Nice to see DZ cheating again :)

Ah,

Knew DZ could not do something wrong for very long...

Good Job DZ, using your KeyserSose to beat all your other accounts....

Very well done....

Pawn

http://www.winbolo.net/gamelog.php?ip=CPE0050fc24376e-CM024420002380.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com&port=27500&key=a3eda6320eea23efa6a3775e41c2c949
http://www.winbolo.net/gamelog.php?ip=CPE0050fc24376e-CM024420002380.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com&port=27500&key=8ffdc2ac5720c0bba88f0d62ad717cb1


[End Sacarism.]

I tried to beat myself two days ago and I lost (as usual).

Desmo

Pawn, surely you must know this has been an on-going problem since the creation of wbn. Not just with Dz, but others. Mostly children. First it was Dz yes, then others like Loop and Lace. Thats is one reason I asked elvis and Canuck to implement a new feature, that shows who you have beaten and lost too. Not only will that be cool to see but will keep this point cheating to a minimum. Unfortunately, I don't know how long it will take Canuck to implement this feature or how hard it is.

Sky

Maybe there's a simple fix that will get most of the cheating.

If the IP address of the opponents are the same the game doesn't count.

wonka wrote:

Maybe there's a simple fix that will get most of the cheating.

If the IP address of the opponents are the same the game doesn't count.

That would be a pretty good idea, but then if my "significant other" (thanks sky, I love that term :P) and I decided to play against each other, it wouldn't count, since our IP's are the same. Not that that is going to happen anytime soon, but I'm sure that some people who live together - say siblings, roommates or something along those lines where they share IP’s - would run into this problem :? Otherwise I think that it would be a feasible solution.

They couldn't be on the same machine... and thus different IP addresses. Maybe an alternative is the MAC address.

wonka wrote:

They couldn't be on the same machine... and thus different IP addresses. Maybe an alternative is the MAC address.

take a step backwords bigguy, first of all, you can be on different computers and have the same IP address and the same mac address, its called an router. there are alot of other ways it can be done as well, but a router is the simpliest. Why punish people who have valid reasons for having mulitple accounts? .... It would be far simplier to moderate the user creation in my opinion, if you try to create a user from the same IP address(which could easily be changed btw) then a message would be sent to a moderator and they would have to confirm the creation, but this would be ineffective becuase people can just change their IP address.

Min

every NIC has a unique MAC for starters. IP address come and go unless someone has static IP, and even those can change (if one requests it).

Yeah a router has a MAC address, but WB doesn't run on the router.

dz and blue, more than likely ran 2 sessions of WB on the same machine, each playing the other. meaning MAC of the NIC and IP are the same.

If you are playing on a LAN where you are using subnet masking, the IP's might be the same, but the MAC's are different because they are playing on different machines.

From a MAC you can tell the vendor, and serial# of the device they are using for that matter.

wonka wrote:

every NIC has a unique MAC for starters. IP address come and go unless someone has static IP, and even those can change (if one requests it).

Yeah a router has a MAC address, but WB doesn't run on the router.

dz and blue, more than likely ran 2 sessions of WB on the same machine, each playing the other. meaning MAC of the NIC and IP are the same.

If you are playing on a LAN where you are using subnet masking, the IP's might be the same, but the MAC's are different because they are playing on different machines.

From a MAC you can tell the vendor, and serial# of the device they are using for that matter.

sounds like you know enough to be dangerous, I'm sure you know the rest, sorry to say, but on the internet side, the router is all the winbolo server see's .. I don't know how you think a computer with a non-routable address will be viewed by the outside network. and, routers can clone mac address's you just type in the mac of any network card into a router and it will use it on the internet side, how do you detect that? ... I'm telling you that its not feasible to do what you suggest. in one town that we setup for cable internet, the entire network we had in place (about 200 subscribers at the time) had ONE ip address, and ONE mac address .... in that case we had to use subnetting, but for a home ethernet router, you don't ... it acts as a DHCP server and hands non-routable address's to the comptuers on the home network. and then it obtains a real IP from the ISP's DHCP server. all traffic on that network goes through the router, saying "WB doesn't run on the router" just displays your lack of understanding of how it works.

Min

sounds like you know enough to be dangerous

Because you are the one and only true god

I don't know how you think a computer with a non-routable address will be viewed by the outside network

You take my machine, the IP address the outside world sees is 65.69.221.186, but that in no way is my real IP address.

Since WB runs on the client as well. it has access to my real IP address, subnet mask, AND MAC address. And, it could record that info, all within one packet.

I'm telling you that its not feasible to do what you suggest. in one town that we setup for cable internet, the entire network we had in place (about 200 subscribers at the time) had ONE ip address, and ONE mac address .... in that case we had to use subnetting

You still uniquely identified every machine.

saying "WB doesn't run on the router" just displays your lack of understanding of how it works.

I still stand by that cheap shot. Since WB runs on both sides, it can access and keep track of what is on the client machine and report that info to the tracker.

Min, I'm gonna tell u a little about my background. I've worked as a developer type since the late '70's. Back then i wrote a queue app that mapped transactions from terminals to the appropriate app, and routed the transactions accordingly. I also wrote a simple messaging system where you could send 80 character messages to other people. when people logged in, i mapped the user to the physical address of the terminal, so you could send a message to a single user, or broadcast to all terminals. simple by todays standards.

The last 12 years, outside 1 year i spent in Denver, i've worked in the telecom industry. For both an IXC and an incumbent LEC. There i designed and wrote the plant software. tracking bandwidth and bandwidth allocations/provisioning.

When i worked at the IXC, we moved into doing remote site monitoring, so i designed and wrote the virtual connectivity piece. this mapped the virtual connectivity to the physical. It allowed the NOC to poll the managed devices, and when a NACK was encounted, it went to a re-poll list. If after several more trys no ACK was recorded, an alarm went off. If we lost a bandwidth segment, we could see all devices affected by the outage. since the physical/virtual model was in place.

The reason we wrote the poller was HP Openview was non-scalable. we had a room full of sun servers... and the cost was prohibitive. So we wrote a poller to replace openview, we were at that time managing some 10,000 remote devices. they now manage some 100,000 devices.

When i worked at the LEC, same type of deal i designed and wrote plant software. as well as an AMA to EMI parser, call scoping, rating, record exchange software.

Notice a trend yet? no network configuration. I never had to work with the nuts and bolts of router configuration. Although i designed and wrote software that mapped the physical ports and virtual connectivity, i never had to configure one. I think it's pretty slick how you implemented to 200 users cable internet.

wonka wrote:

Because you are the one and only true god

I always get a kick out of this one. what If I don't believe in "god" then what does that make me? .. just a asshole? :P

wonka wrote:

You take my machine, the IP address the outside world sees is 65.69.221.186, but that in no way is my real IP address.

Since WB runs on the client as well. it has access to my real IP address, subnet mask, AND MAC address. And, it could record that info, all within one packet.

You are correct, I apologize if I misunderstood your original statment. If winbolo didn't rank 2 people who played from a computer that has the same MAC address, it would probably fix that problem. I don't know how hard it would be for elvis to implement that though. Good Idea!. Unfortunatly that would only stop some people. Now what do we do about people who load up winbolo from 2 different computers, perhaps even from different houses? .... any ideas?

wonka wrote:

I still stand by that cheap shot. Since WB runs on both sides, it can access and keep track of what is on the client machine and report that info to the tracker.

As long as It only keeps track of the MAC address, then I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work. I just didn't think of it that way, and the way you worded your responses made it hard to completely comprehend what you were saying.

Min

wonka wrote:

Min, I'm gonna tell u a little about my background. I've worked as a developer type since the late '70's. Back then i wrote a queue app that mapped transactions from terminals to the appropriate app, and routed the transactions accordingly. I also wrote a simple messaging system where you could send 80 character messages to other people. when people logged in, i mapped the user to the physical address of the terminal, so you could send a message to a single user, or broadcast to all terminals. simple by todays standards.

The last 12 years, outside 1 year i spent in Denver, i've worked in the telecom industry. For both an IXC and an incumbent LEC. There i designed and wrote the plant software. tracking bandwidth and bandwidth allocations/provisioning.

When i worked at the IXC, we moved into doing remote site monitoring, so i designed and wrote the virtual connectivity piece. this mapped the virtual connectivity to the physical. It allowed the NOC to poll the managed devices, and when a NACK was encounted, it went to a re-poll list. If after several more trys no ACK was recorded, an alarm went off. If we lost a bandwidth segment, we could see all devices affected by the outage. since the physical/virtual model was in place.

The reason we wrote the poller was HP Openview was non-scalable. we had a room full of sun servers... and the cost was prohibitive. So we wrote a poller to replace openview, we were at that time managing some 10,000 remote devices. they now manage some 100,000 devices.

When i worked at the LEC, same type of deal i designed and wrote plant software. as well as an AMA to EMI parser, call scoping, rating, record exchange software.

Notice a trend yet? no network configuration. I never had to work with the nuts and bolts of router configuration. Although i designed and wrote software that mapped the physical ports and virtual connectivity, i never had to configure one. I think it's pretty slick how you implemented to 200 users cable internet.

Heh, well, the 200 user cable internet system was ... interesting, the cable internet company I work for has about 4000 total subscribers, but we had to do some quick thinking to get that portion of the network up and running properly. becuase we didn't have the availible real IP subnet at the time. But its nice to know your a programmer, I may email you regarding some stuff.... btw, please don't be offended by me, I like to argue. As is apparent by my previous posts.

Min

I like that 2nd game log you referenced, Pawn... the one where KeyserSose lost his builder. Can't keep his lgm alive even when he's playing against nobody. You rule, DZ!

Min wrote:

but a router is the simpliest. Why punish people who have valid reasons for having mulitple accounts? ....

Min, I can't think of any valid reasons for ppl having multiple accounts. Please list some :) .

Wonka wrote:

Maybe there's a simple fix that will get most of the cheating. If the IP address of the opponents are the same the game doesn't count.

Sounds like a good idea. Now, we just need someone to implement it.
*MaddMaxx looks towards Elvis

Min wrote:

wonka wrote:

Because you are the one and only true god

I always get a kick out of this one. what If I don't believe in "god" then what does that make me? .. just a asshole? :P

Maybe i'm just plain dyslexic and got dog and god confused. ;-)

Now what do we do about people who load up winbolo from 2 different computers, perhaps even from different houses? .... any ideas?

I'm not sure. I've got a couple of ideas. let me think about them and i'll email you.

Madd Maxx wrote:

Min, I can't think of any valid reasons for ppl having multiple accounts. Please list some :) .

I have about 4 accounts on wbn and use them all at various times. I have yet to play them against eachother, but why is it I need to have only one account? I don't see this draconian solution as needed. I have played with multiple nicks since bolo in the 90s, I see no point not too.

Or, perhaps in some command line-code...
Two of the same versions of Winbolo would crash if found dialing into the same UDP port. That way, this would happen...
jhood in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00001 on 127.0.0.1
plus
jhood1 in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00001 on 127.0.0.1
Then the game would freeze, or one Winbolo app would close.

This on the other hand...
jhood in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00002 on 127.0.0.1
plus
jhood in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00003 on 127.0.0.1
This would be all good, seeing that I am in two different games.

There is no reason why one person should be allowed twice in a game, unless that player is playing a bot on the same machine, in that case, they should be playing by IP address, which would allow them to play with theirself. (pun intended)
The winbolo stats were put there for a reason, not just 'shits and giggles'.

This makes sense in my mind, but seeing that I am very tired, I might have to explain it more.
Or maybe, Min could just reply with 10 reasons why Im always wrong.

Now what do we do about people who load up winbolo from 2 different computers, perhaps even from different houses? .... any ideas?

They'd have to have pretty damn big arms to play bolo from two different houses...
As for loading winbolo from different computers, theres probably not a way around this, unless you make every player sign up for WBN, then only allow one username per IP, which still brings up the IP spoofing and such. Just realize the people who do this are the same people who decide to include smileyfaces inside their posts.

.::jhood::. wrote:

Or, perhaps in some command line-code...
Two of the same versions of Winbolo would crash if found dialing into the same UDP port. That way, this would happen...
jhood in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00001 on 127.0.0.1
plus
jhood1 in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00001 on 127.0.0.1
Then the game would freeze, or one Winbolo app would close.

This on the other hand...
jhood in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00002 on 127.0.0.1
plus
jhood in game sheeps.winbolo.us:00003 on 127.0.0.1
This would be all good, seeing that I am in two different games.


This makes sense in my mind, but seeing that I am very tired, I might have to explain it more.
Or maybe, Min could just reply with 10 reasons why Im always wrong.

uh, "dialing into the same udp port" .... want to clarify what you mean by that ...

umm, dunno if I can come up with 10 reasons why your "wrong" sometimes there is no right and wrong, just different opinions. But I can tell you right now, me and my wife have played winbolo at the same time from the same IP address .... I've also had winbolo LAN parties were there was 3-4 people connected to a game from the same IP, I don't think that restricting stats based on IP is a good idea.

Min

.::jhood::. wrote:

They'd have to have pretty damn big arms to play bolo from two different houses...
As for loading winbolo from different computers, theres probably not a way around this, unless you make every player sign up for WBN, then only allow one username per IP, which still brings up the IP spoofing and such. Just realize the people who do this are the same people who decide to include smileyfaces inside their posts.

well, the people we're refering too loaded up a couple of bots, go to your friends house, load up a bot, come home, join the game, etc. in the different house they would have a different IP... I'm interested in seeing what wonka can think of ...

Min

but why is it I need to have only one account? I don't see this draconian solution as needed.

My point was not to stop people from having multiple accounts, nor, as jhood elegantly stated..."playing with themselves". Lets say someone created a BOT, and wanted to test it. Same machine. Why stop them from doing it? My point is that game should not count in the stats. It should be considered a non-winbolo.net game.

who knows, its probably just packets. thats the answer for everything. instead of a program speeding up the processes, its just sending packets because thats what the guy in the book told me. instead of loading bolo from different computers, just send em some packets. we could fix the bugs in this version as well with packets. i seem to be out of packets, min, could i borrow one?

I forwarded to Min the details of what i'm thinking about. I'm interested in hearing his feedback. What i've suggested is creating a standard game profile.

Any games that fall out of the profile range by a certain percentage, would not have the stats counted.

I also suggested an appeal process when someone thought the stats should've counted.

Most of the changes would occur on winbolo.net, and only a couple of them to winbolo or linbolo. Mainly reporting info to ensure uniqueness of the machine playing.

heheh you guys make me laugh..... i knew that this would stur up some trouble.. and make people whine... ahhhahha


anyone who search for the logs of the games, and had time to paste it in this ovciously takes this game to seriously.

thanks pawn... you passed my test for lamers. want a cookie?