I think I just "drop hack"ed...

[Xinterp]

I think I just "drop hack"ed...

So, my router at my family's is very unstable and disconnects randomly from time to time. I just started playing again since yesterday's reset and got disconnected on my 2nd + 3rd game with the infamous "You are victorious!" screen. Both games which I was going to lose. After my router sync'ed back in, I connected back to resume my game play..

Later, I noticed both those games were counted as wins..

I don't want my CD key banned, should I wait till I get back on my normal connection in Boston to play again?

[Easy506/2ndBatt]

Definitely. Just saying that once Relic starts to WTFPWNAGE all the drop hackers/suspects out there, they're not gonna be easily convinced that you're an innocent mixed up amongst the guilty. Better safe than sorry.

Just my

[Xinterp]

I just realized that anyone with a laptop is capable of easily "drop hacking" by disabling and enabling their Wireless. For Dell's you hold the Function key and hit F2 to disable/enable wireless. I really hope this bug is fixed asap, cause getting banned for innocently disconnecting will suck.

[BSilenced]

This is why its surely better to record any game that one person disconnects from as a Win to the non disconnector and as a loss to the person who disconnected...

Just seems to make sense.. that way if someone drops trying to get the win they get the loss...

[Xinterp]

But, as of now - I don't think the software is capable of detecting one's internet connection status. For example, my router resets on and off disconnecting me from the game, but reconects intime for me to get back to the CoH Online lobby without having to relogin.

[Dark_Avenger]

dont worry xinterp, I have had that happen to me a few times, but relic wont see that as a drop hack ( i think/hope )

plus they must have total confidence that it is before they ban you

[Mordakii]

Xinterp, Way to go, tell people how to do it, you stink of someone who is scared because they have been Dropping and are trying to get others to do it to cover your tracks/ be among a bigger crowd IMO.

[Darkington]

It is not a hack, it is an easily exploited bug.

[Xinterp]

Xinterp, Way to go, tell people how to do it, you stink of someone who is scared because they have been Dropping and are trying to get others to do it to cover your tracks/ be among a bigger crowd IMO.

what?

[Albi]

This is why its surely better to record any game that one person disconnects from as a Win to the non disconnector and as a loss to the person who disconnected...

Just seems to make sense.. that way if someone drops trying to get the win they get the loss...

Makes soooooo much sence to me, why does it not make sence to RELIC?

[Mutters]

cos they understand how their code works and you have no clue

[EveryDayIsOwl]

I have no idea how this can be considered a 'hack'.

It's simpile, their win logic is flawed.

While I really enjoy this RTS and it's easily the best one I've played in a long time, the online experience feels like a beta. It isn't as if they are the first to implement an online RTS.

Another good example of how poorly thought out the online is: having to enable port forwarding to ensure that I don't get "could not connect to all players" errors.

[ceejayoz]

Oh, honesly, there's nearly seven million results for 'port forwarding game' on Google. It's hardly some new Relic problem, and if you knew something about networking you'd understand why it's commonly needed in P2P communication like that Company of Heroes employs.

If it was a simple case of flawed win logic, the problem would have been fixed long ago. They're not morons.

As for the online experience itself, it's an entirely new online service. Other online services - Battle.net, Gamespy, etc. - had their growing pains too.

[Xinterp]

If it was a simple case of flawed win logic, the problem would have been fixed long ago. They're not morons.

As for the online experience itself, it's an entirely new online service. Other online services - Battle.net, Gamespy, etc. - had their growing pains too.

qft

[Texture]

Mutters: huh? Anyways.....

I think the problem in all this is that it's very hard to determine who 'dropped' the connection. If the physical connection between both players dies, how exactly is one client or the other supposed to know what caused it?

In other words, if I'm playing and yank my internet connection, how does my client know that I did that, as opposed to my opponent having done that? It doesn't really. I suppose you could have it attempt to make another communication to the Relic server or some other sort of generalized internet connectivity test, but by the time it does that you could be reconnected. Alternately, if you were really hacking, you could have a script which intentionally closes down traffic on the port CoH uses for P2P connectivity while playing the game, but at the same time keep all other connectivity going... or temporarily filter traffic from your opponents IP over that port but allow all other traffic... all things which would make it really hard to tell that you caused the disconnection.

I don't know the specifics of what Relic is facing, but just as a general problem, determining who caused a connection break during a communication between two clients over UDP so as to determine a winner and a looser is a damn hard problem.

The technical difference between 'drop hacking' and quitting is probably that when you quit you are sending a clear signal to your client that you have yielded, and are leaving the game. It is then able to report that back to Relic or to your opponent, and a winner can be determined.

If hitting ALT-F4 is causing the program to shut down and clean itself up in such a way that it isn't reporting that information first... then that is lame. It might not be reasonable to take the time to report the loss, but the information should be cached somehow and reported the next time that player logs in. That way, it's equivalent to quitting. Might take longer for the stats to be right, but ultimately they would be more accurate.

[ceejayoz]

Texture - http://forums.relicnews.com/showpost...8&postcount=46

It is *NOT* drop hacking to menu/quit from a losing (or winning) game (which is a forfeit), its not a drop-hack to alt-F4 either (also a forfeit). If you get frustrated and hit the big red power button on your machine thats still not a drop-hack (incidentally, this would be unwise, windows sometimes doesnt come back from that - see also power outage etc - PS still a forfeit).

[Xinterp]

I don't think the issue here is players pulling their power cords, but rather their internet cords.

[ceejayoz]

Yes, that's what he's saying. Only pulling your internet cord will result in a drop hack - other situations are not drop hacking.

[Kornstalx]

I think it would be prudent for someone to sticky Cryogen's post, or otherwise. Perhaps in the FAQ or on the front page somewhere.

I've sensed (and personally experienced) the paranoia present in a lot of peoples' concerns over this issue, and lately it seems to be growing out of hand.
Cryogen's clarification was very much needed.

[grinn]

Honestly, I hope Relic doesn't ban anyone for drop hacking. It's a game, if you knew you were going to win and you end up getting a loss because of drop hacking...that sucks but it really is not the end of the world. I would much rather have more players playing when they produce a fix for this, than to have 10% of the player base banned or something like that. The only thing that stops Relic RTS games from rising to the top is the small online communities. I envision a day when we can get automatch 4v4 games going, or perhaps even arranged team 4v4 automatch games, in both CoH and DoW. This isn't going to happen if players are getting banned all over the place.

A fix is the solution, not bans. And Relic knows it, they have one in the works I am sure, it will probably be here next patch. Drop hacking is just something we have to deal with for the time being and it really isn't even that big of a deal. I hate to break it to a lot of you, including drop hackers, but most likely the only person who really cares about your score is you. Nobody else. And if you can get over your own need to see a good ratio then you will probably have a lot more fun playing this game anyways.

[Xinterp]

I agree with you 100%.

[ceejayoz]

Sorry, grinn, but cheaters make the game less enjoyable for everyone else. I'm glad to see that Buggo is banning drop hackers, not because I care about stats, but because I care about good players to have fun with.

Same reason we ban assholes from the forums. They ruin the friendly atmosphere.

[D_FAST]

here here to both grinn and ceejayoz while both are very valid points i too cant believe that banning cd keys is the solution. if every company for any title went into banning cd keys for game flaws, how many players would actually be online playing?

There has to be a solution other then banning cd keys. to me this seems to be a lame way out, instead of fixing it. As we all know there many upon many other titles that dont have this problem.

but then again ive seen as many titles that have this Stat tracking, that has to me, ruined the enjoyment of what could of been a fun online game for all,

But now may i say it, we get these A holes that need there E-dicks (mines bigger then yours).
the more titles that come out with stat tracking the less fun the casual gamer has, thus in terms less revnue for game developers. It maybe a good saleing point at first, but in the long run it does nothing but hurt the companies IMO.

[Sn1tch]

My brother started a game against some dude in a ranked game, sadly, after 5 minutes of play (he's terrible btw) the computer froze and he was getting dominated.

I'm hoping he lagged out and the other guy got awarded with the win because I'm sure Relic would consider him it as drop hack.

[grinn]

Ceejay - I can understand that cheating brings down the community, but when playing games on the internet, you will always have people who are less desirable members of the community. You are going to have that in any game. At least the drop hacking doesnt actually affect the game in play, just who the point gets awarded to at the end of the match. I guess it is my hope that the larger the community grows, the more people and players the game will attract. Something like WoW syndrome on a smaller scale. And banned players is a backward step in that sense. I would love to see DoW or CoH reach the kind of levels that games like Warcraft III or Starcraft have reached. Something I can play for years and years.

A game with even the highest quality of small community will die, or become near unplayable, or never live up to its full potential. It takes all kinds, but it mostly just takes numbers. Hopefully there is a fix soon so that this debate would be irrelevant anyways. I am really worried that a lot of good players or people could get caught up in some kind of ban frenzy (which I doubt is something we will see, but it makes me nervous none the less).

[megatronx]

If you deliverately cheat you deserve to get banned. Grinn it's great that you are so chilled out, but alot of players take their stats quite seriously, I mean it's a good guage of a players skill level. So drop hackers are rui9ning it for many people.

[Virtual]

This is why its surely better to record any game that one person disconnects from as a Win to the non disconnector and as a loss to the person who disconnected...

Im posting this to clear something up:

Company Of Heroes Online is a Peer to Peer connetcion game.
The server matches two players, the second the matching is done, the server connects the two Peers (computers) together and then the server has nothing more to do with the issue, i do not know how it chooses who is hosting but i think this has something to do with the issue.

The Peers itself will ALWAYS say that you won if you or someone else drops / disconnects, because the Peer takes that as "The other PC isnt there anymore, so he must have dropped" Then its up to one of the computers to report to the Relic Online Server. From here this could go either way.

[Gunnerside]

I'm in the same situation as the OP (got a inet, wich not that often, but sometimes randomly disconnects). If I accidentaly get disconnected in a game, I log back on asap, apologized and try to explain the situation to my opponent. It has happened a couple of times and both times I cleared things up with my opponent.
I just hope relic go for the notorious drophackers, not those who disconnects by accident.

[Albi]

How about quiting a game via load up? Opening consol and abortgame. I just did this as I had to go out as game was loading. I got neither a loss or a win for it. Is that a hack/exploit ect...?

[fldash]

I'm curious about the use of ALT-F4. I use it regularly.

[ceejayoz]

FFS, fldash, read the thread.

http://forums.relicnews.com/showpost...3&postcount=16

[fldash]

Well, it's been noted that using ALT-F4 is keeping games from recording at all. So it's just as much of an exploit as the drop one at the moment. In the past, using ALT-F4 would not keep matches from counting, but every time I've done it since the wipe, that game hasn't recorded.

[Timeless]

I know there are plug pullers in CoH as I've seen them admit what they were about to do, but at the same time I feel that people are paranoid and blame every disconnect on a plug puller. I've been accused twice of pulling the plug. In one of the games, it looked very suspect because after a knock down fight he was in my base with two Pershings and blam! My connection went out for just a second. At first, he thought I did it on purpose, but I think he could tell by my reaction in the lobby that I would never do such a thing. Once, I mistakenly accused a top player of pulling his plug as well because it happened right as he lost most of his infantry in an airstrike and after I was pushing into his base.

I just wish the system could tell who did the disconnect and assign a loss to that individual. This way, there would be no profit from disconnecting and people that have temporary connectivity issues are not penalized. I agree that if these people have chronic issues with their isp/modem they should stay away from team games so they don't ruin it for everyone else. I had a problem with my modem in RoL and stayed out of team games. In the 1on1s I played, I would get the loss when my connection went out, which was in over 2/3rds of the games I played - turns out, after fixing everything else and screaming at my isp that my modem was faulty and after replacing it, my connection was golden. My point is disconnects are sometimes random and often not a result of someone pulling the plug. I'd hate to see someone whos isp or modem suddenly goes on the fritz for a few days banned for plug pulling and I'm not sure if Relic has the means to tell the difference.

[Gunnerside]

My opponents have disconnected on me 4 out of 19 games now, and each time I've gotten a loss. I'm starting to wonder if it's MY connection there is something wrong with, is that a possibility?
I have never disconnected from relic online when it happens so I kind of doubt it.
Anyone else have experienced a high number of droppers since reset?

Or is it just me who's a dropper magnet or something? :S

[EveryDayIsOwl]

Oh, honesly, there's nearly seven million results for 'port forwarding game' on Google. It's hardly some new Relic problem, and if you knew something about networking you'd understand why it's commonly needed in P2P communication like that Company of Heroes employs.

If it was a simple case of flawed win logic, the problem would have been fixed long ago. They're not morons.

As for the online experience itself, it's an entirely new online service. Other online services - Battle.net, Gamespy, etc. - had their growing pains too.

I think the term "online service" is being a bit liberal here. It feels like Dark Reign, which would be a good thing if Dark Reign didn't hit the shelves about 9 years ago.

And as for the win logic: obviously someone or everyone is keeping track of the game state so if one person drops it shouldn't mean the end of the world. Their logic is poorly thought out. Whether or not it's a 'simple case' or a 'horrible case' doesn't matter. The fact is that online RTS games have been handling similar situations for years and Relic should be able to do the same.

And about the port forwarding thing: Yes, you're right. And the best way to have a rewarding online experience that's easy for new players to adopt and use is to have it rely on port forwarding. And when things don't work properly pop up a totally non descriptive error message like "couldn't connect to all players" and make no mention of it in the game manual.

I really want the game to succeed, but I think the online experience is hurting it.

[Aesphades]

EveryDayIsOwl:

It's simpile, their win logic is flawed.

Ceejayoz:

Oh, honesly, there's nearly seven million results for 'port forwarding game' on Google. It's hardly some new Relic problem, and if you knew something about networking you'd understand why it's commonly needed in P2P communication like that Company of Heroes employs.

If it was a simple case of flawed win logic, the problem would have been fixed long ago. They're not morons.

Hate to break it to you, but game state, like winning, is not covered under any of the IEEE 802 specifications. Under Relic's current model it is up to the players to report the winner. What prevents me from spoofing packets to say that I am the winner? I believe this is the flawed win logic EveryDayIsOwl spoke of.

Letting the players be the officials is an inherently insecure model, and the result is our current issue of the "drop hack".

Solutions? If we pick one player to report, at random, then there is still a chance that they are going to be the "cheater". If we have all players report, and tally the votes, then there is still the possibility that an entire team may be "cheating", thus the vote would be 50-50 if the cheating team lost. How are we to decide a winner?

The best solution I can think up in a minute, that additionally would not warrant banning, is to have everyone report who won a game. If there is an inconsistency in the winner then the game is simply not recorded. For games with more than 2 people it is also possible for the other players to note that one player had dropped, and thus automatically lost - if they are to report a win that vote can be discarded, and the game still recorded. In 1v1 this is not possible unfortunately, and any dropping would have the game go unrecorded. Knowing human nature, many people would drop prior to a loss, and another solution must be found to this.

[ceejayoz]

> Hate to break it to you, but game state, like winning, is not covered under any of the IEEE 802 specifications.

What do IEEE 802 specifications have to do with anything in this discussion?

> What prevents me from spoofing packets to say that I am the winner?

I haven't checked, but I suspect there's some form of encryption going on. I doubt it gets sent in the clear in an easily edited format.

> The best solution I can think up in a minute, that additionally would not warrant banning, is to have everyone report who won a game.

This is what happens.

[fldash]

As ceejayoz says, every client reports the game result to the servers.

[Aesphades]

Ceejayoz:

> Hate to break it to you, but game state, like winning, is not covered under any of the IEEE 802 specifications.

What do IEEE 802 specifications have to do with anything in this discussion?

Ceejayoz:

Oh, honesly, there's nearly seven million results for 'port forwarding game' on Google. It's hardly some new Relic problem, and if you knew something about networking you'd understand why it's commonly needed in P2P communication like that Company of Heroes employs.

If it was a simple case of flawed win logic, the problem would have been fixed long ago. They're not morons.

The relevance is to what you yourself stated. I'm simply pointing out that the issue with drop hacks is an effect of peer to peer game models, but is not being handled appropriately by the server, which is really a logic issue.

> The best solution I can think up in a minute, that additionally would not warrant banning, is to have everyone report who won a game.

This is what happens.

This is good. However, as there are incorrect results this is further proof that the server is incorrectly handling game results in certain drop cases.

[ceejayoz]

And I ask again, what does game state not being in IEEE specs have anything to do with the realities of port forwarding and P2P?

[EveryDayIsOwl]

As ceejayoz says, every client reports the game result to the servers.

Can you define 'game results' please?

Does each player report their own results/stats or are the full results for each game reported by each player.

So are you saying the game logic is flawed or the server which recieves the 'end game' stats logic is flawed?

[Aesphades]

Oh, honesly, there's nearly seven million results for 'port forwarding game' on Google. It's hardly some new Relic problem, and if you knew something about networking you'd understand why it's commonly needed in P2P communication like that Company of Heroes employs.

If it was a simple case of flawed win logic, the problem would have been fixed long ago. They're not morons.

In this quote it appears to me that you are saying the problem with "drop hacking" is primarily an issue with the peer to peer model the game uses. I'm saying as the game state is not in the IEEE specifications, then it only follows that the issue is not with the peer to peer model, but instead with the logic the server uses to decide a victor in certain cases.

This is what the game state not being in IEEE specifications has to with the realities of port forwarding and P2P.

[EveryDayIsOwl]

And I ask again, what does game state not being in IEEE specs have anything to do with the realities of port forwarding and P2P?

Aesphades never said that IEEE had anything to do with win logic. They are two separate topics. He was speaking about port forwarding.

[fldash]

The game reports the result for each player in the game.

For instance, if you play a game a 2v2 and both players on the other team drop, it reports like the following:

You : Win
You're Partner : Win
Opponent : Lose
Opponent : Lose

It doesn't just report your result. Each client reports the results for every player in the game.

[Aesphades]

fldash:

The game reports the result for each player in the game.

For instance, if you play a game a 2v2 and both players on the other team drop, it reports like the following:

You : Win
You're Partner : Win
Opponent : Lose
Opponent : Lose

It doesn't just report your result. Each client reports the results for every player in the game.

So in a drop scenario, in a 1v1 game, we can suppose the following happens then?

Player 1 Sends:
Player 1: Win
Player 2: Lose

Player 2 Sends:
Player 1: Lose
Player 2: Win

Who wins? This appears to be the heart of the issue.

[fldash]

It appears whoever sends first, but I'm not sure.

[ceejayoz]

In this quote it appears to me that you are saying the problem with "drop hacking" is primarily an issue with the peer to peer model the game uses. I'm saying as the game state is not in the IEEE specifications, then it only follows that the issue is not with the peer to peer model, but instead with the logic the server uses to decide a victor in certain cases.

You need to go back an read my posts, then. The bit about port forwarding was in response to the last paragraph in this post, which is entirely unrelated to win logic or drop hacking. It's a complaint solely about port forwarding.

[EveryDayIsOwl]

The game reports the result for each player in the game.

For instance, if you play a game a 2v2 and both players on the other team drop, it reports like the following:

You : Win
You're Partner : Win
Opponent : Lose
Opponent : Lose

It doesn't just report your result. Each client reports the results for every player in the game.

If that is indeed what is happening then it sounds like the server logging the stats is at fault.

If each player is reporting the results for all the players in the game then one person dropping shouldn't be an issue.

As the game starts the 'game start' should be reported to the server with a gameID and the players involved.

Let's say we have a 1v1. The game starts and a few minutes in player 1 pulls his ethernet cord. It seems to both players that the other dropped and at this point who the hell knows what gets sent to the server and by whom (if anything). In a 'drop event' why not have both players (or all players) poll the server for a short period of time. Those who don't poll the server, or can't poll the server (due to having pulled their ethernet cord) and the server can decide who wins (based on who, from the game, was able to poll).

Obviously this isn't the whole solution.

[Aesphades]

ceejayoz:

You need to go back an read my posts, then. The bit about port forwarding was in response to the last paragraph in this post, which is entirely unrelated to win logic or drop hacking. It's a complaint solely about port forwarding.

Fair enough. The second paragraph looked to me to be an addendum to the first.

[fldash]

I feel confident in saying that the problem lies with Quazar; their shoddy equipment and lack of ability to help Relic is most likely at fault.

Maybe it's time to dump them and work with someone (who may be more expensive) but can get the job done correctly.