stormbinder feeling that Norfleet got the Last word when the thread was locked, I think the parts of the mail posted skewes the tone of it somewhat.

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 12:54 PM

^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Vicious Love

August 10th, 2004, 01:01 PM

Not to start yet another flamelest, but I'm constantly astonished by just how ingrateful we can seem at times. Honestly, the Dom 2 team, which is just barely large enough to be called that, has done more for the fanbase than any major game corporation. Clearly, this game is a Derek Smartesque labor of love.
Honestly, before we start making demands and accusations, I suggest we contemplate how anyone could put so much effort into a game, and still take the time to pander to the fans at every other turn.

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 01:08 PM

^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

What can you expect? If someone tells me that my dog is loose then I will thank him. If he yells at the whole neighborhood, calling names, threatens with a police call, and generally makes the entire block sick of it; then acknowledgment is all he will get if even that. Nobody wants to thank an ........ (various words tested and deleted) except maybe sarcastically even if after the fact he shouts "isnt anyone going to thank me?".

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 01:11 PM

??? I was referring to Johan's post. I don't understand what your reply to my post concerns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 01:17 PM

but to my mind an explicit statement from Illwinter and/or Shrapnel acknowledging that a problem exists and stating that solutions are being investegated is not too much to ask for. Since such a statement has never been made, its understandable that some have reached the conclusion that the powers that be have their head in the sand.

Please do a search and give me some examples. What problems were not acknowledged by Illwinter? I got tired of telling people to SEARCH or READ the whole thread. Usually Kristoffer O, Johan O, or Johan K, replied quite nicely early in the thread. The fact that they stopped replying, and sometimes even stopped reading, a thread later when it got less informative and more demanding seems to be a lesson that some people never quite figured out. The beta testers tended to hang on the longest but eventually even the most diplomatic of them tends to drop off. Searching on those names and doing some reading should make it clear to most how to best get something accomplished (and how to best screw it up).

johan osterman

August 10th, 2004, 01:19 PM

... It has of course been possible to read between the lines of various occurances in the forums, the patches and elsewhere to infer that there is a real problem, and that things have been done about it, but to my mind an explicit statement from Illwinter and/or Shrapnel acknowledging that a problem exists and stating that solutions are being investegated is not too much to ask for. Since such a statement has never been made, its understandable that some have reached the conclusion that the powers that be have their head in the sand.

Im still not sure what the real problem you are refering to is, clams? or Norfleet? And how should it have been aknowledged If the problem you believe we were ignoring was Norfleet possibly cheating I don't see what you feel should have been handled differently. There was occasional instances when Norfleet triggered cheat prevention alarms. He also pulled his somewhat underhanded coup on Stormbinder. But these aren't reasons to issue an offical illwinter fatwah on him, in my mind. If you find these sorts of instances troubling or if you believed Norfleet was cheating the obvious ploy would have been avoid playing with Norfleet. If it isn't Norfleet's cheating you consider there being an official osprey behaviour on what is it, the clams? If so I still do not agree that they are overpowered, I also still do not see how it should have been handled differently. In fact the possibility of Norfleet cheating before only lends credence to our previous standpoints. And Norfleet apparantly very succesfully utilising a strategy is hardly cause for Nerfing it in the first place. Especially since other appeared to have problems reproducing it. So like an older thread suggested the problem with clamming was Norfleet, wether from extraordinary skill or cheating.

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 01:41 PM

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 01:51 PM

Gandalf:

Archeolept:^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

What can you expect? If someone tells me that my dog is loose then I will thank him. If he yells at the whole neighborhood, calling names, threatens with a police call, and generally makes the entire block sick of it; then acknowledgment is all he will get if even that. Nobody wants to thank an ........ (various words tested and deleted) except maybe sarcastically even if after the fact he shouts "isnt anyone going to thank me?".

I'm pretty sure that archeolept was referring to Stormbinder's selective editing of the message as not being a surprise at all, as he consistently interprets (and sometimes distorts) things to fit his own self-chosen messianic role.

Hmm - is there _any_ way to get the person's name to show up on the same line as the "Quote:"? Very wasteful of space as is, and also somewhat frustrating to not be able to see _whom_ was being quoted, which is the default.

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 01:56 PM

Johan:

No need to go all conspiracy minded. The simpler explanation is that Norfleet either hacked the files or used some sort of glitch he discovered, which would be tantamount to cheating. Add to the submitted files that Norfleet has, on more than one occasion I believe, triggered the cheat protections in the game, and also to my knowledge he is one of the very few if not the only forum acitve player that has done this in MP. While it is not irrefutably certain that he did cheat I think it is by far the most likely and obvious explanation.

Oh, I agree 100% that it is more _likely_ that Norfleet was cheating - Occam's Razor and all that. I simply (?) wanted to raise an alternative theory that, while not as simple, could also explain things. I'm certainly also willing to admit that I'm willing to give Norfleet more of a benefit of the doubt that Stormbinder, but that's a matter of history and personal animosity.

Both Stormbinder and I would be disqualified from an jury for this matter that didn't believe in "hang first, ask questions later". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The chalice dissappeared because the knights of the chalice came and quested for it.

So the knights might be carrying the chalice now? Interesting. Thanks.

Truper

August 10th, 2004, 02:01 PM

Please do a search and give me some examples. What problems were not acknowledged by Illwinter? I got tired of telling people to SEARCH or READ the whole thread. Usually Kristoffer O, Johan O, or Johan K, replied quite nicely early in the thread. The fact that they stopped replying, and sometimes even stopped reading, a thread later when it got less informative and more demanding seems to be a lesson that some people never quite figured out. The beta testers tended to hang on the longest but eventually even the most diplomatic of them tends to drop off. Searching on those names and doing some reading should make it clear to most how to best get something accomplished (and how to best screw it up).

Firstly, I have read the entire thread, and in fact, you'd have to go pretty far to find a single post on this entire board that I haven't read. Secondly, I am not trying to accomplish anything here, besides chastising you for being patronizing. Thirdly, if you read the now-closed original thread, Kristoffer did nothing beyond posting a list of what Norfleet had in the game in question, letting the facts speak for themselves, as it were. While I can't really blame him for that, you'll note that he did not say: "this has been hacked or otherwise manipulated, and I'm investigating how it was done and will try to come up with a method to prevent it happening again". That is what I meant by "no explicit statement".

The_Tauren13

August 10th, 2004, 02:03 PM

That isn�t the only instance of your hypocrisy, only an example.
Perhaps a better one would have been your accusing storm, or anyone for that matter, of having a vendetta.

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 02:15 PM

Truper said:
Firstly, I have read the entire thread,

Ahh you were talking about one thread? One started by Stormbinder? Or one started by Norfleet?

Truper said:
While I can't really blame him for that, you'll note that he did not say: "this has been hacked or otherwise manipulated, and I'm investigating how it was done and will try to come up with a method to prevent it happening again". That is what I meant by "no explicit statement".

There was no reply by Zen, or I? At what point should this statement have been made?

OK
Personally I have an idea on how this might have been done and it is being investigated. It is being discussed in the Dominions2 beta forum.

Esben Mose Hansen

August 10th, 2004, 02:33 PM

But something irks me, from a logical point of view. Supposedly Norfleet had _17_ dwarven hammers on turn 22 or 23. To me, that's nuts - maybe at turn 40, or 60, someone might have use for 17 hammers.

Did you look at the game? With the number of magic-Users 17 hammers are not unreasonable, especially if you're making many clams.

It seems just as likely to me, that someone figured out how to cheat and used that to frame Norfleet in so hugely blatant and obvious a way that he could start calling out, in what was for him an oddly reasonable tone of voice, "Say, partner, can you explain what I think I see here?"

Knowing the forged evidence is so damning that the jury will already have decided to hang, no matter the explanation : "I don't know how those stolen cattle got into my pen. The 17 dwarven sheep in the bedroom? No sense even talking about them."

As I say - given the animosities involved, this seems as credible as someone going so far off the deep end as to actually forge 17 dwarven hammers while cheating. (If you're capable of cheating so massively on gems - _WHY_ do you need all the hammers?)

You seem to desperately want Norfleet to be framed, which is, eh, unlikely, given the things he said. Why would he claim that he used many fetishes, when he had one? Why would he claim he used Sorceresses, when he had none? And so on, and so forth. Besides, what jury are you talking about? Not many people have been outspoken against Norfleet personally.

Esben Mose Hansen

August 10th, 2004, 02:40 PM

And once again Stormbinder displayed _his_ glaring lack of ethics / common courtesy, quoting a private email publicly, just as he used wiretaps to quote from conversations (ie, logged irc chats and publicly posted them, akin to illegally tapping a telephone line).

I never believed in hushing anything up. If somebody sent something to me, and I found reason to publish it, I would not hesitate to do so. I also routinely log IRC logs; while I have never had reason to publish such I would not hesitate to do so. To do otherwise would be dishonest and frankly --- wrong. I somebody wrote to me that he is cheating in a game, I would publish it without any hesitation.

So in conclusion, Stormbinder's only fallacy was a tendency to flame, a tendency he IMHO has out behind him. I believe in forgiveness where appropriate, and surely, Stormbinders transgression wasn't THAT bad.

Truper

August 10th, 2004, 02:47 PM

Im still not sure what the real problem you are refering to is, clams? or Norfleet? And how should it have been aknowledged If the problem you believe we were ignoring was Norfleet possibly cheating I don't see what you feel should have been handled differently.

The problem I'm referring to is cheating. I've never been involved in the clam debate on way or the other. Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that a bunch of seperate issues have become all tangled up together, and things have been further complicated by the personalities involved. The only thing I think could have been handled differently is that the fact that cheat alarms have been set off, and that improved cheat detection and the like were implemented for a *reason* could have been acknowledged before now.

There was occasional instances when Norfleet triggered cheat prevention alarms. He also pulled his somewhat underhanded coup on Stormbinder. But these aren't reasons to issue an offical illwinter fatwah on him, in my mind. If you find these sorts of instances troubling or if you believed Norfleet was cheating the obvious ploy would have been avoid playing with Norfleet.

Which is what I did. I actually think Illwinter does a great job responding to the community. I had no intention of becoming involved in this discussion at all, until I had one of my buttons pushed, and I now regret my "head in the sand" line, and apologize for using it.

If it isn't Norfleet's cheating you consider there being an official osprey behaviour on what is it, the clams? If so I still do not agree that they are overpowered, I also still do not see how it should have been handled differently. In fact the possibility of Norfleet cheating before only lends credence to our previous standpoints. And Norfleet apparantly very succesfully utilising a strategy is hardly cause for Nerfing it in the first place. Especially since other appeared to have problems reproducing it. So like an older thread suggested the problem with clamming was Norfleet, wether from extraordinary skill or cheating.

I've known for a long time, but been in no position to prove, that the clam strat was just a smokescreen for some sort of cheat or exploit.

Kudos to Illwinter for creating a game that has kept so many people so passionately involved for so long.

Mardagg

August 10th, 2004, 03:02 PM

Johan:

No need to go all conspiracy minded. The simpler explanation is that Norfleet either hacked the files or used some sort of glitch he discovered, which would be tantamount to cheating. Add to the submitted files that Norfleet has, on more than one occasion I believe, triggered the cheat protections in the game, and also to my knowledge he is one of the very few if not the only forum acitve player that has done this in MP. While it is not irrefutably certain that he did cheat I think it is by far the most likely and obvious explanation.

Oh, I agree 100% that it is more _likely_ that Norfleet was cheating - Occam's Razor and all that. I simply (?) wanted to raise an alternative theory that, while not as simple, could also explain things.

Cainehill,your alternative theory implies also that Norfleet was cheating...makes really no difference.

Lets go with some facts for the conspiracy theory(I already pointed out this):

-Norfleet did play his turns in this game,undoubtable.
-He receives nearly every turn a lot of gems out of nowhere
-He uses this to his advantage,forging lots of items,summoning lots of things,instead of telling anyone whats happening.

----> he cheated

The only difference between an unknown third party giving Norfleet the gems and him being the actual hacker is,that within the conspiracy theory we would have several cheaters.
But the fact alone,that he even at the end tried to explain his wealth by inventing things,makes the conspiracy theory VERY unlikely...and there are lots of other facts,that make it even more unlikely.

Kel

August 10th, 2004, 03:03 PM

If someone tells me that my dog is loose then I will thank him. If he yells at the whole neighborhood, calling names, threatens with a police call, and generally makes the entire block sick of it; then acknowledgment is all he will get if even that. Nobody wants to thank an ........ (various words tested and deleted) except maybe sarcastically even if after the fact he shouts "isnt anyone going to thank me?".

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. Personally, my first thought was "Hey, the boy who cried wolf all night finally found one".

Cheating is unforgivable, cheaters should be Banned on first offense and the evidence that *Kristoffer* posted is sufficient to convince me, in the absence of any contradiction, that Norf cheated or abused a bug or something of a similar and illicit nature.

That said, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Storm would do something equally as illicit to get rid of someone he didn't like and most people who have been around a while might at least understand why I might say that. I mean, they were going to have some inane deathmatch which, if Norf lost, he would have to stop playing Dom2 here entirely, for god's sake !

However, *that* said, the only impartial evidence is pointing at Norf so I can accept that. As someone said, Occam's Razor and all. It doesn't change that, to me, Storm's contribution to the community was entirely an inadvertant by-product of his otherwise antagonistic personality.

- Kel

August 10th, 2004, 03:11 PM

I never believed in hushing anything up. If somebody sent something to me, and I found reason to publish it, I would not hesitate to do so. I also routinely log IRC logs; while I have never had reason to publish such I would not hesitate to do so. To do otherwise would be dishonest and frankly --- wrong. I somebody wrote to me that he is cheating in a game, I would publish it without any hesitation.

As you have seen things are edited, or 'not said' in order to provide things in a certain light or for a certain topic/conversation. This is a universal thing, not specifically one for this particular occasion/forum.

It's called 'in bad taste' and in general, if you are going to post a private Email, you post it in it's entirety without editing out anything you'd rather not mention or feel is irrelevant for such things.

Where you might be faultlessly honest (at least in your own opinion) there are countless others who are not or are not to the degree where they would do such things.

Like I said, not in this particular instance, but Online in general.

johan osterman

August 10th, 2004, 03:28 PM

The problem I'm referring to is cheating. I've never been involved in the clam debate on way or the other. Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that a bunch of seperate issues have become all tangled up together, and things have been further complicated by the personalities involved. The only thing I think could have been handled differently is that the fact that cheat alarms have been set off, and that improved cheat detection and the like were implemented for a *reason* could have been acknowledged before now. ...

As far as I recall the cheat detection was not implemented to deal specifically with Norfleet, even if Norfleet from time to time would imply that Illwinter was out to get him. There was a little extra attention paid to Norfleet because of this and related issues, but the cheat alarms were not aimed at Norfleet, nor as far as I recall improved in response to Norfleet, they were just improved. The people that experienced the cheat warnings posted about it here, as did Norfleet himself on occasion. Norfleet claimed the cheat alarms had targeted him for offenses he hadn't commited. As far as I am concerned I do no think that there is much else that should have been done, I think it is up to the parties involved to impart any information about players being suspected for cheating. I at least certianly doesn't want here to be some sort of illwinter blacklist of players. In my opinion the only viable and workable option is for the player community to police itself in these matters.

Gandalf Parker

August 10th, 2004, 03:43 PM

Johan Osterman:
As far as I recall the cheat detection was not implemented to deal specifically with Norfleet, even if Norfleet from time to time would imply that Illwinter was out to get him. There was a little extra attention paid to Norfleet because of this and related issues, but the cheat alarms were not aimed at Norfleet, nor as far as I recall improved in response to Norfleet, they were just improved. The people that experienced the cheat warnings posted about it here

Heehee. I think I would be willing to bet that I set off the cheat alarms more than anyone. My maps with handcreated gods for strange and powerful AIs became unplayable after the cheat-check went in. I was one of the big pushers to get an "off switch" to the chear detection.

Thats besides all of the purposeful tests and things I tried. And friends of mine from alt-hacker.org
Of course my results always went to illwinter.

Esben Mose Hansen

August 10th, 2004, 04:19 PM

As you have seen things are edited, or 'not said' in order to provide things in a certain light or for a certain topic/conversation. This is a universal thing, not specifically one for this particular occasion/forum.

I have not seen this; nor am I doubting it. I just reacted to the part about it being poor manners to publish private email --- I find this perfectly acceptable, with the obvious restrictions. I could not let this pass, and wanted to support Stormbinders action (not the editing, if any, but the publishing).

It's called 'in bad taste' and in general, if you are going to post a private Email, you post it in it's entirety without editing out anything you'd rather not mention or feel is irrelevant for such things.

As long as you do not misrepresent I find some omitting fine, especially for large texts. It is a better to err toward caution in this respect though.

Where you might be faultlessly honest (at least in your own opinion) there are countless others who are not or are not to the degree where they would do such things.

Nobody is honest, not completely. I do not believe the human mind can take that kind of honesty. I am not too good about being honest, either, but I do try. I also believe that people generally are dishonest to themselves more than to other people. This is certainly true for me.

Like I said, not in this particular instance, but Online in general.

This was the very context I was aiming at. Publishing emails are mostly ok, publishing IRC logs from public channels certainly are. I will defend this any time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif (that was supposed to be a joke about honesty).

jimbo

August 10th, 2004, 05:26 PM

Coming in very late on all this but I can't resist commenting on this subject, since I suspected Norfleet of cheating from the very first game I ever played in with him, and have thought about that far more than I ever cared to.

To me, he was the very worst of cheaters - one who was good enough to win many of the games he played in without cheating, but he did it anyway. Thus, whenever you called him on it, and I did once, he was able to give very detailed and just maybe plausible explanations for how he had achieved his results.

Strangely, however, when I followed his instructions TO THE LETTER in a subsequent game as the exact same race, I didn't get anywhere near the same results. The anywhere near part is key - I can accept some level of variance but totally not at the same level...hmmmm...

Having talked some to another player in a game with Norfleet, once again he somehow managed to hit the totally perfect start position (i.e. for example, found two sage sites on the first 2 turns when he doesn't even use his god to search) and was dominant in all categories, with no one beating him in any of them. Gee, how lucky was that! And every time too!

So in the end I knew in my heart was cheating but my head said maybe I'm just missing something (and I am sure Norfleet has far more knowledge of the game than I do) and I can never prove it anyway so whats the point. I am happy someone finally did. I had decided a while ago to simply not play in any games Norfleet was in since I believed in my heart he was cheating.

From the above Posts there seems to be some people defending him and possibly even wondering if he really was a cheater. If he is innocent, then he can very easily prove it. He can give someone his step by step what to do to achieve his results, they can post it here for him, and we should all be able to play the game and have at least some us achieve a comparable result in some games.

I remain convinced that if he chose to do this either none of us would be able to achieve close to the same result (i.e. he is throwing out more BS which he can do easily since he knows the game so well) OR it would involve some "miracle occurs here" step that almost of all of us would look at and say "hey thats cheating!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And that should be the working definition of cheating for all intensive purposes.

August 10th, 2004, 06:08 PM

As long as you do not misrepresent I find some omitting fine, especially for large texts. It is a better to err toward caution in this respect though.

That is exactly the reason that the person would want to omit or otherwise out of place put a statement as if applied to a directly different statement or feeling. Like taking a quote about say "This is the best game ever!" from 'Blizzard Executives' and applying it to Dom2. While they did say that one particular statement, it wasn't in regard what it was directed or USED to express a pov at (case in point, the Email quote in question).

Like I said, I don't think it's the absolutely most horrible thing in the world to do (though others feel this is tantamount to lying) and there is even a specific Flamer (from that one webpage) regarding it. I believe that it would be better to err on the side of honesty and not distortion or even worse, misrepresentation.

This was the very context I was aiming at. Publishing emails are mostly ok, publishing IRC logs from public channels certainly are. I will defend this any time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif (that was supposed to be a joke about honesty).

Honestly! Such jokes!

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 07:52 PM

And once again Stormbinder displayed _his_ glaring lack of ethics / common courtesy, quoting a private email publicly

To the point of sending harassing private Messages, asking if I have the "guts" to say I'm sorry to Stormvomit, after having been told I didn't want private Messages from him.

you have a tendency to be hypocritical

Do I? Perhaps, but not in this case. Stormbinder has _NO_ reasonable expectation of privacy when sending Messages to me, as I had (at least a month or two ago) told him to not send me private Messages again.

He started again. I'm not quoting a confidential correspondence - I'm paraphrasing a harassing message. Perhaps you can't see the difference, though? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

And once again Stormbinder displayed _his_ glaring lack of ethics / common courtesy, quoting a private email publicly

To the point of sending harassing private Messages, asking if I have the "guts" to say I'm sorry to Stormvomit, after having been told I didn't want private Messages from him.

To Cainehill: Just to bring the matter to the conclusion between us, now that the saga with Norfleet is over, I've decided to respond to your post, instead of just ignoring you us I usually did in the past. I do it mostly to prevent you from trying to smear my name and distort the facts to the people who may not be aware of them.

I am sorry to say, but what you wrote is simply untrue.

After the Norfleet's cheating was recently exposed to the public, I send you a brief message, asking you if you are willing to admit that you was wrong, when for the past 5 monthes you repeatedly insulted me on various Boards and zealosly defended Norfleet, when I was saying that Norfeet is a cheater. I did it because I wanted the matter to be settled between us and so we both could move on, now that the trutt was in the open. The message was very brief and I didn't insult you or call you names.

You have responded with message full of insults and profanity.

As for my "harassing Messages" to you - I have no idea what you are talking about. I even specificaly checked my PM archive. I never send you a single message until yesterday (other than the one that I mentioned above), harassing or otherwise. The only exception were two game-realted PMs that I've send you 10 days ago, when you suddenly expressed desire to join my new game that I was orginising, after all your past insults and flames directed at me and protecting Norfleet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif In these 2 PMs I told you we need to discuss it in privite and I told you that I have no objection to you joining my game, if you will promise that, you'll stay polite in the game-thread to all other players, including Cohen, whom you always flame venemiosly and whom, as you told me yourself, you hate deeply. I also said that I want us to stop any future flamewars between you and me, since I have no interest in continuing them - the only person on the board that I have reason to despite and flame was Norfleet. Both Messages were *very* polite and neutral. You have promptly responed to both of them, also staying reasonably polite, and you have decided to withdraw from the game instead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

You never expressed any displeasure with these Messages in your responses, and you never asked me to not write you in the future.

Other than that, I never send any privite Messages to you, harassing or otherwise. And the only emails that we ever exchanged were about 5 monthes ago, when we both were playing in my "Fire and Ice" game. There was no future email correspondence between us either. I don't even have your email address. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

If you are going to dispute any of this Cainehill, I am going to post both my "harrasing" message and your response, for everybody to see. Than you can again whine as much as you want about my "disregard for privicy". I will not let you lie about me and about these letters, and than hide behind the figus leaf of "privicy".

Here is a bottom line for you Cainehill, just to settle this once and for all, and I am going to say it in public for everybody to see.

You have told me just a few weeks ago, when we were talking on the Dom channel, about your past. You proudly told me how much do you enjoy all sort of flamewars, and you bragged for a very long time what a great flamer you are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif You told me that in various internet forums "people are still talking about some of my flames from years ago" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif You feel so proud of it and you kept braging about it on and on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Well, here are the news for you Cainehill - I am not really interested in any type of pissing contest with you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I am sorry if it will come as a shock to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif But I have much better uses for my time than silly flamewars with you. The only person I had every reason to despite and hate, for cheating and ruining my game in which I invested so much of my time and energy is gone now, after being publicly exposed as a cheater. That's enough for me.

Unlike yourself, I am not out there looking for flames of any kind. I am here to play Dom2 game and communicate with mature and intelligent fellow Dom2 players. I am not braging what a great flamer I am, and how people talk about my flames in awe, years after I am gone. To tell you the truth, I find it very silly and childish. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif But that's my own opinion, you can do whatever you want with your time. Hoever I duobt that Moderators will look at it kindly. But don't expect me to become your flaming partner Cainehill, in your quest to become the "Flame King of Dom2 forums". I am sorry to say, but this is not going to happen. Frankly you hold no interest for me, and I simply don't care about you one way or another. And the more desperately you'll try to involve me into your flamewars, the more silly you'll look for all other forum memebers, that's all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

With best regards,
Stormbinder

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 08:20 PM

Stormbinder once again distorted:

After the Norfleet's cheating was recently exposed to the public, I send you a brief message, asking you if you are willing to admit that you was wrong, when for the past 5 monthes you repeatedly insulted me on various Boards and zealosly defended Norfleet, when I was saying that Norfeet is a cheater. I did it because I wanted the matter to be settled between us and so we both could move on, now that the trutt was in the open. The message was very brief and I didn't insult you or call you names.

Asking if I'd admit I was wrong, hmmm?

This is what you wrote, "I think you owe me a personal appology Cain. Although I don't know if you have guts to admit it."

That wasn't "asking if I'd admit I was wrong". In addition - I've had communications with you in IRC, via private Messages, and email, and I told you _NOT_ to send private communications - not emails, not private Messages via the forums.

Now then, to reiterate - I find you to be duplicitous, a stone cold liar (as documented in a thread months ago), deceitful, and in general, a whining irritating self-righteous pompous snit.

I have no interest in "flaming" you, I have no interest in hearing from you, and I generally try to only respond to you when you start distorting the truth again.

Now, to politely use your acronyms, STFU and FOAD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Demosthenes

August 10th, 2004, 08:27 PM

I have no interest in "flaming" you...

Now, to politely use your acronyms, STFU and FOAD.

Good Job. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 08:32 PM

To all fellow players who have expressed their support and appreciation:

I want to thank all of you. Your support is very important to me, and I really appreciate it. It makes me feel that the time and efforts to expose the cheater was well spend and apreciated by other Dom2 players. Thanks you guys.

As for my "editing" of the letter, as one or two people wrote here - frankly I don't think that these accusations are fair. First - I specifically said (in the part that was deleted by Zen together with letter) when I posted the letter that these are "excerpts" from the letter.

Second - I speciafically put "..." sign in few places where I cut unrelated text. I never did any other editing of course. Frankly I don't know what else could I possibly do to point out that I am posting excerpts, not the whole letter??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

The only reason why I posted that letter in the first place was in respond to Zen's post, in which he said that Illwinter doesn't know yet if Norfleet has cheated or not, that it is not obvious to them or to him, and so on...

So I posted these expects that clearly show that at least KristoferO had no doubts whatsoever that Norfleet cheated, and that he thinks that for all other players it is just as obvious as well. I think it was very appropriate response, and I don't feel that I did something terribly unethicall here.

As for my "editing" - the only parts that I skiped was personal advice from KristofferO to myself, to "not brag" about the fact that I was right about Norfleet all along, and just relax and enjoy the results of what I have done. I skiped them in my post because they were personal and absolutely irrelivent to the fact that was being discussed at that moment, whihc is Norfleet's cheating. That's all.

BTW KristofferO, I actually thought about your advice seriosly and decided to take it to the hear when I've recieved your later. As anybody can see I haven't braged in any of the threads recently. (well, to be absolutely honest I did braged a littel bit once, but very shortly and two days ago, before that letter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif)

Instead I was staying calm and positive after Norfleet was finally busted, just as I intend to do in the future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And I wanted to thank KristofferO for his advice, because he was right of course. I also hope Kristoffer doesn't mind me posting these few expects from his latter, where he said that it is clear to Illwinter and should be clear to all players that the norfleet have cheated. Since then, both Jossef and KrisO have posted here on this thread saying just that, so it is not a question for anybody anymore.

Again, my deep thanks to everybody who expresed their suppost to me and for their kind words, in this thread and in others.

Feeling warn and cozy inside,
Stormbinder

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 09:23 PM

All right Cain, I see you obviosuly too addicted to your flames, and just can not stop it even if it is in your best interest. You have been warned. Here are your letter to me from yesterday:

I owe you an apology? Whatever for? Because I'm sorry that you're a long winded whining brat?

FOAD

As I wrote, I didn't call you names or insult you in my letter. And as we all know, I was pointing to the fact that you was the most rabid and zealous defender of Norfleet against acusations of him cheating. (and you kee doing so even now, alone on entire Boards, just to have lame excuse to flame me a bit more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). I thought now you could just admit that he was a cheater and we can bury the axe between us and move on. Obviosuly I was wrong, you like flames too much. I probably should however follow KrisO advice in this one as well, and left the teasing "guts" part out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But your response that I just posted was nothing but insults and profanity. Or do you think that because you use short FOAD it makes is somehow more polite?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

In addition - I've had communications with you in IRC, via private Messages,

Lies. You didn't have any privite Messages with me at all, other than these few that I mentioned. If you do - post them.

and email,

Lies. You didn't have any emails communication with me at all, after the Fire and Ice game message 5 monthes ago, as I wrote above. If you do - post them.

and I told you _NOT_ to send private communications - not emails, not private Messages via the forums.

Lies. You never told me anything like that, because I didn't send you any Messages or emails, other than those mentioned above. So you have no reason to tell me such nonsense. If you did - post it.

Now then, to reiterate - I find you to be duplicitous, a stone cold liar (as documented in a thread months ago), deceitful, and in general, a whining irritating self-righteous pompous snit.

Thanks for demostrating once again to all of us that all your admitions to me, about you "being the most famous internet flamer on various forums" were nothing but true. However as I said I am not going to respond to you on your level, since it would diminish me and would be just future waste of my time. Sorry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Now, to politely use your acronyms, STFU and FOAD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

LOL. You lie even in such small things Cain, it's quite funny.

I never used FOAD acronyms, it just another lie of yours. If you have any proof or link that I did - post it.

I did use STFU acronym once, 5 months ago, in the IRC channel vs Norfleet, after his "alter" ego in our game was exposed, and he kept interupting our discussion. I used it once, and I never used it agaon. You, however, keep using it all the time, while marking it as "my acronym". Very silly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I have no interest in "flaming" you, I have no interest in hearing from you

Excellent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Mark these words of you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif I have no interest in flaming you and hearing from you either. So from now on we are just going to ignore each other.

This board has seen enough flamewars lately. Everybody is sick and tired of them. Like I said, I am not going to particiapte in any silly flamewars with you in the future, and expect you to do the same to me. Any future insults and profanity that I hear from you, toward me or toward somebody esle, will be promptly reported to moderator. Feel free to do the same with me.

I would like to ask Zen to please mark this converstaion. And if any of us in the future will break this promise and will start flaming another on this Boards again, Zen would know who would be the guity party and act accordingly.

God knows, there have been enough of flamewars recently on this board. A lot of them were directed or involving Norfleet, who, as Gendalf wrote here, generated more deleted Posts than anybody else on this forum, both himself and directed at him. Now that Norf is gone, let us all do our best to keep this forum flame free in the future, and open to the intersting and repectful Dom2 discussions.

I think each and every player here would appreciate it, as well as Moderators.

Regards,
Stormbinder

johan osterman

August 10th, 2004, 09:33 PM

...
Since then, both Jossef and KrisO have posted here on this thread saying just that, so it is not a question for anybody anymore.

...
Stormbinder

Jossef?

archaeolept

August 10th, 2004, 09:37 PM

lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

storm always has some creative spelling. sometimes its even almost impossible to figure him out on IRC. Just be thankful he actually gave you a real name, johan. :P

of course, when i hear "jossef" I think either of goebbels or of comrade stalin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 09:44 PM

Jossef?

ROFL! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I am sorry. Of course I mean Sir Johan Osterman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
My sincire appologies Johan. I should know how to type your name by now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Your big greeny head has been uttering words of wisdom so often in the past, resolving long Lasting disputes regarding Dom2 inner secrets. Sorry about mistype. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 09:49 PM

lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

storm always has some creative spelling. :P

*sigh*

Sad but true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif
I keep trying to invent some new words to add to the standart english vocabulary. Alas, so far Webster has been rejecting all my suggestions... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

of course, when i hear "jossef" I think either of goebbels or of comrade stalin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

...or of Bible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cainehill

August 10th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Just to point out, Stormie, I didn't "promise" not to flame you. And funny how it's "profanity" when I use an acronym with a prominent 4 letter word, but apparently isn't when you do the same, including the same 4 letter word's initial?

And I didn't flame you - I stated my opinion of you. And it stands, given that you lied, and lied, and, "you lied like a salesman, selling flies" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif with all your statements about my lying, etc.

And, sweetcheeks? Again - saying I have no interest in flaming you isn't promising that I won't. And if you keep misrepresenting things, I may. ( Then again, at the moment you have a posse of fanboys who won't be swayed from thinking you're the bees knees, which suits your messiah complex just fine. )

Zapmeister

August 10th, 2004, 10:59 PM

And I didn't flame you - I stated my opinion of you.

Hmm. In this context, www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) defines a "flame" as "an insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network". It's a bit hard to see how stating your opinion of Stormbinder with the words "whining irritating self-righteous pompous snit" falls outside that definition.

Then again, at the moment you have a posse of fanboys who won't be swayed from thinking you're the bees knees

And well-deserved adulation it is, too. I know that I could never have survived the stream of abuse emanating from Norfleet's supporters long enough to produce the goods. Again, well done Stormbinder - we are all in your debt.

Demosthenes

August 10th, 2004, 11:16 PM

mmmmmm'kay

Let's everybody just take a deep breath.

This thread has served its purpose which was to express concern and curiosity over Stormbinder's findings, the thread and its closure, and what had really happened.

This back and forth is only enjoyable for you two and is certainly not garnering any further support to either of your "sides". You are just making yourselves and each other look petulant and silly.

On a slightly lighter note,

I certainly hope that when further information regarding the events of the Last week becomes understood and 'cleared' for public consumption, that it will be disseminated swiftly to the forum.

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 11:22 PM

And I didn't flame you - I stated my opinion of you. And it stands, given that you lied, and lied, and, "you lied like a salesman, selling flies" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif with all your statements about my lying, etc.

In other words you can't post any proof of anything you just said here about me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif No surprise, since both you and me knows very well that I never harrased you, I never send you any emails or PM Messages other than few I listed above, you never asked me not to send Messages to you (just because I didn't ) and I never used mine acronym FOAD, unlike yourself who keep using it again and again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You, however, insulted my in few dozens of your Posts just during Last few days.

But I'll let it lay, since as I said I have no interest in flamewars with you, so you could display your "famous" flame skills that you braged so much about, and start poisoning athmospheres this board just when it become clearer, with flamewars you love so much.

Just keep in mind, that like I said, in the future any profanity, insults or flames from you directed at me or any other player will be promptly reported to Moderators. You are not going to turn this forum into another medium of yours, where "people will be talking about your flames years after you are gone", as in your other forums, according to you. Don't even try.

Stormbinder

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 11:31 PM

mmmmmm'kay

Let's everybody just take a deep breath.

This thread has served its purpose which was to express concern and curiosity over Stormbinder's findings, the thread and its closure, and what had really happened.

You are absolutely right. I just simply wanted to make sure that there will be no future flamewars between me and even most zealous and loyal of Norfleet supporters, now that he is exposed and gone. That's the only reason why I have responded to Cain here, after ignoring dozens of his insults, and I am done with this for now and for the future.

Time to move on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Regards,
Stormbinder

Stormbinder

August 10th, 2004, 11:54 PM

I certainly hope that when further information regarding the events of the Last week becomes understood and 'cleared' for public consumption, that it will be disseminated swiftly to the forum.

Back to the original topic. I also hope that there will be soon more information about the nature of Norfleet's cheating, and what's more importent - some prompt fix to close that loophole. Until it is fixed, the is no quarantee that it'll not be used again(or already being used) in other MP Dom2 games, by Norfleet in disguise or anybody else, to whom he may give his "hack". It can be especially devastating to such a long and time intesive game as Dom 2, because if people feel that thay maybe wasting several days of their time because they are playing against blatant cheater, it can have sad consequences to the community (just look at Pirathium here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

However Ilwinter have my complete trust that they will find this loophole and fix it.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Kel

August 10th, 2004, 11:56 PM

And well-deserved adulation it is, too. I know that I could never have survived the stream of abuse emanating from Norfleet's supporters long enough to produce the goods.

Adulation ? lol. How utterly, utterly, completely nauseating.

I'm sorry, a lot of the abuse was self inflicted, well deserved, existed before Norfleet, had nothing to do with Norfleet and will continue to exist long after Norfleet.

I have never said this before but in an offhand way, I kind of hope Caine does start a flame war, not because I like to see flame wars but shet, some kind of counter-balance...I mean, some people really need a triple strength reality check, imo...

- Kel

Zapmeister

August 11th, 2004, 12:05 AM

Adulation ? lol. How utterly, utterly, completely nauseating.

OK, perhaps a bit strong. I was trying to make the point that Caine's use of the pejorative "fanboy" doesn't make appreciation for Stombinder's efforts a negative thing.

The_Tauren13

August 11th, 2004, 12:07 AM

lol this post has become very amusing lately... so many bickering kids

Karacan

August 11th, 2004, 12:56 AM

I just simply wanted to make sure that there will be no future flamewars between me and even most zealous and loyal of Norfleet supporters.[...] That's the only reason why I have responded to Cain here[...] and I am done with this for now and for the future.
Time to move on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Then please do so. Stop it. Ignore him. Don't answer his Posts. If I hear one more of your oscar speeches, I'll go rampage.
/polite rant

Didn't...want...to...reply.......can't...keep....e yes...off...thread.......made...me....say....it... .

Don't bother to reply. Please.

Stormbinder

August 11th, 2004, 02:11 AM

Didn't...want...to...reply.......can't...keep....e yes...off...thread.......made...me....say....it... .

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Agrajag

August 11th, 2004, 04:22 AM

I wonder if Cainehill was named UN or UN202 or some other change on UN, since he is the biggest flamer I know from another board... (NOT that Im implying that Cainehill is a flamer, this is only in regards to stormbinder's "they rememeber my flames for years in other Boards" accusation)

Vicious Love

August 11th, 2004, 09:08 AM

You realize what this means, don't you? Any one of us could be Norfleet.

Leif_-

August 11th, 2004, 09:18 AM

You realize what this means, don't you? Any one of us could be Norfleet.

I'm Spartacus!

Sheap

August 11th, 2004, 03:50 PM

No... *I'M* Spartacus!

Vicious Love

August 11th, 2004, 05:50 PM

I'm Spartacus!

Heh. I was actually going to end my post with that line. I'd already typed out "I'm Spart" when I thought better of it.

Leif_-

August 11th, 2004, 06:01 PM

Heh. I was actually going to end my post with that line. I'd already typed out "I'm Spart" when I thought better of it.

Oh, but nobody would have believed you - you're clearly a Brian, not a Spartacus.

Cheezeninja

August 11th, 2004, 07:57 PM

Well. Well indeed.
I've been gone for the Last few days and i come back and we have a huge rigamahoopshamwamdingle. Of course i can't resist the urge to add my two cents, although i'll try my best to remain ...well... i suppose i'll try to remain honest to myself.

On Norfleets cheating:
Between Norfleets early defensive bs, the factual numbers, and Norfleets hasty exit, the case seems pretty clear at this point. Norfleet was cheating. Obviously its not the end of the world, and while its important to find out how he did it so it could be fixed, i dont think it necessarily follows that he should be Banned forever. I liked Norfleet. Despite his arrogance he could be quite funny, and helpful as well, and he would obviously know more about fixing these cheats/glitches than most others. While most games and forums might ban a player for his first infraction, i'd think that most people would agree that both this game and this forum are like no other. I could definetly see conditional parole for Norfleet were he to help fix whatever glitch or weakness he is exploiting. Obviously many people here would no longer want him in their games, and its equally obvious many people are going to be watching their games like a hawk in an effort to prevent any future cheating.

On the subject of Stormbinder:
Yes, you were right, we all know it, even if some of us refuse to admit it. Norfleet cheated, and you proved it and got one up on him. You came off very unctous and lowball doing it though. Now im not trying to insult you, though i understand how it could be taken as such... but you could have gone about this in an entirely different way. I could practically hear the snickers you must have been holding back in both your original post and your post with the actual numbers, you were OBVIOUSLY very happy to be destroying Norfleet on this forum, and that bothered me nearly as much as Norfleets cheating. In the end the cold hard truth is that you did this community a great service in exposing a cheater who was willing to exploit the game and others so he could lord it over us all, and i thank you for it.... But dont expect me to have to like you for it.

On the subject of the powers that be:
I have on occasion been given to think that sometimes certain Moderators come off as arrogant and dissmisive to those that havn't been around as long as they have, but on the whole i find all the seniority around here to be helpful, polite, and fairly open minded about any issues that come up. I can see why they locked the original post about the cheating, but im not sure i agree with it... Locking a corpse in a closet just means its going to stink that much more when it finally does come out in the open, and with an issue that is as serious as this and strikes so deeply as this issue does.... some negativity and displeasure is bound to be voiced. And i dont believe that should be a problem. It will be a sad state of affairs when we are no longer allowed to vocally make our displeasure known about something... attempting to lock down threads about an issue as important to MP games as cheating is just going to start ugly talk of censorship on top of the whole cheating issue. All in all, kudo's to you for paying attention and lavishing your time on this wonderful game.

August 11th, 2004, 08:47 PM

On the subject of the powers that be:
I have on occasion been given to think that sometimes certain Moderators come off as arrogant and dissmisive to those that havn't been around as long as they have, but on the whole i find all the seniority around here to be helpful, polite, and fairly open minded about any issues that come up. I can see why they locked the original post about the cheating, but im not sure i agree with it... Locking a corpse in a closet just means its going to stink that much more when it finally does come out in the open, and with an issue that is as serious as this and strikes so deeply as this issue does.... some negativity and displeasure is bound to be voiced. And i dont believe that should be a problem. It will be a sad state of affairs when we are no longer allowed to vocally make our displeasure known about something... attempting to lock down threads about an issue as important to MP games as cheating is just going to start ugly talk of censorship on top of the whole cheating issue. All in all, kudo's to you for paying attention and lavishing your time on this wonderful game.

I knew exactly what was going to happen. At the point of the topic change it no longer was about cheating, but about Stormbinder feeling he could without recourse say whatever he'd like.

Now as I said before, talking about the cheating, or how you think it's wrong. Turning an entire thread into a huge flamefest that must be deleted after it's run it's course so that newbies don't feel the official forum and posters drag the community through the dirt as often as possible is not my favored method of moderation.

Storm was only allowed to keep that post up as long as it maintained some form of dignity, and it did not when he broke his word to me, so it was closed. This thread has been kept relatively free of such things so it is in no danger of any sort of action while allowing people to speak their feelings on the subject without resorting to such low behavior. That being said, I expected it to turn in such a diretion knowing what we know about the animosity between Stormbinder/Norfleet and their own unique personality. Which is exactly why my first post in this thread is worded and stated in such a way as to keep things cordial.

Either way, you are encouraged to have your own opinion of the 'powers that be' as far as this forum. I won't let any other moderator take the blame of the strictures I have taken while I have been here relatively alone.

Norfleet

August 11th, 2004, 09:32 PM

Stormbinder

August 11th, 2004, 10:51 PM

On Norfleets cheating:
Between Norfleets early defensive bs, the factual numbers, and Norfleets hasty exit, the case seems pretty clear at this point.

My exit hasn't been THAT hasty. I'm still around to offload of all of my prior responsibilities before I depart prior to Monday, as I am leaving the country on business I had been planning for some time, but had been putting off. Now I don't have a reason for it, so I booked the ticket yesterday. As for "Defensive Early BS", yes, I admit it, I lied. The actual truth was not something that can be believed in the climate, circumstances, and resultant brouhaha, so like I said, I won't waste my time looking like I'm trying to come up with an excuse, which would not have convinced enough people anyway. I've shared it with only a small handful of people I considered to be friends, and requested that they not share this for their own sake, so as not to come off as an apologist and damage their own reputations further. I won't ask anyone to take sides. I'll just take my lumps and leave, as I was really looking for a way out for at least a month now, as Zen can testify to. Ultimately, I'm as fed up by this as you all are, and as people have graciously offered to take the now onerous and distasteful chores off my hands, I can wash them of this entire affair. Good bye, and good riddance.

If you cut though norf's vague bs, it sounds to me that Norfeet is hinting, that he has shared the secret of his cheats with few of his "trusted friends", and ask them not to tell it to anybody else. Perhaps he thinks that this would make a nice parting gift from him to the Dom2 community, as a payback for exposing his cheats and forcing him to quit.

I have no idea if it is turth or not, and obviously Norf can very well be lieing about it just as he lied about other things. He might as well keep his cheats to himself and use them under another alies of his in his future Dom2 games, that he will keep playing. Or he might just lie about his "parting gift" to his friends, to make us all suspicios toward each other, and poison atmosphere in Dom2 community some more. *Shrug* It is impossible to determine.

Be it as it may, the scenario that he is describing was always a possibility, of course. More reasons to find and quickly fix whatever loophole he was using to hack Dom2 files. Personally I trust Illwinter and I believe they will find and close whatever security hole he had been using.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Demosthenes

August 11th, 2004, 11:42 PM

Stormbinder

August 11th, 2004, 11:51 PM

... it sounds to me that Norfeet is hinting, that he has shared the secret of his cheats with few of his "trusted friends", and ask them not to tell it to anybody else. Perhaps he thinks that this would make a nice parting gift from him to the Dom2 community, as a payback for exposing his cheats and forcing him to quit.

Put... the ball... down!

You were the Last person who should have responded to that.

Know when to quit man.

What are you talking about Demosthenes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif If you believe that norfleet have cheated and I think you have said it yourself in your earlier Posts (and which is now confirmed by developers), than how else can you possibly read his post? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif I suggest you reread his post again and think about it for a minute.

And if it is so, than why should I not be allowed to point that out and need to wait for somebody else to say it??? Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense.

Demosthenes

August 12th, 2004, 12:03 AM

Look man evyryone knows he cheated. It's not debateable. He admits it. You succeeded.

He's not expressing ill will toward the community. There's no conspiracy.

Let it go.

Zapmeister

August 12th, 2004, 12:06 AM

He's not expressing ill will toward the community. There's no conspiracy.

Let it go.

Try as I might, I just couldn't let that go.
"Goodbye and good riddance" is ill will in any language.

Reverend Zombie

August 12th, 2004, 12:24 AM

He's not expressing ill will toward the community. There's no conspiracy.

Let it go.

Try as I might, I just couldn't let that go.
"Goodbye and good riddance" is ill will in any language.

Aww come on. It could be crankiness, exasperation or any number of things instead.

Stormbinder

August 12th, 2004, 12:27 AM

Look man evyryone knows he cheated. It's not debateable. He admits it. You succeeded.

He's not expressing ill will toward the community. There's no conspiracy.

So you are saying his post about his "trusted friends" was pure bull****? As I said myself, it is always a possibility. It may be even likely. But it is also quite possible than it was not. How can you possibly be so sure?

Besides his post did not sound as if he has "no ill will toward community", as you put it. On the opposite, parts like "I'll just take my lumps and leave", "Good bye, and good riddance" and others sound as if he is bitter. As I suggested, please reread his post and think about it before continuing to argue.

Neither you, me, or anybody else have any way of knowing if it is true or not. It may very well be pure bullsit on his part. But I don't think that we should hide our heads in the sand, and hope for the best.

And please, stop saying "let it go" for god's sake. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif I already did. At this point I could not care less about Norfleet, he is busted and gone. My only concern is the security of the game, as I made clear in this post and in my other Posts. So naturally when Norf reappers and tell us that he have shared his "secret" with few of his "trusted friends", and tells them not to tell it to anybody else, while saying "Good riddance" to Dom2 community, it does not sound very comfortable, don't you agree?

The_Tauren13

August 12th, 2004, 12:58 AM

Zapmeister

August 12th, 2004, 01:02 AM

actually, all he said was that he only told his side of the story to a few people. and now, thanks to your jumping all over that little post of his, he certainly isnt going to tell the rest of us his most likely interesting but truthless story.

I think that was certain all along. The only point of implying the existence of an explanation was to effectively protest his innocence. No need to actually create a story and share it with anybody.

Norfleet

August 12th, 2004, 01:22 AM

actually, all he said was that he only told his side of the story to a few people. and now, thanks to your jumping all over that little post of his, he certainly isnt going to tell the rest of us his most likely interesting but truthless story.

Yeah, yeah, because I do *SO* value your support. Who the heck are you? I don't know you! Alas, the story is far less interesting, and whether it is truthless or not, I'm not going to throw to you jackals to pick at. And jumping or not, I rather expected somebody would want to jump on anything I write. Of course, you're not my friend. You're not demonstrating you ARE my friend.

"Good bye, and good riddance" and others sound as if he is bitter. As I suggested, please reread his post and think about it before continuing to argue.

Storm, I have *ALWAYS* been bitter. You, of all people, should know that. I have been actively bitter for longer than you have been alive. At this point, I am sufficiently bitter as to be considered inedible.

Aww come on. It could be crankiness, exasperation or any number of things instead.

Hammer, nail, head. This is precisely the kind of thing I'm not going to miss. Good riddance indeed. If I wanted to express more ill-will, I'd have thought of more colorful way to curse you, like "May the offspring of a thousand fleas infest your camels.". Actually, that's a pretty good idea, now that I think of it. What do you think, Zombie, should I wish for some more ill-will on people?

Stormbinder

August 12th, 2004, 01:26 AM

actually, all he said was that he only told his side of the story to a few people. and now, thanks to your jumping all over that little post of his, he certainly isnt going to tell the rest of us his most likely interesting but truthless story.

LOL. He specificaly said in his post that he is not going to share his "story" with us, and will prohibit his "friends" from doing so. But if you really believe it exist, you can always send him PM and ask him to tell it to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

August 12th, 2004, 02:08 AM

Alright I think there has been enough petty childishness (emphasis on petty).

If I have to hear about Zapmeisters proclaiming adulation for the anti-Norfleet Jerry Falwell Church of Stormbinder, Stormbinder's obvious not-enough-attention-as-a-child complex or Cainehill's not-so-teen angst for purely the sake of each of them instead of for any good reason, I'll have to vomit.

Norfleet, do us a favor and stop dragging your corpse up off the ground after proclaiming yourself DOA. One or the other please, rest in peace or ooze from the grave to haunt your enemies with a vengance I don't really care which at this point, but this dying down, then rekindling is getting annoying and for me, tiring.

Zapmeister

August 12th, 2004, 02:15 AM

If I have to hear about Zapmeisters proclaiming adulation for the anti-Norfleet Jerry Falwell Church of Stormbinder

C'mon Zen, I'm not that bad.

August 12th, 2004, 02:18 AM

C'mon Zen, I'm not that bad.

Then where is my $150.00 donation?! Heavenly Flames were supposed to cure me of baldness and halitosis. Huh?! By Rickirack I'll give you a good sheared Sheap for peace of mind! Where is the salvation!

Or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Sheap

August 12th, 2004, 02:26 AM

Zen I think you are a little confused. After shearing, you keep the sheap, but give the wool away.

August 12th, 2004, 02:34 AM

That's true. I was caught in the holy revelation of pure truth and divinity of purpose there for a moment and lost my head. I would never give away my dancing, prancing, M-80, hung like a donkey, ewe-gigalo, fancyboy Sheap! Back you Zealots, to the Scientoligists with you!

archaeolept

August 12th, 2004, 03:12 AM

At this point, I am sufficiently bitter as to be considered inedible.

lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

LintMan

August 12th, 2004, 04:10 AM

Wow, I'm gone from the forum for a few days playing Doom 3, and all hell breaks loose!

I don't condone cheating in MP (and I can't think of any reasonable/likely alternate explanation), but I still feel obligated to say thanks to Norfleet for his very many helpful Posts here on this forum, particularly those in response to my own (sometimes lengthy) series of detailed questions, from which I've learned a lot about the game.

Mark the Merciful

August 12th, 2004, 06:44 AM

Cheezeninja wrote:

Well. Well indeed.
I've been gone for the Last few days and i come back and we have a huge rigamahoopshamwamdingle. Of course i can't resist the urge to add my two cents, although i'll try my best to remain ...well... i suppose i'll try to remain honest to myself.

On Norfleets cheating:
Between Norfleets early defensive bs, the factual numbers, and Norfleets hasty exit, the case seems pretty clear at this point. Norfleet was cheating. Obviously its not the end of the world, and while its important to find out how he did it so it could be fixed, i dont think it necessarily follows that he should be Banned forever. I liked Norfleet. Despite his arrogance he could be quite funny, and helpful as well, and he would obviously know more about fixing these cheats/glitches than most others. While most games and forums might ban a player for his first infraction, i'd think that most people would agree that both this game and this forum are like no other. I could definetly see conditional parole for Norfleet were he to help fix whatever glitch or weakness he is exploiting. Obviously many people here would no longer want him in their games, and its equally obvious many people are going to be watching their games like a hawk in an effort to prevent any future cheating.

On the subject of Stormbinder:
Yes, you were right, we all know it, even if some of us refuse to admit it. Norfleet cheated, and you proved it and got one up on him. You came off very unctous and lowball doing it though. Now im not trying to insult you, though i understand how it could be taken as such... but you could have gone about this in an entirely different way. I could practically hear the snickers you must have been holding back in both your original post and your post with the actual numbers, you were OBVIOUSLY very happy to be destroying Norfleet on this forum, and that bothered me nearly as much as Norfleets cheating. In the end the cold hard truth is that you did this community a great service in exposing a cheater who was willing to exploit the game and others so he could lord it over us all, and i thank you for it.... But dont expect me to have to like you for it.

On the subject of the powers that be:
I have on occasion been given to think that sometimes certain Moderators come off as arrogant and dissmisive to those that havn't been around as long as they have, but on the whole i find all the seniority around here to be helpful, polite, and fairly open minded about any issues that come up. I can see why they locked the original post about the cheating, but im not sure i agree with it... Locking a corpse in a closet just means its going to stink that much more when it finally does come out in the open, and with an issue that is as serious as this and strikes so deeply as this issue does.... some negativity and displeasure is bound to be voiced. And i dont believe that should be a problem. It will be a sad state of affairs when we are no longer allowed to vocally make our displeasure known about something... attempting to lock down threads about an issue as important to MP games as cheating is just going to start ugly talk of censorship on top of the whole cheating issue. All in all, kudo's to you for paying attention and lavishing your time on this wonderful game.

I've been following this story with morbid interest, but haven't posted because I've been unable to articulate exactly how I feel about all this. I agree with everything Cheeze wrote, except the "arrogant" bit. I think Zen has made the right decisions in a difficult situation, and I thank him for the effort he's put in to the forum. Not sure what's with the drug-crazed stream of consciousness stuff a couple of Posts ago though. Is the strain finally telling?

Esben Mose Hansen

August 12th, 2004, 07:52 AM

Gandalf Parker

August 12th, 2004, 10:27 AM

actually, all he said was that he only told his side of the story to a few people. and now, thanks to your jumping all over that little post of his, he certainly isnt going to tell the rest of us his most likely interesting but truthless story.

Yes it would appear that luckily he is not angry at the entire Dom2 community or he would publicly tell how to do what he did. The hex location to change in a file can always be found, even if encrypted, by hit-and-miss trial and error. But once found, if its released then its fairly simple. If any other method was used, then even simpler. So the most evil thing he could do would be to post a "haha this is how its done"

Gandalf Parker

August 12th, 2004, 10:48 AM

I've been following this story with morbid interest, but haven't posted because I've been unable to articulate exactly how I feel about all this. I agree with everything Cheeze wrote, except the "arrogant" bit. I think Zen has made the right decisions in a difficult situation, and I thank him for the effort he's put in to the forum. Not sure what's with the drug-crazed stream of consciousness stuff a couple of Posts ago though. Is the strain finally telling?

Im with you all the way. And Zen has made acceptable decisions as far as Ive seen. (especially since Im the first line person who would be backing them out of the system if they werent).

Taqwus

August 12th, 2004, 12:37 PM

Odd. I would have thought that a PBEM TBS server-client game design would follow one oft-espoused rule: Never trust the client. If one does follow that, it should be impossible for a client to cheat outside of having a more efficient or useable interface -- and interface modifications are perhaps less unfair dangerous in a PBEM TBS than in practically any other genre.

You don't let a client program directly modify the server's concept of state, such as how much resources a side has available. The client will modify its local perception of state (e.g. adjusting gem quantities during alchemy) but the modifications need to be noted and checked for legality.

You don't let a client program have more information than it should. MP FPSes may often break this, I suspect, and let the clients do LOS testing for computation cost reasons, but they really shouldn't in theory.

You do let a client program submit instructions (proposed modifications to state, essentially) but need to check for bogosity. Having the client record "have this commander with a dwarven hammer forge this item" is very different from having the client itself define the new gem and item inventories.

I'm reminded of Netrek, which had an open client architecture with known protocols and open sources but a two-pronged approach to client security --

(a) 'Blessed' clients tested with cryptography-based challenges, where keys were supplied to certain trusted people who compiled with 'em. Could probably still be bypassed with a proxy-type architecture in which an unblessed client would forward challenge/response to/from a 'blessed' client, although this would be much harder if the challenge/response sequence modified local game state in an obscure but predictable way e.g. depended on and itself changed the state of a PRNG such that the 'unblessed' client would somehow get out of sync in a detectable fashion. Eh.

(b) More importantly, regardless of whether or not the client passes the periodic RSA-based server/response, the server tracks game state and enforces rules. Ships controlled by rogue clients still can't be invulnerable, can't gain energy or repair faster than they should, don't get told the locations or velocities of cloaked ships, don't get told how many armies enemy ships are carrying, can't recharge their phasers any faster, can't fire their torpedoes more often, can't teleport, and so forth, because the server doesn't trust the client. A rogue client -can- have illegal interface mods, such as having turn keys to allow simultaneously changing direction while aiming somewhere else, or automatically correctly leading a target assuming known locations and known, constant velocities (subject to server-imposed torpedo wobble), or even indicating which incoming enemy torpedoes seem likely to hit unless the user alters his velocity vector, but that's much more difficult to control because it doesn't require that the server send or accept anything unusual.

In a game like Dom II, unusual / illegal interface mods wouldn't seem to be a huge potential problem; I could see attempts to set tax policy more efficiently (applying a rule system to each of scores of provinces every turn, say) without user tedium, or archiving previous battle replays for the intelligence value... but it would actually be pretty impressive if somebody managed to write these. Simply editing the gem or item treasury shouldn't be possible, however, without a server detecting that the values aren't in sync.

A host could still cheat, but a sufficiently paranoid system could be set up to defeat cruder attempts like a host modifying data after receiving it, or reading turn files before submitting his own; it would increase the number of Messages -- e.g. players submit files encrypted with single-use keys (key pairs, preferably), all encrypted files duplicated at a second host site (a public key algorithm would allow verification of authorship), both hosts process the same files using the same PRNGs and math, both hopefully coming up with consistent results which could be reasonably checked using message-digest algorithms without revealing unencrypted state to all players. Either host in such a system could potentially learn full game state, but only after their turns were submitted, and it would require conspiracy or freakish luck for a host to be able to edit the turn files. Separate host-controlled game state files could be similarly signed/encrypted using keys submitted by all the players, to reduce the probability of the host being able to independently modify or read that file as well. Feh.

But simply a better architecture with regards to not trusting the client would allow better security with respect to the non-host players without too much fuss over message exchange, and likely without damaging gameplay (it's not like it's an FPS requiring blazing-fast processing coupled with minimal bandwidth and detailed rendering).

johan osterman

August 12th, 2004, 01:12 PM

Heironeous

August 12th, 2004, 01:16 PM

Odd. I would have thought that a PBEM TBS server-client game design would follow one oft-espoused rule: Never trust the client.

Absolutely. This is especially true for a turn-based game, where effectively all you are doing is using the client to fill out an orders sheet which is then processed by the server.

I'm reminded of Netrek, which had an open client architecture with known protocols and open sources but a two-pronged approach to client security

Lol. I ran a netrek server when I was starting university (yes, I'm old http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif). The client in that case had to handle things like movement plotting and aiming, which allowed for some fairly major abuse of the client by C-savvy Users (e.g. phasers that didn't need to be aimed with the mouse).

However, I don't see any of these issues with Dom 2. The server should be controlling all amounts/locations/etc, and the client simply indicates how it wants to manipulate these resources. The server then checks the legality of each order issued by the client. Seems simple enough...

Sheap

August 12th, 2004, 01:45 PM

Gandalf Parker

August 12th, 2004, 01:53 PM

So the most evil thing he could do would be to post a "haha this is how its done"

Actually that would be the best thing he could do. If he did that Illwinter could fix it easily right away and put it in the next patch most likely. As it is it will be more work for IW and will probably take longer.

Im far more hacker than I am programmer and I dont agree with that view. The chances are very slim that such a post would be something that is easier to fix than it is to do. And telling how it could be done makes it far too easy to use the same steps to do something slightly different to bypass the fix. How its done is not all that necessary for fixing it anyway since we do know what to look for.

Now, sending an email to info over at the illwinter site saying how he did it (as most hackers would do) would be helpful, but posting it here would not be IMHO

Esben Mose Hansen

August 12th, 2004, 02:06 PM

In hindsight it is easy to say that security should have been handled differently. But dominions was not made in an orderly and well planned fashion, but was built up from humble beginnings to greater and greater complexity. Furthermore JK learned much of the required programming while working on the game. Had the game been made by persons familiar with these sort of security issues at the outset things might have been different, but it wasn't.

Exactly. We all had to learn, and most of us the hard way. But there is always dom3, rift? I can assure you one buyer, at least http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif (provided you provide a linux Version)

I can't tell you how happy I am you're reading this. You are brilliant in game design, which is the hard part. Annoying details such as this are easily overcome if you know the how. You are welcome to ask me anytime, BTW. Thank you again for the game, and thank you for providing the linux Version!

Gandalf Parker

August 12th, 2004, 03:20 PM

You don't let a client program directly modify the server's concept of state, such as how much resources a side has available. The client will modify its local perception of state (e.g. adjusting gem quantities during alchemy) but the modifications need to be noted and checked for legality.

What was apparently done was that the turn file was edited to have extra gems. Those gems had to be converted to something else or used in forge commands or turned into gold and used to make troops in that same turn before turning in a 2h. The game does have checks for such things but the variations make for alot of "thinking" needed by the game. The game sent him a turn with XX gems in each Category, and received back a 2h file of commands to do things. To take into account the original amounts, plus new gem income, plus all of the things that can be done with it in order to decide "oops too much" is pretty hairy. Especially when you try to reverse logic the troop queue to the gold to the fire gems made from the astral gems which were made from the death gems just as one example. NOT IMPOSSIBLE before someone jumps my case about it, just hairy and time consuming to get it put in. I didnt want to get into the "method of hack equals difficult to track" how-to here.

You do let a client program submit instructions (proposed modifications to state, essentially) but need to check for bogosity. Having the client record "have this commander with a dwarven hammer forge this item" is very different from having the client itself define the new gem and item inventories.

Hmmm is that what it does now? The pros and cons of a clearer "log of commands given" is being discussed as something which has some advantages although of course some disadvantages also. As usual, the programmers in the forum have a pretty cler view of what can be done. Its great to see these discussions.

A host could still cheat, but a sufficiently paranoid system could be set up to defeat cruder attempts like a host modifying data after receiving it, or reading turn files before submitting his own; it would increase the number of Messages -- e.g. players submit files encrypted with single-use keys (key pairs, preferably), all encrypted files duplicated at a second host site (a public key algorithm would allow verification of authorship), both hosts process the same files using the same PRNGs and math, both hopefully coming up with consistent results which could be reasonably checked using message-digest algorithms without revealing unencrypted state to all players. Either host in such a system could potentially learn full game state, but only after their turns were submitted, and it would require conspiracy or freakish luck for a host to be able to edit the turn files. Separate host-controlled game state files could be similarly signed/encrypted using keys submitted by all the players, to reduce the probability of the host being able to independently modify or read that file as well. Feh.

To an extent this could be implemented now by players. Before the addition of a master password feature I had setup to be a "seperate trusted host" setting up an email account that people could email their game-file passwords to. That way the host (who was also playing) didnt have access to the passworded files, but if a player fell out of the game then I could step in to turn on AI or do other checks.

In fact, that might work now as a low-tech answer. One thing Im worrie about is that now that Illwinter has shown they can dismantle a turn file to get answers Im afraid they will be swamped by requests every time any player feels another player did something shady. As often as we see Posts to that affect here which get answered as possibilitys that the player hadnt considered, you can see how busy that might be.

If someone declared their game to be only playable by people who were willing to email their passwords to a trusted site, would that help? In the case of what occured we would either have had a player who flatly refused "to let anyone view his secret tactics and strategies" (in which case anyone who played with that player would be taking their chances) or we would have had a much quicker and sooner way to have someone examine the turn file for inconsistancies. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE ANSWER OR THAT OTHER THINGS CANT BE DONE just that its a low-tech thing that can be done today if people are concerned. (thats another disclaimer to cut off some of the responses I tend to get)

Taqwus

August 12th, 2004, 04:16 PM

If he modified gem inventories to do stuff with it, then the game presumably isn't too fanatical about checking this, or the server itself was somehow compromised or worked-around.

It occurs to me that their shouldn't be that much looping. That is --

Gems left in the treasury were computed from the previous turn.

Gem income from sites, gifts, events and enchantments was computed from the previous turn.

Outside of diplomatic means (handled by the messaging system) there is no in-game way to turn anything that's not a gem into a gem, or for 1 gem to turn into more than 1 within a turn. Within a turn but before processing, then, total gems should be strictly nonincreasing. It also should not matter at what point gem alchemy was done, because you can't get more in-turn except by alchemy and because the ratio is fixed. That is, if alchemy was done at any point in the turn, it must have been legal with identical results and with the gems available at the beginning of the turn.
Then there aren't that many numbers to juggle (six types of gems turning into pearls, pearls turning into six types of gems, fire and earth gems turning into money -- which can be done after all other alchemy checks because that's a one-way street and can't make other alchemy operations possible if they weren't already).

Forging has a bit of bookkeeping; the game would need to check that the number of forges done using hammers does not exceed the number of hammers available from the end of the previous turn, and that the forgers had the necessary item slots in addition to skills.

Then, once alchemy is completed, gold becomes a one-way-street; you can get gold from alchemy, but you can't easily turn anything else (people, buildings, units) into gold that you can use that very same turn. You can pillage or hike tax rates, but you don't see the gold until next turn, so it'd be illegal to spend it or put it in the treasury until the appropriate time in turn computation.

Exception: You can get a refund of gold by clearing a recruitment queue that was non-empty after the previous turn. Whether or not you can clear a queue, however, is not affected by other in-turn actions, and the maximum you can get should be based on the Last turn since even if you increase the refund by adding units you have an equally large debit incurred during the addition.

And so forth. I don't think there's much room for bizarre circular operations (actually profitable alchemy, say; e.g. a _MoM_ player with Alchemy, Runemaster and obscene casting skill forging and breaking small items during a turn for pure profit) or anything else that would be unusually difficult to serialize.

Gandalf Parker

August 12th, 2004, 04:30 PM

If he modified gem inventories to do stuff with it, then the game presumably isn't too fanatical about checking this, or the server itself was somehow compromised or worked-around.

No it was the turn file itself. As near as can be figured the .trn had a gem number, the gems were added, and then they were "money laundered" into other things before returning the .2h to the server. There were checks but even the checks that were put into the game caused complaints from players when they reported "cheats" which werent really cheating players. That may have slowed down adding additional checks.

Esben Mose Hansen

August 12th, 2004, 05:25 PM

...One thing Im worrie about is that now that Illwinter has shown they can dismantle a turn file to get answers Im afraid they will be swamped by requests every time any player feels another player did something shady. As often as we see Posts to that affect here which get answered as possibilitys that the player hadnt considered, you can see how busy that might be.

This also worries me. I'm thinking of having my server make a a complete .tar.bz2 image of the game directory every turn.Then a master password, and independent part (NOT ME!!!) and the backup history could determine any cheating for sure.

What do you think?

archaeolept

August 12th, 2004, 06:08 PM

yah that would work wonders even if only to scare off certain potential cheaters. all that really happened here was that IIRC was that the existence of a master password allowed norfleets lies and the extend of his cheating to be exposed. a turn by turn history would might also, however, have provided valuable clues as to what precisely he was manipulating.

Gandalf Parker

August 12th, 2004, 06:11 PM

This also worries me. I'm thinking of having my server make a a complete .tar.bz2 image of the game directory every turn.Then a master password, and independent part (NOT ME!!!) and the backup history could determine any cheating for sure.

What do you think?

If for no other reason, it would be simple enough to implement and would at least make everyone feel better. If you need a "neutral server" we can setup an auto-ftp between your server and mine. Or you could put the tar's in a directory and just schedule a remote sync using some sort of mirror software.

Stormbinder

August 12th, 2004, 06:19 PM

What was apparently done was that the turn file was edited to have extra gems. Those gems had to be converted to something else or used in forge commands or turned into gold and used to make troops in that same turn before turning in a 2h. The game does have checks for such things but the variations make for alot of "thinking" needed by the game. The game sent him a turn with XX gems in each Category, and received back a 2h file of commands to do things. To take into account the original amounts, plus new gem income, plus all of the things that can be done with it in order to decide "oops too much" is pretty hairy. Especially when you try to reverse logic the troop queue to the gold to the fire gems made from the astral gems which were made from the death gems just as one example. NOT IMPOSSIBLE before someone jumps my case about it, just hairy and time consuming to get it put in.

Hmmm, frankly I still want to jump you case about it Gandalf, since I don't see the server-side gem tracking to be such a huge problem to implement, but I'll let it pass. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Otherwise we would become involved into discussions what constitutes to be "hairy" and what doesn't. And most likely end up agreeing on sciencific terms such as "hairy but with big bald patches", or "balding but still retaining some hair". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Gandalf Parker

August 12th, 2004, 06:31 PM

Hmmm, frankly I still want to jump you case about it Gandalf, since I don't see the server-side gem tracking to be such a huge problem to implement, but I'll let it pass. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

My answers are not Johans. He is already looking at it.

Part of the problem is that this is a forum full of programmers to whom nothing is impossible. And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible. But I should stop arguing the points to allow for placebos if nothing else. (insert truly evil smiley here)

Stormbinder

August 12th, 2004, 06:55 PM

Hmmm, frankly I still want to jump you case about it Gandalf, since I don't see the server-side gem tracking to be such a huge problem to implement, but I'll let it pass. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

My answers are not Johans. He is already looking at it.

Good to hear this.

Part of the problem is that this is a forum full of programmers to whom nothing is impossible. And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible. But I should stop arguing the points to allow for placebos if nothing else. (insert truly evil smiley here)

Heh. Between hackers and programers, all interested at the same goal, some good security ideas could be developed... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Heironeous

August 12th, 2004, 07:46 PM

Esben Mose Hansen

August 12th, 2004, 08:16 PM

If for no other reason, it would be simple enough to implement and would at least make everyone feel better. If you need a "neutral server" we can setup an auto-ftp between your server and mine. Or you could put the tar's in a directory and just schedule a remote sync using some sort of mirror software.

Yeah, my feelings, too. Hunting for an actual cheat (on a subtle scale, not norfleetscale) would be like searching for a straw in a haystack...

No need for the neutral server. If my server is comprismised, or if I'm dishonest, nothing will change that. I'll try to make an implementation tomorrow or Sunday, but no promises... but now I really have to sleep http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Stormbinder

August 12th, 2004, 08:29 PM

Part of the problem is that this is a forum full of programmers to whom nothing is impossible. And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible. But I should stop arguing the points to allow for placebos if nothing else. (insert truly evil smiley here)

Absolute security may not be possible, but, as described above, client hacks can be eliminated by simply passing the client a partial copy of the game state, with the client only returning a list of orders to the server. Then it doesn't matter what you do to the client, the server processes the orders against the true game state. If you screw around with the client or the information passed to the client, then you'll only be hurting yourself as your orders won't map properly to the true game state.

Yeap, that's what I had in mind as well. I said earlier when I quoted "the client is in the hands of the enemy" mantra, all importent tasks should be performed only by the server, and the server should keep in mind state of the previous turn (or even several turns, for additional security checks). Than, *as long as server is not compromised*, such sustem is practically impossible to hack from the client side, with hex edit or anything else. And I am sure Mose (as well as other people with good technical knowledge who may decide to run public servers for the Dom2 community in the future) can protect well his server from being hacked directly, that would become nesseserly to do in order to hack various Dom2 hosts that are being run on his computer. In any case such hack would be much more complex and difficult to pull of, that the current mostly client-centered system, and IMHO very unlikely to be developed at all. Remeber, after all the probability of new hack being developed is directly proportinal to the size of the players community. And unlike Blizzard's MP games, Dom2 have 1000 times smaller audience, therefore the apperance of very complex server based hacks, that would also require server's security to be breached in order for them to work, IMHO extremely unlikely.

Leif_-

August 12th, 2004, 09:44 PM

And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible.

Oh, it's quite possible to make a computer program without any security flaws - the tricky thing is <i>knowing</i> that there aren't any security flaws in it. :-p

nakomus

August 13th, 2004, 12:55 AM

The methods of cheating discussed in this forum (with the exception of Taqwus) seem to focus on alteration of *data* files of the game in question, in two forms:

1. The machine on which the game was hosted was compromised and the fatherland file was edited to change game state. Than the modified, but structurally valid fatherland file was used the hosting Dominions 2 system generate the next turn

2. Either trn or 2h files were modified such that an illegal (but structurally valid) 2h file was returned to the server, which failed to detect the inconsistency in the game state.

Both of these methods assume that the hosting installation of Dominions was operating correctly on the input it was given (although it may be insufficiently paranoid).

If 1) is the true scenario than this clearly need not be the case, the attack would have had access to the executable, configuration information, and runtime state during hosting.

Even if the attacker does not have root access on the hosting server, there is the possibility of a remote exploit in Dominions, either through structurally invalid 2H files or attacks through the network connection.
In short, it may be that the server was coerced to generate invalid turn files, rather than failing to detect subtle modification of an otherwise valid input.

I won�t speculate further as to how this could be carried out.

Of course, the devs may have reason to rule these sorts of attacks out.