Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Davio]

Just to throw something in the mix here: If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical.

By simulation we know all know that Jack is a pretty powerful card and that information has been shared on this site freely. So if ever we play on Iso against someone who doesn't know this site and doesn't know about the most signifcant results of the simulator, do we cheat?

I'm just saying this because I don't think it's that clear cut.


But I do think that Geronimoo is using an unfair advantage if he actively uses it before a game. At least, he should share the results or notify the other player. The poker comparison is rather odd. I think it's more like Scrabble and Geronimoo is using a dictionary before laying down tiles, instead of afterwards. I don't think Geronimoo intended to cheat or be unethical, so I'm not calling him out and a witch hunt is totally unnecessary here. We can all be civilized and give our opinion and I think Geronimoo will be fine with the consensus going either way.

[DG]

Just to throw something in the mix here: If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical.

Let's throw that out straight away.

In general, I'd say that using a simulator or AI strategy guide after you've seen the kingdom cards is unfair on the opponent. So would be software that tracks the content of a deck and displays draw probabilities, etc. without sharing it with an opponent. It would be nice to have Isotropic tournament rules that prohibited these aids but what's the point of having rules that can't be monitored or enforced?

[Fabian]

"If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical."

That conclusion doesn't follow at all, and is very strange to me. See chess engines and/or chess game databases.

[Toskk]

The issue here that hasn't exactly been defined is what constitutes the span of time we're calling the 'game'.. does it begin the moment you take your first turn, or does it begin the moment the Kingdom cards have been revealed, or at some other point? That span of time isn't exactly spelled out in the rules, and has a pretty direct affect on what any given player may think of as 'cheating'.

[Octo]

The game starts as soon as you see the 10 kingdom cards. Analysing the spread totally counts as part of the game. I would've thought that goes without saying.

I also agree that using a simulator outside of the game is fine. However, it's interesting to note that both chess databases and the simulators have had profound effects on the games they are supplemental to.

In the case of Jack of All Trades - you can't keep winning with that strat AND keep it a secret though - it becomes a learned strat and part of the standard arsenal. You may play tons of games where a combination of cards you found through a simulator simply do not show up, and even then there could still be a better strat on the table. However, analysing a specific set of 10 cards is very different as you only need it to last you one game and you can make a much better simulation and comparison as you know all the cards available.

[Toskk]

The game starts as soon as you see the 10 kingdom cards. Analysing the spread totally counts as part of the game. I would've thought that goes without saying.

I don't think it's as obvious as you suggest, at least not to all players.. after all, why does Isotropic let you view the board before agreeing on a game? If the game really has already started, a player should not at that point be able to decline it without forfeiting.

[ftl]

The rules specify that you can choose a kingdom however you like; you're allowed to do stuff like veto mode and discarding ones you don't like.

If the game really has already started, a player should not at that point be able to decline it without forfeiting.

There are indeed people who think that would be a good way for Isotropic to work. If there were a checkbox to play like that (nobody sees kingdom until you can't leave except by resigning), I'd do it, for sure.

[Slurms]

There are indeed people who think that would be a good way for Isotropic to work. If there were a checkbox to play like that (nobody sees kingdom until you can't leave except by resigning), I'd do it, for sure.

+1

[rspeer]

It's important to keep in mind that there is no pre-defined absolute morality about how you play a game, besides the rules. It's defined by the community that plays that game. Which is of course what's going on in this thread, but there's no reason to point fingers and say "you retroactive cheater!" about how someone played before the discussion.

Here's an example that parallels the perennial vp-counting argument. Can you count tiles in Scrabble? Yes. Every hardcore player does it. Look at any Scrabble tournament and 99% of the players are counting tiles, on paper, without asking permission from their opponent. But can you count cards in casino blackjack? No. Officially you're not even allowed to do it in your mind.

Can you use computer aids during a game of poker? Not if it's face-to-face, but yes if you're playing online, apparently.

I wouldn't personally use a simulator after the cards were revealed. And I don't think anyone else should after this thread, unless they say so up front like Donald suggested. But enough witch hunting. (Unless it's in game, using a Black Market.)

[DStu]

My first comment was not forked.... It was not totally serious anyway.

Really don't want to discuss point counters here, but I think that discussion is exactly the point why I was against using them in the first place, especially against the will of your opponent. You can't just define cheating by how much using a computer in the game helps you, but only by if you use it to help you. If you do it anyway, you have lots of grey area where somebody says clearly it's ok, and the other says it's clear cheating. If the computer can help me a little, it can help me much. Or where exactly is the line?

Of course, in reality, and in a computer game, you maybe must adjust the rules (like it is done in the tournament) to reality, to make cheating you can't prevent and see a variante...

[Davio]

"If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical."

That conclusion doesn't follow at all, and is very strange to me. See chess engines and/or chess game databases.

I was just trying to make a point. Where do you draw the line?

If I had been simulating something (e.g. Jack vs Mine) out of curiosity and 1 minute later, I go on Iso, play a random game and would you believe it: It has both Jack and Mine! Yes, it's different from looking at a kingdom first and using the simulator at that time, but the end result is the same. I still know what beats what.

How about asking a friend for help when looking at a kingdom?


Generally, I think playing a game on the internet is much much different than playing a game in real life. We simply can't enforce the same rules and have to view them as separate entities. While it is true that an online poker player will still understand the simple rules if the game when played live, he can't use a heads-up display which tells him how good or bad the other players approximately are and what their exact statistics are. In poker, information is key and the more information you have, the better your decisions and the better your results will be.

Can we really blame someone who is putting in more effort than someone else and tries to get better? Hardly. But do we have to protect non-suspecting opponents? Possibly.

[Octo]

So it's a case of "well he might be doing it so I'm going to do it" ? That's pretty sad (though probably quite true);

Regarding your example of simulating 1min before - you could equally say the same about discussing that strat with a friend or even having a game with those key cards 1min before this game. What about the fact that there's some cards that people haven't played with before? The point is that people come into the game with different levels of knowledge for whatever reasons, but once it starts then those artificial aids are out. If it was a competitive game, then no, no discussion with a friend while the game is on.

@Toskk - that's a good point, but that's where Isotropic is weird for me. I think I might be unusual among some here in that I don't see iso and real-life as different versions, they are just different levels of convenience, though in general internet games often encourage a different attitude. I see why they should have different rules sets and conventions really. In real-life though, we do still use the odd veto, it's not hard-core random-10 all the time. But I think the key thing is that once the 10 are decided then that's done. That much is certain. If they use a simulator in the veto stage? Not so sure, but I know for sure that I wouldn't allow at my table, so I wouldn't like it online either.

[Davio]

There is just no way to enforce anything over the internet.

Behind the comfort of their screens, people can do anything they want. They can ask a friend for help, simulate themselves or even hire a legion of Indian helpdesk employees to run 1000's of different simulators. There are poker coaches that help you while playing online.

So when the dust clears, whether this is classified as cheating or not, it will still occur. And that's the sad truth.
Still, people who want to go that far just to beat a random guy on the internet, probably need to re-prioritize their lives.

[Lekkit]

To be honest, I don't really see this as a problem. There are some people running a lot of simulations when they're not playing the game. If they've simulated the difference between JoAT and Mine in a Colony game earlier that day, or just keep track of their sims they know this allready. I don't want to point any fingers, but I've seen examples of people saying that "I was simulating this earlier, and then it came up in a game, and since I simulated it earlier I won, since I knew the "best" way to play it."

Say I got the base set and Prosperity first when I bought the game. It wouldn't take long before I got better at playing Colony games than someone who bought all expansions at the same time. Is it cheating when I play one of those players? I think it pretty much is saying that training is cheating.

However I do think it's unethical to do this right before a game when all the cards have been revealed, and I would probably frown upon the ones simulating games as soon as they see the kingdom, and if I was playing with them face to face, I would also probably notice they were doing it and I would ask them to stop. Over the Internet, there's no way of telling if they do or don't.

Also, a player doing this every game would only get so high on the leaderboard before playing a game with an engine and getting his behind handed to him. In the end, I don't see this as much different than only playing BM or BM+. I do play these strategys sometimes, And I don't think I'm much better than the guy simulating the game beforehand if I can tell it will probably be the dominant strategy.

[Geronimoo]

Not so long ago I mostly encountered scepticism whenever I said "this is not optimal, simulations show...". I take from this discussion that people are starting to take it more seriously. That makes me , but I'm a bit about being considered a cheater. Trust me, it's really only me and not my simulator who's kicking your ass on isotropic 

[Thisisnotasmile]

If I had been simulating something (e.g. Jack vs Mine) out of curiosity and 1 minute later, I go on Iso, play a random game and would you believe it: It has both Jack and Mine! Yes, it's different from looking at a kingdom first and using the simulator at that time, but the end result is the same. I still know what beats what.

Imagine you have a Maths exam at the end of the school year that could be on anything you've learnt and you decide to leave your revision until the last day. When you start you realise you've left it too late and only have time to revise one topic so you study how to solve quaratic equations. You get to the exam and the majority of the questions are on quadratic equations! In this case, you got lucky with your studying, but you studied and are within your right to have the knowledge you have.

Now imagine you didn't study at all. Instead, you get to the exam and open up the paper. Hey, most of these questions are about quadratic equations! You get permission to leave the exam room to use the toilet and while you are out you go and read up on quadratic equations quickly. You are cheating.


In my opinion, using a simulator, or reading the DS blog and/or forums while not playing a game of Dominion is studying. You are teaching yourself how to better play the game of Dominion. You are perfectly within your right to win games of Dominion if you have put in the time and effort beforehand to make sure you have a better knowledge of the game than the other guy. If you use the simulator or forums DURING a game to specifically find out information that will help you play better IN THAT GAME, you are cheating. The time to learn is before the exam, not during it.


Having said that, I hold nothing against Geronimoo for anything that he may/may not have done before this discussion happened.

[Rabid]

While I agree that it would be nice to ban this, in an online setting it is not possible.
Therefore the only way make it fair is to allow everyone to do it. (Just like we did for point counters)

[DStu]

While I agree that it would be nice to ban this, in an online setting it is not possible.
Therefore the only way make it fair is to allow everyone to do it. (Just like we did for point counters)

So you think we should force Geronimoo to put his simulator in the net?

[Rabid]

Of course not, But I group simulating during a game as a different point on the same scale as reading forums or looking at a table of openings during the game. I wish it was possible to stop, but as it isn't the only way I can see to get a level playing field is to allow it.

[Thisisnotasmile]

While I agree that it would be nice to ban this, in an online setting it is not possible.
Therefore the only way make it fair is to allow everyone to do it. (Just like we did for point counters)

So you think we should force Geronimoo to put his simulator in the net?

It's been on the net for a long time now...

[Octo]

@Davio - just to clarify, when I said it was sad I didn't mean you were sad for justifying it, I meant it in the way you meant it: it's sad that it simply has to boil down to the fact that it can't be enforced.

@Geronimoo - I wouldn't worry, I'm sure any negative karma you've acquired is vastly outweighed by the positive karma gained making the simulator in the first place!

Interesting question though: I played chess with a friend over email/text. The last game lasted nearly two years. Was I cheating to read about chess strategy at all during that time? Two years is pretty long to abstain from any training.

@Rabid - I don't think so. To concede that it cannot be enforced though is still frowned upon is different from expressly allowing it. We can't expressly allow it either though because the simulator is not integrated and is a separate thing. So "allowing it" is just as pointless.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Interesting question though: I played chess with a friend over email/text. The last game lasted nearly two years. Was I cheating to read about chess strategy at all during that time? Two years is pretty long to abstain from any training.

I think when a game lasts that long and is known to last that long before the game starts, it's a different matter. To use my exam analogy again, consider this "writing your dissertation" as opposed to "sitting an exam". You're still being assessed on what you can do, but what you are being assessed on is different. You are no longer being assessed on the knowledge that you have learned and digested, but the knowledge that you have learned and digested in addition to your ability to learn and digest more.

[DStu]

It's been on the net for a long time now...

really?

Of course not, But I group simulating during a game as a different point on the same scale as reading forums or looking at a table of openings during the game. I wish it was possible to stop, but as it isn't the only way I can see to get a level playing field is to allow it.

But that would in the end mean to introduce Geronimoo's (and rspeer's) simulator in isotropic.  Everybody can download them now, so that is the only thing that would level the field more. You of course could let you tell isotropic which BM+X is the strongest on this board, but therefore it has to know how you play BM+X optimally (against which other strategy). Where you would have to optimize and hold 20.000 startegies, how you play BM-X in the presence of BM-Y. That's only 2 player. In 3++ player, things get even larger, and more game-theoretical. (If two player go for Nomand'sCamp-Fool's Gold, third player going Smithy beats them, but only one player NC-FG wins. Same fun with Witch/Moat. I guess it happens all the time).
Given that, I don't see how isotropic can implement any feature that really solves that, beside giving a simulator which probably most people can not configure fast and well enough to do this analysis pregame. So anyway only the interested ones can use this feature, and these already know about the simulator and could use it anyway.

I think that is about the same as someony printing a poster with which BM beats which. You can not prevent somebody to have this, but do you want to have a link on iso to a jpeg that shows it because someone could do it?

[Rabid]

I'm only saying that it should be allowed, not integrated into iso.

For example in the rules for a tournament.
A) I would rather have a rules saying it was allowed.
B) Than a rule that cannot be enforced forbidding it.

A) creates a level playing field.
B) a few players break the rules, but cannot be detected, most players stick to the rules but are at a disadvantage.

[Octo]

I see your logic, and it's entirely pragmatic (you could be either pro or anti simulators, I can't tell from that last post). The thing is that there's various things that are not set up right for competitive play - why are time-out kicks optional? If there's a time-limit that you exceeded, tough shit, game over (like chess), if there isn't a time limit then and it's just in case someone dropped then a) why can I kick someone none-the-less, and b) you will need a real time limit if simulators are allowed otherwise you might get kicked for the wrong reasons - taking too long is not against the rules, and if you take too long because you're simulating then that's not against the rules either is it? The timers would need a countdown too.

Basically, if a simulator is allowed then fuck it I'm going to run as many simulations as I damn well want before my first turn, and during the rest of the game too. Regardless of it being less fun, that's now a situation that needs dealing with in a proper way if it's fair competition you're worried about.

The only real solution is, I'm afraid, that you simply cannot have meaningful competitive play online with iso in its current state. The only way to allow aids is to bring them into the game and thus control them effectively. Otherwise it would be like having a hard and fast time-limit in chess without actually providing the clock, but hey, you can bring your own if you want.