Fog

Hi all,

I think we all would like to spectate a fog-game, once in a while.

I hear you coming: that's impossible, everyone is going to cheat. Well, I gave it a thought, in my opinion, cheating can be avoided by:

1: point range limit for spectators. No player will risk it to have his account banned who has already more than (for example) 1350pts.
2: players have to agree that the game can be spectated, with perhaps an option to kick spectators when not trusted.
3: spectators can be listed, so the players can see who's watching their game

What do you all think about this?
Other idea's to avoid cheating?
Other players here that would like to spectate fog games?
To the admins or programmers: can this be worked out?

Let me hear your thoughts!

B4rny.

The main and safest possibility to spectate a fog game I know of is to spectate it after it has been won.

This means a game should be replayable, and after the rewrite games will be.
We'd still need to make it happen and I don't know for sure if we'll ever do so, but it will be doable.


Of course, you can't live chat with the players, but isn't that kind of the point of a fog game?

Ooh, this would be excellent! Particulary useful to learn from good players (I've often wanted to have a look at great sametime players who hide in the fog. See what they see and try to guess what they're thinking!)

I have a con on this, or more like a side effect... there is no way to find ended games (unless you know the ID, obviously) so you wouldn't be able to review a game unless you find it, which can be quite difficult (especially long term).

Might as well post a few ideas that i regularly hear from others about fog.

Admin point of view. (We can't view fog games either). It's hard to moderate these games, although we can tell if same location players are in the same game, and with fog settings, and a complaint, that can be enough of a reason to cancel the game, especially if they haven't established the relationship before game started. Same location players (school friends/family) can just look at their friends screen or something for an extra advantage. I'm seeing 3 player fog settings quite often, 2 players knowing each other.

Fog rules. We need something in place, regarding chat. Chat is part of the strategy that is used to manipulate with these settings. In the worst cases, disgruntled players are often giving away specific information, but also the information can be false.. My admin advice when moderating these scenarios are..Use the chat for strategic play, but dont give away number specifics, and place locations. But there arent any set rules anywhere. Again, it's hard for even moderating staff to recognize this because we can not view fog games in play, and reading gamelogs after the game isn't much fun, especially if there's nothing to come of it. The best solution I can think of is chat being fog also. No chat, or we have some fog pre-set chat. that's just a new thought as i type this..sounds good

Also another idea to consider regarding fog games. What about TOTAL FOG?

You create a fog game. It's sitting in the live/long term waiting for players, but you can only guess who is in the game by looking on last active page list. When choosing colour to play with, the colours are only grey to choose from. When game launches, colours are assigned randomly (players not getting their usual colour - fog again).
Also, names and rank are all (??????). add this with some pre-set chat only,..this could be a fun revelation at the end of games.

 I like B4ny suggestion, its just not the same to spectate a game when finished, a lot gets lost in translation when u do not see the actual movement from turn to turn. (or maybe i dont understand Matty correctly, the replayability will go move for move)? In that case however theres Psymon comment to concider, and at least its still easier to follow the flow of the game when watching live.
 
My suggestion:

While B4rnys safeguards are prudent, my suggestion would be for spectators to simply not be able to use the chat during the game, as even the slightest comment from a person, who can see the entire map, would likely make players over react / or not react, as they would normally do. A comment such as "nice green" or "bummer green" from a spectator, could make other players suddenly feel that green is overly strong/weak, and react accordingly - even if the comment was just aimed at some minor incident, or maybe not even something that had to do with the game at all.

I think disabling chat for spectators would just be the safest and easiest way to do it, (when the game ended however, you could allow spectators to use the chat and talk with the players)----However all this may be to much work for the programmers, but hey its just my comment to the topic.


To Hoods chat comment:

  Personally i havent experienced too much indecent disclosure ever, so i dont think thats really a problem. In my experience people make general comments like "green is really strong" or "green is strong up north", but said comments are often in hindsigt only half- correct, and it would be a shame to not have that element of confusion.

The only time players get more specific (in my general experience), is when a game is drawing close, whith comments like "green has almost all the americas" or "well done green gg", but i dont find that too much of a giveaway, especially since at that point "green" has often already won basically or is facing an equal strong foe.

However i dont as such object to test making chat fog also. Who knows, it might be rather cool.


Hoods TOTAL FOG suggestion:

  GO FOR IT. No seriously it could be fun to try it out, and in this particular case i agree, that pre-set chat should indeed be present.

Disabling chat wouldn't work, as a potential cheater could send directions via PM or via email or just looking at other screen with a different account.

true, but if people really want to they can team up or use two accounts to cheat in basically every mode already, but who actually does that? (except for the few who does, but no regular player would, right)?

The point is that having two accounts PLAY in the same game is A LOT more noticeable.
If an account only WATCHES, then there's not a lot of ways in which admins could figure it out.

Here is a prime example of someone who should know better ruining a fog game:

http://www.dominating12.com/index.php?cmd=game&sec=play&id=601468

Black, pissed off that I attacked him, said my capital was weak, and suggested his was too as he mentioned the number of troops I attacked him with. Which resulted in green killing him and then me that very same turn.

I don't think that should be allowed (and said as much on chat). Thoughts?

Further details on the above (missed time to edit), in case people don't want to go through the logs:

4 player same time capitals in the med. My capital in Egypt, Black in Turkey. Only black can see my capital. I leave from my capital with everything, I break all of black's bonuses. The following turn I try to kill black. Just fail as he has a trade, but have a guaranteed kill the following turn. In complete stealth as no-one else can see black's capital, or anything of what has been going on.

At this point black informs everyone my capital is weak as I just attacked him with 15 (it was, in fact 21, but that doesn't make a difference).

As soon as he says that, green leaves his capital, kills black, then me, then ends turn and kills the last player.

Thx for the feedback. Reading everything, Matty's right, you can never prevent cheating. Imo: putting a point range limit for the spectating players, the chances are a lot smaller to do so. Also if it would be created one day: not bad to list the spectating players at anytime. And ofcourse no chat or separate chat.

Also the idea about 'total fog' is great. That way you know who you're playing with, but you dont know which player plays with what color. Would be awesome i think.

If admins are still around reading this: get the programmers to work

lol, the programmers are already at work. I can tell because I am one ;].

But really, replayability will take a long time before we get it, there are too many other things that are much easier and as handy to have.


Unless of course there is another programmer who'd want this - there is a publicely available prototype already.

Ok, repayability is a start.. but is it not possible live? Same moment same game? The players ofcource stay playing by the original concept, but spectators can watch all colors playing.

Like said above, lifting the fog for whoever is too prone to cheating. Yes, there will be lots of people that will try, and yes, it will be hard to catch them.

Sorry.