Kilo spotting kilo

[drEaPer]

Heya

I was playing an MP session (No mods, Stock DW 1.03) where I had a Kilo and my enemy had an improved Kilo.
Ocean was apo. 600m deep, layer at 130m.
I was at 0 kts, temporally going at 2 kts to maneuver, and then reducing speed to 0 kts again.

Then I heard a TIW, and 5 seconds later it killed me.
When I saw the replay, it told me that the Kilo was 11nm away. He fired a subroc directly at my position, on top on my head. Until that point, about 12 gameminutes had past.

I always thought the kilo is extremely silent, running on batteries, unlike a nuke sub that always has a minimal noise generated.

What tactic did he use? How did he made such a precise TMA? Is the kilo rather noisy?



cheers!

[blue3golf]

He may have figured your position out by you moving a couple knots then stopping, if there were AI contacts they pretty much move at one speed, i would've shot just because of the questionable piloting of the boat.

[drEaPer]

He hears me driving at 2 kts about 11nm far away in a Kilo? Guess I ll stick to nuke subs...

[Wildcat]

Sounds like you probably made some kind of noise by accident, maybe hull popping or raised radar, torpedo tube noise, something. There is no way in hell he detected you from 2 knot movement in a direct line, unless you were in a convergence zone.

At 2 knots even the seawolf would have a hard time hearing you at more than 2 or 3 miles away.

[LuftWolf]

Check the mission file... make sure he wasn't using some kind of script or something...

Didn't you guys chat about the match after? :hmm:

[blue3golf]

In reality should have never happened but remember iyt is a game so it could have been a glich.

[Palindromeria]

this sounds familiar :-?

[TLAM Strike]

I bet its the NB click cheat. :(

[goldorak]

I bet its the NB click cheat. :(


Wasn't this bug fixed in 1.03 patch ?

[TLAM Strike]

I bet its the NB click cheat. :(


Wasn't this bug fixed in 1.03 patch ?

No it was introduced n 1.03

[OKO]

Is the kilo rather noisy?

yes KILO is much noisier than the improved =>

at stop, the KILO makes the same noise than Improved at 9 knts
@4 knts KILO => 12 knts improved
@7 knts KILO => 15 knts improved

In fact you could quite easily detect a KILO at 7 knts when you couldn't see a close improved KILO at 12 knts.

I bet its the NB click cheat
I made some tests about it and didn't had anymore the click cheat for some times now.

[TLAM Strike]

I bet its the NB click cheat
I made some tests about it and didn't had anymore the click cheat for some times now. Because it moved to the NB FRAZ screen. Harder to spot (no sound cue) but its there.

[OKO]

I just tested again, and I confirm there is no more the click cheat with the KILO

a small scenario to check yourself :
an improved KILO is at your 000, at less than 9 miles
you won't be able to mark it =>

http://okof4.free.fr/fichiers/DW/kilo_detection.mu

[OKO]

I bet its the NB click cheat
I made some tests about it and didn't had anymore the click cheat for some times now. Because it moved to the NB FRAZ screen. Harder to spot (no sound cue) but its there.

OMG ....

[OKO]

In fact I think it didn't moved to the NB ... but already existed ...
As using it in BB was easier, nobody tried it at NB ......
d*mn

[OKO]

After quick test, it's only with the cylindrical NB now ....
that's a very bad news ... :nope:
I though this was an old problem ...

[TLAM Strike]

Found him on cylindrical array via NB FRAZ right away. No tonals. :yep:

Nope it moved when the cheat was 1st discovered I checked it if was in the NB system too, it wasn't. ;)

[OKO]

Nope it moved when the cheat was 1st discovered I checked it if was in the NB system too, it wasn't. ;)

OMG :damn: :o
So ... this looks like a shifted problem and not a solved problem ...
you ruined my day
bad for a birthday ! :88)
:cry:

[Molon Labe]

Martin Broduer had a bad bday yesterday too!

Oh, well, Happy B-day!

[drEaPer]

After quick test, it's only with the cylindrical NB now ....
that's a very bad news ...
I though this was an old problem ...


This definately hits the nail on the head!!

After asking him what he was using, he said the cylindrical array!
He added: I also have my own tricks and strategies, but of course I wont talk about that.
Kay, now I got it.... Very dissapointing and it ruins the fun for me..


*sigh* Just started to like the game again... but I have yet to wait for a version that is not exploitable and actually being played as intended.

You think SCS can do a fix for that? A general fix that makes it so, that you are only able to mark something _clearly_ visible?

[TLAM Strike]

Well at this point I would say just play Kilo ASW games with players you trust.

I just hope SCS knows about this bug. I mentioned this a while ago and no one seemed to take notice.

[Molon Labe]

So he basicly admitted to cheating...

This is getting out of control.

[Wildcat]

Who is the person you were playing with? We need to expose people like this so they can never play multiplayer again with the rest of us.

[Orm]

Who is the person you were playing with? We need to expose people like this so they can never play multiplayer again with the rest of us.


Perhaps, it was you? :hmm:
And now, we are beginning witch hunting. :down:
And first of all, he did not cheat; he used one weakness of the game.

[Molon Labe]

It's not a weakness, it's a bug, and it was used deliberately to allow him to do something that could not otherwise be done. It most certainly is cheating. If he were part of a virtual fleet, he'd be standing tall before the Man right now.

[Orm]

It's not a weakness, it's a bug, and it was used deliberately to allow him to do something that could not otherwise be done. It most certainly is cheating. If he were part of a virtual fleet, he'd be standing tall before the Man right now.

Virtual fleet, I wonder. :hmm:
I think I know you Molon. :D Is that your wish to make me stand tall before the Man of GNSF? :D No, I know that you joke.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It's not a weakness, it's a bug, and it was used deliberately to allow him to do something that could not otherwise be done. It most certainly is cheating. If he were part of a virtual fleet, he'd be standing tall before the Man right now.

Why? Isn't using the particular rules of the game (the realistic and the unrealistic) ls just part of good strategy. It isn't like this option isn't available to him.

Should we be forced to (for one) ping when we use periscopes close to an enemy because in real life we couldn't have done so without counterdetection?

Besides, if I'm desperate to get a detect, I'd be clicking all over my FRAZ, hoping to catch that nearly invisible signal. If I get lucky, what should I do, dump the contact? Even if I do that, for a second I'd have seen the contact and it'd influence all my actions. I also have to worry about giving up the contact because the other guy might be doing the same thing - not intending so much to cheat or even take advantage of a known flaw, but to get first detects.

[Molon Labe]

I can't believe you're defending this person.

Back when DW first came out and the Kilo BB cheat was discovered, there was no debate at all about it. The NB cheat is twice as bad as the BB cheat was, because unlike the BB cheat, there is ZERO chance of the NB cheat being used accidentally. But yet, here we stand, where cheating seems to be getting out of control on Gamespy, and now people here on Subsim are defending it. How the hell did this community reach this point after one short year? It's absolutely sickening.

"Nearly invisible" on the FRAZ? What are you talking about? There is either a red mark on the black display or there isn't. This is a bug in the game. It is not a "rule." Using it to gain an advantage over a player who either doesn't know or wouldn't exploit such a bug is not a "strategy."

[Bellman]

The Gamespy experience is tarnished irretrievably for me. But what can we expect with an influx of
new players untutored in the basic mores of disciplined internet simulation play and a cynical bunch
prepared to exploit there greenness.

The scene has to be compared to Alaskan mining towns in the goldrush days ! (No I wasnt there :huh: :stare: )
Plenty of innocents at large and plenty of hooks ready to cheat them. No sherrif, no judge, no jailhouse and no rope !

If disillusionment isnt to grow then like AA the scene must be policed and sanctions against bad behaviour enforced.
Even a simple voting scheme can boot off (out) offenders.

[Kapitan]

Nows the point where i say

I TOLD YOU SO

I tried to tell you there was cheaters out there but you not listen and as always you all know best, now get on with it you made your own beds go lie in them.

end of comment

[Molon Labe]

Kapitan, I have to say that the two instances of supposed cheating that you called to our attention were very weak. It's cases like yours that, unfortunatlely, make Orm's fear of a "witch hunt" very real. If we could start blacklisting players who are pulling this $hit reliably, then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, you have proved to us that such an approach would quickly spiral out of control and hurt those who least deserve it.

[Kapitan]

That is true the evedence i gave i knew i was going to get one of only two answers.

One the mission replay was fake

Two it was lag

You can blame a lot on lag so much so it blind's you to the cheaters, and we all wonder why gamespy and the hyperlobby is empty.

I suggest you play some of these "cheaters" and then see what you got to say after it.

[Molon Labe]

I've played with and against both of them before. I have no problems to report.

[Wim Libaers]

I can't believe you're defending this person.

Back when DW first came out and the Kilo BB cheat was discovered, there was no debate at all about it. The NB cheat is twice as bad as the BB cheat was, because unlike the BB cheat, there is ZERO chance of the NB cheat being used accidentally. But yet, here we stand, where cheating seems to be getting out of control on Gamespy, and now people here on Subsim are defending it. How the hell did this community reach this point after one short year? It's absolutely sickening.

"Nearly invisible" on the FRAZ? What are you talking about? There is either a red mark on the black display or there isn't. This is a bug in the game. It is not a "rule." Using it to gain an advantage over a player who either doesn't know or wouldn't exploit such a bug is not a "strategy."

I understand his point. It's the difference between using the game as a way to simulate being a submarine commander (and staying in character in that role), or playing the game to win by exploiting all possible game mechanics that can give an advantage. And the game mechanics include bugs.

This is not a very unusual opinion. I've seen the same in a criticism of World of Warcraft:
"6) The Terms of Service. The very idea of using the terms of service as the de facto way to enforce a certain player-behavior goes against everything I've learned. A game should be a system of rules that allow the player to explore. If the player finds loopholes, then the game developer should fix them. It's never, ever the player's fault: it's the game developer's fault. People who currently make deals with enemy faction (Horde or Alliance ) to trade wins in battleground games are not really at fault. They are playing in a system that forces anyone who wants to be rank 14 to do exactly that. A line in the Terms of Service saying that you shouldn't behave this way changes nothing, and teaches nothing."
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml

[Orm]

Let's cool down this discussion.
On the subject, I must admit that I, to my surprise, discovered today that the Kilo's "BB cheat" became the "NB cheat". And, because of the previous bug, I had to stop entirely to drive a Kilo for many months, now I have to do it again. :hulk:

[Molon Labe]

Orm: It was possible to play the Kilo without using the BB cheat, and you can play the Kilo without using the NB cheat.

Wim: As for that quoted source... We used to be better than that.

[Wim Libaers]

Wim: As for that quoted source... We used to be better than that.

I understand that, it's just a different way of looking at things. And those who exploit such bugs have a realistic attitude to combat: use all possible ways to get an advantage. The problem is that DW is supposed to be a simulation of real submarines, where this feature doesn't exist. The right solution is a patch that removes this difference in functionality between the real sonar and the game sonar. Various codes of conduct to determine which game features can and cannot be used are a very suboptimal way to deal with such things, and I think they should only be used if there is no other way to fix things (for example if there would not be another patch).

After all, while this is an obvious bug, there are several other parts of the game that could also be banned in such a code of conduct, because they do not fit in a realistic game either. You could ban raising the periscope for more than a few seconds, because real ASW units could detect it. You could ban the use of the submarine SAM missiles, because real tactics would focus on evading ASW helo's, not challenging them to a duel.

[Vasilly]

Whilst being VERY new to this site, and DW, (I've only got the demo, and am waiting delivery of the UK version, but am enjoying it emensely), I have seen this sort of discussion on many other sites on 'the net'.

It is a sad fact of life that we are human beings, and human beings will do things to their advantantage if the opportunity exists. If that means cheating, then people will do it. It spoils the enjoyment for many participants, and sometimes drives those 'genuine' participants to cheat just to get ahead of the cheaters. This is a very sad fact, but a fact none the less.

When all said and done, no matter how seriously you take this hobby, (and I take my computer hobbies VERY seriously), it is, after all, just virtual reality, and there is very little anyone can do about it.

We can complain until the cows come home, but it really isn't worth loosing sleep about. Threads like this will continue until the end of time, and are good for getting things off your chest, but in the long run, the only way to ensure 'proper' play, is to set up a server yourself, and invite only friends. Kind of defeats the object really.

/rant mode off

So, flame away if you so desire.

Bests
V

[Molon Labe]

Wim: As for that quoted source... We used to be better than that.

I understand that, it's just a different way of looking at things. And those who exploit such bugs have a realistic attitude to combat: use all possible ways to get an advantage. The problem is that DW is supposed to be a simulation of real submarines, where this feature doesn't exist. The right solution is a patch that removes this difference in functionality between the real sonar and the game sonar. Various codes of conduct to determine which game features can and cannot be used are a very suboptimal way to deal with such things, and I think they should only be used if there is no other way to fix things (for example if there would not be another patch).

After all, while this is an obvious bug, there are several other parts of the game that could also be banned in such a code of conduct, because they do not fit in a realistic game either. You could ban raising the periscope for more than a few seconds, because real ASW units could detect it. You could ban the use of the submarine SAM missiles, because real tactics would focus on evading ASW helo's, not challenging them to a duel.


There is a grey area of what is cheating and what isn't, but this issue is NOT in the grey. Neither is a lot of the crap we hear from gamespy. And you're the only one that mentioned a "code of conduct." There's no slippery slope here.

[Molon Labe]

Whilst being VERY new to this site, and DW, (I've only got the demo, and am waiting delivery of the UK version, but am enjoying it emensely), I have seen this sort of discussion on many other sites on 'the net'.

It is a sad fact of life that we are human beings, and human beings will do things to their advantantage if the opportunity exists. If that means cheating, then people will do it. It spoils the enjoyment for many participants, and sometimes drives those 'genuine' participants to cheat just to get ahead of the cheaters. This is a very sad fact, but a fact none the less.

When all said and done, no matter how seriously you take this hobby, (and I take my computer hobbies VERY seriously), it is, after all, just virtual reality, and there is very little anyone can do about it.

We can complain until the cows come home, but it really isn't worth loosing sleep about. Threads like this will continue until the end of time, and are good for getting things off your chest, but in the long run, the only way to ensure 'proper' play, is to set up a server yourself, and invite only friends. Kind of defeats the object really.

/rant mode off

So, flame away if you so desire.

Bests
V

It didn't used to be this way here. I loved being part of this community because we all respected each other too much to frack each other over like that. So yeah, I'm pissed off because it looks like we're degenerating to be like all those other gaming communities. It's not a club I wanted to be a part of.

[Wildcat]

I do not get what the issue is. Someone obviously used a cheat. It is not a feature, it is not "gaming the game", it is CHEATING outright, and the person or people doing it need to be identified so we do not have to WASTE OUR TIME playing with them on gamespy. It's nice to play with unknown players on gamespy every once in a while, but if that person is a known cheater, at least we can choose to avoid them.

[Deathblow]

There is a grey area of what is cheating and what isn't, but this issue is NOT in the grey. Neither is a lot of the crap we hear from gamespy. And you're the only one that mentioned a "code of conduct." There's no slippery slope here.

There's cheating and then there's exploiting.

Cheating is when someone breaks the rules of the game in a deceitful manner. i.e. changing their database, secretly coding cheats into the mission scenario, etc.

An exploit is to take advantage of a weakness in the programming to use in a way unintended by the programmars. The "sub sails not radar detectable" is an exploit. The "wire guided torps can automatically tell between a CM and target", that used to be in one of the LW mod versions, was another exploit. None of them intended, but unfortunately ingame.

Randomly clicking to see if a contact shows up isn't a cheat, its exploiting an ingame bug, both of with are unfortunate. However, one of active *deception* the fault on the perpetrator, the other is a regretable profiteering the fault as much on the programmer.

[Molon Labe]

There is a grey area of what is cheating and what isn't, but this issue is NOT in the grey. Neither is a lot of the crap we hear from gamespy. And you're the only one that mentioned a "code of conduct." There's no slippery slope here.

There's cheating and then there's exploiting.

Cheating is when someone breaks the rules of the game in a deceitful manner. i.e. changing their database, secretly coding cheats into the mission scenario, etc.

An exploit is to take advantage of a weakness in the programming to use in a way. The "sub sails not radar detectable" is an exploit. The "wire guided torps can automatically tell between a CM and target" that used to be in one of the LW mod versions was an exploit. None of them intended, but unfortunately ingame.

Randomly clicking to see if a contact shows up isn't a cheat, its exploiting an ingame bug, both of with are unfortunate. However, one of active *deception* the fault on the perpetrator, the other is a regretable profiteering the fault as much on the programmer.

You're arguing about definitions that players just make up as they go along anways. The mechanical goings-on isn't what separates cheating from some lesser evil. What matters is the player's culpability in doing so. If this is something that the player had to do delilberately, and could not have done while playing the sim normally or triggered accidentally, then it is wrong, and it doens't matter if it had to do with editing the mission, altering the DB, or manipulating a particular interface. Those differences are just semantic bullsh1t.

[Orm]

Orm: It was possible to play the Kilo without using the BB cheat, and you can play the Kilo without using the NB cheat.


You are right, but suspicion from your opponent will always be - did he use the bug or not? :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

The whole point of using the cheat is to gain a detection range advantage. Unless the cheater gives up this advantage by closing to NB signal range before acting like he's tracking you, it's pretty easy to notice on the replay.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I can't believe you're defending this person.

Back when DW first came out and the Kilo BB cheat was discovered, there was no debate at all about it. The NB cheat is twice as bad as the BB cheat was, because unlike the BB cheat, there is ZERO chance of the NB cheat being used accidentally.

Now, I'm kind of defending him, for reasons I'd explain below, but even more I'm syncing up with what the community thinks and seeing their reasoning, which I can't do without raising some questions.

Let's start with the fact I get that mysterious glowing wedge a lot just by randomly dragging the wedge around, just as I suppose you could hear "mysterious sound" by dragging the BB thing around (incidentally, I never experienced the BB problem, only the NB one).

"Nearly invisible" on the FRAZ? What are you talking about? There is either a red mark on the black display or there isn't. This is a bug in the game. It is not a "rule." Using it to gain an advantage over a player who either doesn't know or wouldn't exploit such a bug is not a "strategy."

For a variety of reasons, I can't get worked up about it. I can only speak from my limited personal experience, but:

1) Taking drEaper's testimony as true, and assuming his opponent's "own tricks and strategies" is indeed this, I'm guessing our Opponent simply can't go to a discussion board like SubSim much. Whether you think of this as a cheat, exploit, or even just good use of equipment, he can't possibly have gone to a board and still seriously think this technique is any kind of secret. The fact he's playing stock also slightly favors the idea he doesn't get out much. So it might just at worst be ignorance.

2) One thing a guy finds out about Russian sonar displays fast, and all by himself, is that, to put it crudely, they suck because they don't have the waterfall. Sonalysts may have had the right idea after all when they decided to set the 688I's theoretical sonar sensitivity equal to the Akula, because the Akula is at enough of a de facto sonar disadvantage even then.

After all, even the manual tells you your sonarman might see a BB contact before it shows as a spike. The general impression you get is that your display is inadequate.

3) So now, he is in a Russian sub with its poor displays. He randomly shifts the NB wedge around out of boredom mixed with frustration when ... it glows and says "688 LOS ANGELES CLASS (US)", or maybe in the BB he happens to hear noise over a random bearing. What does he conclude after experiencing all the above:

a) It probably has something to do with my crappy sonar display ... again - there is something very weak out there. Ah well, at least my headphones / noise spectral analyzer is better than my displays.
b) It is a bug. Somehow, Sonalysts, who brought us this fine simulation, had misaligned the computer and display detection theresholds... and showing me something I have no right to see.

How will he know the difference? You can only (at least in my experience) get this quirk occasionally in a real game. He's probably going to conclude he got lucky and picked up some kind of microsignal - didn't Sonalysts say something about improving the sonar model after all; which means more quirks, right? It is just the inverse of my stupid actve sonar not picking up a clear return at 5000 yards, no?

4) That's the reason I'm kind of defending this guy - I think it an honest mistake, not necessarily of any malice.

5) Finally, I also am on the side of using actual software fixes to plug any such problems. In this case, however, I think the fundamental problem is one of detection thereshold strategy. DW seems to use a strategy in which only if you designated on a valid position, then the game does checks. If you designated on something totally invalid, the game would never designate, even if there may be enough signal to form a false target. And that's not very realistic and probably the real mother of all the "click-and-pray" tactics.

A more realistic approach might be to allow designations anywhere. For example, if you randomly click a spot on the active sonar display, it will still designate and show as a contact even if there is nothing but water there.

In the NB, filters won't light up (even if you sweep over a strong contact) - they will always be on and it'd be up to you to set the lines. Of course, you can designate on anything.

If the target is false, you'd find out later. This will discourage frivolous "click-and-pray" tactics even if somehow the detailed internal rules are out of alignment - if you don't click on something brightly visible, you run the designating nothing at all, thus wasting time.

[drEaPer]

Man, Kazuaki Shimazaki II, well put!! You sum up my thoughts exactly!

I still remember when I first started playing the games series (688 HK) that I was totally confused why I cannot mark something by just clicking on a bearing(passive) or spot (active) and designate it.
Then I found out that you can only mark something that is really there, and I understood the game is not really marking the noise you hear on the selected bearing but instead marking a real entity but hiding the truth from you. Thats the same reason that made me wonder why my sonar men know exactly which contact is which after being blind (by going fast or whatever reasons) and then getting sonar back.

Well that just the way the game is coded. You designate entitys that are really there, but hidden from you. You dont designate a noise or an audibal input.

Anyway much talk about how to see things, and what could be done etc.... but it leads nowhere...

What leads somewhere is getting jamie to acknowledge this bug and put it on priority A for a fix.

*sigh*

[Molon Labe]

Kaz,

I just tried this out for myself. There's no "glowing wedge" when you do this. It is a blank display that you have to deliberately mark. Unless there's some other way to trigger this, I'd have to say that this cannot be anything less than purposeful.

[LuftWolf]

Well, I think I know some people I'm NOT going to be playing with, simply based on this thread. :nope:

People cheat in the Olympics and in business.

People cheat.

That's life.

So it doesn't surprise me that people cheat in DW. People have cheated regularly in every single game I have ever played MP except for Combat Mission (which happens to be very hard to cheat in... some Polish players in the CMHQ tourney finally figured it out by using memory bit hacks, talk about investing time, geez...).

The number one cure for cheating is to play in clubs where things like cheating matters, and avoiding "Xbox Live style" free-for-alls like GameSpy, which are essentially schools and testbeds for cheaters.

[Wim Libaers]

There is a grey area of what is cheating and what isn't, but this issue is NOT in the grey. Neither is a lot of the crap we hear from gamespy. And you're the only one that mentioned a "code of conduct." There's no slippery slope here.

First, it may be in the grey. Not for those who often are on this forum, but for others. Kazuaki Shimazaki II explained why.

Then, a code of conduct is exactly what would be needed to solve such problems, and it would still pose problems when you want to enforce it. For example did someone turn in the right direction because he was cheating, or did he just make a guess that happened to be useful?

Then, why do you oppose people using this sonar bug? Because it gives them detection abilities that would not be realistic for real submarines, correct? Then you can also have the same complaint about submarines that keep the periscope up all the time, and submarines that go hunting ASW aircraft with a half-submerged sail. Such things are not realistic either.

[OneShot]

Then, why do you oppose people using this sonar bug? Because it gives them detection abilities that would not be realistic for real submarines, correct? Then you can also have the same complaint about submarines that keep the periscope up all the time, and submarines that go hunting ASW aircraft with a half-submerged sail. Such things are not realistic either.

I think I mentioned the above one or two times ...

Anyway, as LW so aptly put it, cheating happens and so far I have been mostly lucky to not encounter anybody cheating (or I didn't recognize it) which is prolly due to the fact that I hardly play outside a clan or other similar structure where I "know" the people I play with. Usually the few times when I ventured outside the gameing experience was less satisfactory.

The discussion about cheating, how to detect it and how to deal with the people who use it is quite an old and much too often discussed topic. If the community pulls together and takes a clear stand on this issue and takes action whenever there is clear proof, then this shouldn't be a big problem (at least for those within the community). If on the other hand the community decides to ignore the issue then it might or might not grow over the time, after all even with the influx of new players, those who stick to the game will mostly be older people who usually stay away from the easy way (i.e. cheating), and since the cheaters will soon have trouble finding other players this problem might regulate itself (take note ... might).

[Molon Labe]

There is a grey area of what is cheating and what isn't, but this issue is NOT in the grey. Neither is a lot of the crap we hear from gamespy. And you're the only one that mentioned a "code of conduct." There's no slippery slope here.

First, it may be in the grey. Not for those who often are on this forum, but for others. Kazuaki Shimazaki II explained why.

And I rebutted it after I ran a test to verify that he was wrong.

As for other unrealistic tactics, if you've read any of my posting, you would know that I always support realistic tactics over fluff. But, that other stuff you mentioned is in the grey, slippery slope area. (As is, unfortunately, the airdales counter to that crap as well, although that's a lot less grey [appy the following rationale to see why]). The difference is that this cheat cannot be used accidentally while at that station. On the other hand, there is no way to make the mast detectable at a certain time of exposure or range to target, and there is no way for the player to regulate it himself because he doesn't know the parameters or the variables. SCS has to fix those. But, a player with the smallest amount of integrity is all it takes to nullify the NB clicking cheat.

[Amizaur]

I have ever played MP except for Combat Mission (which happens to be very hard to cheat in... some Polish players in the CMHQ tourney finally figured it out by using memory bit hacks, talk about investing time, geez...).

I hope you didn't mean that polish CMHQ members cheated in CM games ? One (1) polish CMHQ player was discovered cheating in polish CM cup. The cheating person, after cheating was proved, was thrown out of CMHQ with a lifetime ban. AFAIK there wasn't any cheating by any polish CMHQ member in any international cup game. I know this, because accidently it was me who found out how it was done and proved it's possible at all (it was somone else who published how to do this on CMHQ and Battlefront forums - I was stupid enough to trust him and show how it was done when he asked, said he has some programming skills and will try to make anti-cheater... I didn't knew that he will publish it everywhere right away... :( ).

P.S. I wasn't defending CMHQ because they are polish, every nation has it's own portion of liars, cheaters ect.... But because I'm member of polish CMHQ, so I know those people personally and know they play fair and are honorable. And I also know the case from first hand - that it was one person only, and believe me it was tremendous ashame it was for us to find there was a cheater between us :-(((. Anyway we didn't hide it but admitted, and all international games of that person (even though no signs of cheating were found in them!) were canceled from our side and declared as enemy total victory... IIRC... it was some time ago...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And I rebutted it after I ran a test to verify that he was wrong.

I can only speak from my own experience, even though I'm well aware they do not match yours. The darn thing does show up periodicially as I drag and click it on my v1.03 with LWAMI 3.0x.

Besides How do you deliberately mark a blank display? How do you know when to stop shifting your wedge and start click on "Tracker Assign" if the Wedge doesn't glow during your random searches first.

[Molon Labe]

Besides How do you deliberately mark a blank display? How do you know when to stop shifting your wedge and start click on "Tracker Assign" if the Wedge doesn't glow during your random searches first.

You don't. You mark everywhere until you get a contact out of nothing.

[LuftWolf]

I have ever played MP except for Combat Mission (which happens to be very hard to cheat in... some Polish players in the CMHQ tourney finally figured it out by using memory bit hacks, talk about investing time, geez...).

I hope you didn't mean that polish CMHQ members cheated in CM games ? One (1) polish CMHQ player was discovered cheating in polish CM cup. The cheating person, after cheating was proved, was thrown out of CMHQ with a lifetime ban. AFAIK there wasn't any cheating by any polish CMHQ member in any international cup game. I know this, because accidently it was me who found out how it was done and proved it's possible at all (it was somone else who published how to do this on CMHQ and Battlefront forums - I was stupid enough to trust him and show how it was done when he asked, said he has some programming skills and will try to make anti-cheater... I didn't knew that he will publish it everywhere right away... :( ).

Oh I didn't know this. :oops:

I heard it was the Polish CMHQ team... :dead:

I'm sorry to hear that.

I certainly didn't mean that ALL of the CMHQ players were cheating. And I did know that the incident got resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I'm sorry to have mistated the situation. :cry:

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

If the MP game is'nt to deteriorate into senseless Gamespy childish cheating and cabals of realists then
more leadership is required from those who feel that standards of behaviour are vital.

The current scam is the hoster plays 'his scenario' with an accomplice - two spiders seek innocent flies.
Fleet/s beware ! Point scoring 'Rambos' exist in most online games - see Sim HQ article about Americas Army .
At least in AA server side discipline can be enforced with defaulters beeing thrown into jail.

We desperately need leading individual player/s who are prepared to host with clearly published rules of play
and sanctions. Better still would be our own server and I for one would be prepared to help set this up.

Those who really care about this game must get off their fat backsides and do something now before its too late !!

[goldorak]

@ Bellman : I agree with what you say. The virtual fleets will have no problem enforcing a civil conduct in multiplayer games.
Thats the advantage of a closed community.

Now the problem arises with "freelance" players in gamespy or hyperlobby.
How do we solve the issue of cheating ?
Creating a dedicated server as you say would be one step in the right direction, or alternatively have a subset of people hosting with precise rules.

Dw doesn't lend itself to having a dedicated server 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so the only pratical way (from my point of view) is to choose a number of "honest" players to act as hosters on hyperlobby or gamespy.
For people who would want to host, they would have first to have a certain amount of time as normal players and then if they have a good reputation the "community" could promote then to official hosters (for lack of a better term).

Of course official hosters should be prepared to be present on hyperlobby or gamespy 2-3-4 hours per day (evening time).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

You don't. You mark everywhere until you get a contact out of nothing.

:o

Obviously, we were talking about two different things. How did this bug ever make it in anyway? Just make the thereshold the same as the wedge thereshold. What's so hard about that?

[LuftWolf]

You don't. You mark everywhere until you get a contact out of nothing.

:o

Obviously, we were talking about two different things. How did this bug ever make it in anyway? Just make the thereshold the same as the wedge thereshold. What's so hard about that?

What you are talking about is when you have a contact on one sensor, and you go to put the wedge on the same bearing on another sensor, and the classification shows up whether you have that contact on that sensor or not.

That's been discussed before, and its not a cheat, since the information is coming from another sensor on the ship which IS tracking the contact.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

That's been discussed before, and its not a cheat, since the information is coming from another sensor on the ship which IS tracking the contact.

It wasn't my cylindrical or hull sharing the TA info. I was using the TA only (the contact isn't even really showing up on the TA so how could it be showing on the others) and this happens, a wedge, out of nowhere, and when I check (Show Truth) it correlates with the bearing of the target.

[LuftWolf]

So that was on the Akula?

If it was showing up at all on the TA, then it would carry over to the other sensors.

Edit: Are you sure you have your gamma set correctly? If not, contacts can often showup and you just can't see them because your screen contrast isn't set correctly.

[Amizaur]

What you are talking about is when you have a contact on one sensor, and you go to put the wedge on the same bearing on another sensor, and the classification shows up whether you have that contact on that sensor or not.

That's been discussed before, and its not a cheat, since the information is coming from another sensor on the ship which IS tracking the contact.

I understand ther is contact tracked on broadband, and you get classification on narrowband even though there is nothing visible on NB yet ? Well I think it's wrong... if contact is tracked broadband only, then there is broadband noise only (for example very modern sub and flow noise without doscrete lines of machinery) received which is not enough for classification... you need discrete lines for classiffication so something visible on NB... AFAIK...

[Amizaur]

In the NB, filters won't light up (even if you sweep over a strong contact) - they will always be on and it'd be up to you to set the lines. Of course, you can designate on anything.

If the target is false, you'd find out later. This will discourage frivolous "click-and-pray" tactics even if somehow the detailed internal rules are out of alignment - if you don't click on something brightly visible, you run the designating nothing at all, thus wasting time.

It's EXACTLY wha I would like to see in DW, for both passive and active sonars !! :-) The "system" doesn't "know" if there is contact or not, in other case the operator would be unneeded :-D. So it should give a mark everywhere where you set it. It's a player's problem that if he's clicking everywhere, he get's false contacts everywhere ! :-P This would right away eliminate "marking cheats" on both active and passive sonars and forced player to be sure that he's marking a contact (read, he really sees something there). Of course "empty" contacts would not update because they would not be tracked by autotrackers...

[Molon Labe]

The funny thing is, by merging multiple times, this could actually create the benefit of a workaround for those cases when you try to mark a contact but nothing happens. :D

[Palindromeria]

<< a) It probably has something to do with my crappy sonar display ... again - there is something very weak out there. Ah well, at least my headphones / noise spectral analyzer is better than my displays.
b) It is a bug. Somehow, Sonalysts, who brought us this fine simulation, had misaligned the computer and display detection theresholds... and showing me something I have no right to see.

How will he know the difference? You can only (at least in my experience) get this quirk occasionally in a real game. He's probably going to conclude he got lucky and picked up some kind of microsignal - didn't Sonalysts say something about improving the sonar model after all; which means more quirks, right? It is just the inverse of my stupid actve sonar not picking up a clear return at 5000 yards, no? >>>>

the above is a good post. thinks things thru ,plays devils advocate, keeps an open mind to possibilities, its too bad more of you arent as wise.

personally
a) there are times i cannot mark clear contacts until having clicked on them repeatedly for a few minutes. why ? i dunno. um, if there are visible contacts that i cannot mark it is merely "equally" odd that there marked contacts i cannot see. no more no less.
b) LW noted there there are some gamma issues that could prevent some people from seeing some contacts.
c) so if i happen to click around and happen to get a contact maybe im supposed to see it and for some reason just cant. how am i to know ?
d) i have even noticed the autocrew mark something i cannot see in russian subs. this supports maybe sumthing about my gamma settings is preventing me from seeing something and/or that i am supposed to click around.
e) i noticed these oddities a while ago and checked the 1.03 documentation which states clearly that this problem has been fixed - so once again the expectation that i am SUPPOSED to see these contacts and for some reason just cannot is again supported.
f) how can yall spend so much time slamming people for abusing a cheat if tlam and oko only just clearly determined there's still a bug ?

no one can be abusing a known cheat until the public is actually informed there is a bug. duh ?

simple temporary solution is to avoid kilos altogether in multi.

a few of you really need to take your periscope out of your icehole now and again.

[TLAM Strike]

f) how can yall spend so much time slamming people for abusing a cheat if tlam and oko only just clearly determined there's still a bug ?

no one can be abusing a known cheat until the public is actually informed there is a bug. duh ?
I mentioned this months ago. No one listened or cared. So don’t say I just discovered this… :know:

...no one listens to little old TLAM… :roll:

[Palindromeria]

<< I mentioned this months ago. No one listened or cared. So don’t say I just discovered this >>

i take you at your word sir.

however until this thread i have not personally noticed any mention of it in the 2 plus months i've been perusing this board. some people might wish to consider that others may be underinformed before leaping to burn them at the stake.

[LuftWolf]

It is a bug. Somehow, Sonalysts, who brought us this fine simulation, had misaligned the computer and display detection theresholds... and showing me something I have no right to see. Edit: Quote attribution corrected

Bingo.

The same problem can be seen between the sphere sonars on broadband, only in reverse of the kilo issue.

From an architectural perspective, the reason this would happen, in the large majority of cases, is because DW uses multiple data and code pathways to carry information back and forth from the database, sim engine, and interface... not that I'm a programmer, so I'm using the best terminology I have from neurophysiology. :know: :88)

So, in other words, the same code that controls the visual display, is not necessarily related in any way to the code that controls the trackers beyond the fact they are taking the same platform data from the database.

You can observe this most clearly when considering the difference between how the AI and autocrew handle detections, and how the player has to handle detections, as well as TMA.

My best guess is that the .dll files are not always sync-ed together and with the NavalSimEngine the way they should be, making the interface a bit off of the actual engine performance.

Cheers,
David

[Palindromeria]

Kazuaki Shimazaki II wrote that fine post - :up:
i just agreed with it and added my perspective.

i dont see how the hysteria some other people insist on generating can ever be beneficial. it only results in less people bothering to participate because every time they sink someone or get sunk
the accusations fly like a hummingbird on crack.

[Three14]

Regarding the original post, the other player sounds like a bit of a jerk. I'd put them on the Do Not Play list pretty fast.

I've always preferred the "track everywhere" implementation. Makes more sense to me and improves gameplay (which I think is most important). Perhaps a little random walk for the blip so that it looks believable, ostensibly because the tracker is really following some phantom pattern.

It should be an option, though (Easy tracking, on/off), because unless something's changed in awhile there are often times when you can't lock a track right away, and it would be confusing and equally annoying if you couldn't be sure whether you had a track on that cruise ship or not (though loud contacts would come through DEMON). The click thing is more of a multiplay issue.

Or, since most of the other arrays are fine, Sonalysts could simply catch all the quirks. They're always SO close.

[Stern]

I wish I had more time to read all the posts here, as I find a lot of usefull information here. In regards to this thread on cheating, it is something that always be with us, regardless of the game. As stated, it is human nature for many to use and advantage they can, especially in "competition", and some take that farther into all out cheating.
In my many years playing sub games, I have played with many good people, and also some cheaters. The big problem is that no matter how good the game, how good the designers, bugs will always creep in. So although we would all love to elliminate cheating completly, it will always be with us. The other really big problem is the fact that no matter how blatent the cheat is, there will ALWAYS be resonable doubt, and this make "marking or banning" cheaters hard without wrongly accusing players and spiraling into the "paranoid witch hunt".
My personal views on cheating is this, regardless of if someone posts the name of a known cheater, when you play a person a few times you can spot them. You may not be able to prove it, but you know that they are. In my time I have played with many cheats, and sometimes STILL DO. I find it a great challenge to occationally play a cheater to see if I can beat him even with the advantage. I remember playing one person in 688, who was torp stearing in 3D. He had his weapons aquire and I would shake them (we were on seperate sides of an island) and this would repeat (he was dead at this time). After shaking torps 6 or seven times they finally died, and I tell you the feeling was better than wining the final WAR dive when both sides are dead locked lol.

I guess what I'm saying is that we all play to have fun, and can usually spot the cheats. Then we can decide who we do and dont play. I must also say I feel very sorry for these cheats, as there is nothing more pathetic than seeing a "killer" stats drop to that of a cadet when a patch is put in place (like the 688 3D patch). Then just looking at the scores makes them all stand out like a sore thumb lol.

Anyways, I really enjoy reading the posts here, and if I ever get lucky I will get more free time to stay in touch with them (I hate how RL works messes up my fun time lol).

Take care all <S>

FADM Stern GNSF