Comments on: Game Developer Column 7: Our Cheatin’ Hearts

By: Geophrey

Geophrey — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:36:55 +0000

My perception of fairness in Puzzle Quest was heavily biased by the rate at which the computer makes its moves. So when random chance events give the computer a good setup it can exploit, you see these events play out in rapid succession and it really stands out in your mind because the events are so compressed. It makes it 100% clear how much of an advantage the computer really has over you. Both in terms of analyzing current best moves and the possibilities it has for creating setups that will benefit it for the next move. So I think I initially felt like the computer was cheating but then ascertained that it was more more accurately that the computer had an advantage that I did no possess. In either case, it’s kind of irrelevant because it tainted my experience with the game but a lot, actually. It just wasn’t fun. For that reason, I quit playing the game and why I have no interest in playing any sequels they have made. Especially if the developer is going to make statements like “I can categorically say it does not [cheat]“, it suggests to me that these people don’t have much of an idea what makes something fun. Make it feel like you are playing against a human and you might be onto something, guys…

By: Erez

Erez — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:08:20 +0000

“the developers of Puzzle Quest actually should have considered cheating, but only in favor of the player. The game code could ensure that fortunate drops only happen for the human and never for the AI.”

They actually tried, from http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/02/puzzle_quest_galactrix_creator.php:
“We actually looked at anti-cheating, at having the game look ahead to see if mines were going to drop in, and then changing the gems that were going to drop in to actually reverse cheat, to cheat in favor of the humans. But we found that it was better in the end to remove certain annoyances, things like four of a kind giving extra turns. We removed some of those systems, we took the annoyances away. I think that’s about right. There’s still going to be people who think it cheats but I can categorically say it does not.”

By: kras

kras — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:16:12 +0000

Another problem would be the lottery effect. If you have several million people play a game, it’s extremely likely that some people are going to experience an extremely unlikely event. I think people equate ‘very very unlikely’ with ‘impossible’, and when they see the computer beat them at a million-to-one odds, conclude that the computer is cheating.

By: VRBones

VRBones — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:45:50 +0000

Speaking of cheating FOR the player, it’s interesting analysing the drops in Bejewelled Blitz (Facebook version) where you will NEVER have a lockout, whereas in Bejewelled 2 that is the game-ending criteria. My guess is that the harshness of a lockout from purely random drops would grate in the casual minute-long gamespace, whereas the same randomness generating multiple combos (and ultimately a large percentage of the player’s score) is somehow attributed to the player.

By: רמאות ותפיסה | משחק בתיאוריה

רמאות ותפיסה | משחק בתיאוריה — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:54:57 +0000

[...] הזה, על רמאות במשחקי מחשב, מדבר על הכלל החשוב ביותר – זו לא רמאות אם אף אחד לא [...]

By: CivPlayer

CivPlayer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:59:10 +0000

BTW, in a PBEM game I had a puny barbarian warrior conquer and RAZE my capital, defended by a longbow with strength II, 100% culture and walls.

That day I almost BURNED the game. It certainly took me a long time to play it again. Since then I learned that the only way against barbarians is to put in whatever you’re defending more units that they can kill in a turn, because they’re certainly going to kill some, whatever the odds!

By: CivPlayer

CivPlayer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:56:16 +0000

I’ve lost so many fights in Civ4 of those 40 vs. 2.5, 99.something% probability of winning, that if the AI isn’t cheating, you’re certainly doing very bad explaining in the game.

It certainly happens to me more frequently than 1 time out of 500. And almost always against the AI.

The game is great, but that made me crazy. Now I also play PBEM with human opponents, and I almost never see that happening.

Oh, and yes, I read how the combat works.

By: Soren Johnson

Soren Johnson — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:40:43 +0000

@Iain and @WildWeazel in both cases, the AI is not cheating. It’s easy to imagine it, I know…

By: mister k

mister k — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:38:07 +0000

Interesting article. Civ usually gets away with cheating because the manual was often explicit about most of the examples, and it did have a lot to deal with. It is frustrating to be confronted with cheating you did not expect when it breaks strategies. In starcraft skirmish mode, the computer doesn’t actually really care about how much resources it can acquire, as far as I can tell, so tactics that would be useful against humans become useless against the AI

By: bonuswavepilot

bonuswavepilot — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:45:37 +0000

Interesting article; and FWIW I think Civ IV did a pretty good job on this.

Also… I think you probably mean ‘Our Cheatin’ Hearts’ in the title there.