报告 • Board Game Arena

所有案件

图灵机的案件

#109718: "Cheating? Player not entering any question and directly testing the right code"

notabug: 这不是一个漏洞

这个案件是关于哪方面的？

图灵机 #458628987

发生什么事? 请从下方选择

规则：有一条游戏规则没写进游戏程序里

发生什么事? 请从下方选择

规则：有一条游戏规则没写进游戏程序里

请检查是否已有同课题案件

若肯定，请「投票」给这桩案件。最高票的案件将「优先」处理！

#	Status	Votes	Game	Type	Title	Last update

细节描述

案件历史

2024年Jan6日 11:47 • Barbanera • 漏洞尚未被修复:

Just replay the whole game, it's really short.

2024年Jan6日 12:02 • Barbanera • 漏洞尚未被修复:

I checked my opponents recent games history and he/she appears to be winning all games in no time just entering the right code, same as in my game.

2024年Jan6日 12:04 • tan_oduvan • 漏洞尚未被修复:

boardgamearena.com/table?table=458639202
in the my game, the person also did not select a single verifier by entering the code correctly

2024年Jan6日 12:25 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

So there's two things.

1. Those problems are absolutely solvable without needing any tests, just using pure deduction. They're actually relatively straightforward, I've solved them in that way myself. No cheating is required, given enough time.

2. There are very few puzzles with the settings Classic/Standard/6 verifiers, and they are all variants of the same basic puzzle. Once you have solved one, it's very easy to see at a glance what the answer will be to any of them.

It's not cheating, but it's definitely a bad idea to allow players to choose their own settings for Arena Mode, as is currently the case. There need to be fixed settings for the season so that people can not choose to use settings with such a limited range of puzzles.

2024年Jan6日 12:34 • Barbanera • 漏洞尚未被修复:

I believe it is cheating and after a bit of investigation I just found how I could cheat myself. I am not sure I should post it here but if you msg me privately I will explain.

2024年Jan6日 12:35 • Barbanera • 漏洞尚未被修复:

Assuming you are a developer or ufficial BGA supervisor or something, that is.

2024年Jan6日 14:27 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

*edit* I meant Classic/Easy/6 above, not Standard.

2024年Jan6日 14:29 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

No I'm just a player with too much time on my hands lol.
I started responding to "bug" reports as there were so many that weren't actually bugs, just people misunderstanding, and I can't seem to stop myself checking them 😁

2024年Jan6日 14:41 • Barbanera • 漏洞尚未被修复:

Ok, thanks to poptasticboy expert help, I think that I should clarify that the "cheating" involves probably not a real cheat per se (like knowing the result by illegal means) but what I believe some people (not poptasticboy!) might be doing, i.e. having access to look-up tables of possible results.

These look-tables can be prepared beforehand by anybody, given enough time and commitment, or by other automatic means, involving no thought process whatsoever. While the former can be perhaps acceptable to some (not to me personally), the latter is probably a no no to everyone.

Anyway, having look-up tables to consult means one can solve a problem with very few questions (1-2 or, in some cases, even 0). Imho, this makes this great game one to be avoided for online games, unless you really trust your opponents to play fair (i.e. reason it all out on the spot) and play casual or select at least standard, if not even hard, mode, and hope for the best, if you really need to play arena.

2024年Jan6日 17:51 • Romain672 • 漏洞尚未被修复:

I believe many people play with mainly just deduction (and potentially memory), and don't have look up tables.

In 3min, you can do most of the potential deductions.

2024年Jan10日 07:10 • Denlerien • 漏洞尚未被修复:

Same - 1 round zero questions victory:

459792785
459806611
459790596

I don't know how game is working, I think that there are some limitations and not any verifiers combination is possible, but I've wrote simple prog in Python (onlinegdb.com/KmAQYPjm7) to check table in topic (458628987) and it looks like there are 34 different combinations of verifiers where are only single answer is correct. For example if verifers are 3,1,1,1,1,1 (A verifies variant 3, i.e. square>3 and others verifies first variant), then there is also single answer - 245.

So without knowing how real game is working there is no way logically find out answer only using logic.

2024年Jan10日 07:15 • Denlerien • 漏洞尚未被修复:

p.s. "So without knowing how real game is working there is no way logically find out answer only using logic." I mean find solution without any questions, only by verifiers combinations.

2024年Jan10日 09:33 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

@Denlarian "So without knowing how real game is working there is no way logically find out answer only using logic."

It is clear you do *not* know how the game works!
You are likely missing the 2 most important rules:

1) No verifier can be redundant
2) There must be a unique solution.

Let's give a simple example: if the Verifiers for "Yellow compared to Purple" and "Which colour is smallest" are both in a puzzle, you know right away, without any tests, that Blue is smallest. This is because any other result would make the other verifier redundant (i.e. it would provide no new information), which is not allowed in a valid puzzle.

Using the 2 listed rules, it is usually possible to solve a Classic puzzle in under 3 tests, and frequently they can be solved in 0 tests.

2024年Jan10日 11:23 • Denlerien • 漏洞尚未被修复:

@poptasticboy, I've checked so that it would be unique solution, of course. But you are right - I have forgotten to check are there any redundant verifiers. I've fixed it - and yes, for table 458628987 only one answer is correct. So using such program someone can easy find solution without any questions. And of course it can be done logicaly.

2024年Jan11日 19:44 • mdross1 • 漏洞尚未被修复:

Same thing is happening with player DJBisdaGOAT at table 460594398, for instance.

It may be a matter of BGA only using a limited number of game sets, but this is definitely against the spirit and written rules of the game.

2024年Jan11日 21:02 • mdross1 • 漏洞尚未被修复:

460117764 As well, a single verifier used to win.

2024年Jan11日 21:32 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

@mdross1 you seem to be missing the point. Those are both turn-based easy difficulty games. I haven't taken the time to study those specific puzzles myself, but in most cases anyone good at the game *should* typically be solving those puzzles in 0-2 questions. That's not evidence of cheating, as a skilled played *should* be getting those results.

Now if they can reliable do the same in hard/realtime games you might have a point.

2024年Jan11日 21:34 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

@mdross1 you seem to be missing the point. Those are both turn-based easy difficulty games. I haven't taken the time to study those specific puzzles myself, but in most cases anyone good at the game *should* typically be solving those puzzles in 0-2 questions. That's not evidence of cheating—a skilled played *should* be getting those results.

Now if they can reliable do the same in hard/realtime games you might have a point.

2024年Jan11日 21:35 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

(sorry for double post, I lost signal)

2024年Jan12日 07:01 • DogEgg258 • 漏洞尚未被修复:

@Barbanera Please provide sufficient evidence when you point out that someone else cheated. For example some game that must not be solved with 0 question but they did. Instead of imagining a possibility out of thin air.

2024年Jan12日 18:21 • mdross1 • 漏洞尚未被修复:

@poptasticboy

Thanks! To be honest I am new to the game and think I was missing a level of nuance here.

The rules say "You will need the criteria of all verifiers to find the code. No criterion is superfluous", which to me suggested that at an absolute minimum any number of questions that's fewer than the number of verifiers is suspect. That being said, the fine folk at boardgamegeek have certainly identified a number of game states that can be solved with 0 questions ( boardgamegeek.com/thread/3166002/no-question-challenges-5-cards-classic-easy-mode-o ) so I'm happy to concede that a 0 question solution isn't a guarantee of cheating.

I still have uncomfortable feelings about 0 question solutions on BGA as it's certainly possible that there's a limited set of easy puzzles that people are able to look up for quick wins and the losers wouldn't be able to tell, but if BGA is using a large catalogue then I guess it's just time to sharpen my pencil!

2024年Jan14日 14:07 • ollyfish2002 • 漏洞尚未被修复:

everyone can cheat using this even without asking questions
github.com/ThomasdenH/turing-machine-ai

2024年Jan15日 00:37 • kirin0205 • 漏洞尚未被修复:

Turing Machine n°462165339

J ai testé le bon code du 1er coup par hasard.
Mais il y avait 6 cartes de tests, donc impossible de conclure.

Le joueur en face a fait 2 tests et validé LA BONNE RÉPONSE.

Je pense que dans les lignes de code, il apparaît le numéro qu il y a dans le jeu.
La personne en face me semble avoir triché et utilisé le livret de réponses inclus dans le jeu.

2024年Jan15日 03:27 • poptasticboy • 漏洞尚未被修复:

@kirin0205 your puzzle can be solved in 2 questions with no cheating involved; I just did so myself. Verifiers B & C can be deduced easily without tests. With more thought, you can also deduce A. After testing D you can deduce F as well, leaving just E for the second test, to solve the puzzle.

However unless I'm mistaken, the specific test your opponent gave to E didn't actually give the required information. I was left with 354 or 435 at that point, and their specific test would not help to narrow that down (but a different test code would).

So in conclusion, getting the correct answer in 2 tests is completely possible, purely by deduction. However unless I'm mistaken, your opponent's specific tests would actually have left 2 possible answers, so they only had a 50/50 chance of getting the correct answer.

2024年Jan24日 15:46 • SraTacoMal • 漏洞尚未被修复:

I solved table #458320917 with no verifiers. imgur.com/a/IUfFjum

My solution wasn't a guarantee (actually I tried solving it again just now and got it wrong), but at the time it felt like the most likely solution, and it ended up being correct. Here was my logic:

-Verifier C gives the only piece of information for purple, so purple should be the smallest
-Verifier D is questioning how many even numbers there are. Usually, but not always, in this case there are 2 even numbers.
-There's not a lot of info about what blue and yellow are. I doubt that they're the same number, though, because unless they're both 4, there's not enough info to tell what they are. And if they are both 4, then there's not enough info to tell what purple is (unless Verifier D says that all 3 are even numbers, which I doubt). If yellow is 5, then blue must be lower and could be 2-4. If yellow is 2 or 3, there's the same issue with multiple possibilities for blue. If yellow is 4, blue could be 2 or 3, or 5. 5 is the only one that is sequestered off, so I believe Verifier B will say that blue is greater than yellow, and Verifier A will say yellow is 4.
-Since purple is the smallest, it must be the only even number remaining: 2.

The only thing I was positive about was that purple had to be the smallest. The rest could have easily been wrong.

2024年Aug30日 17:07 • vfbfzfgz • 漏洞尚未被修复:

easy puzzles often have one possible solution, and it can be deduced without asking a thing.

2024年Dec19日 15:11 • Tisaac • 游戏开发者需要更多的信息来修复这个系统漏洞:

Please reach out to me in PM if you have any sensitive information on how to cheat. From my code review, I don't think any information is leaked.

2024年Dec24日 10:36 • Tisaac • 这不是一个漏洞:

增加一些新内容到这篇报告

任何可能重现这项漏洞或了解你的建议之相关资讯，都请在此填写:

其他的游戏桌 ID / 移动 ID
按 F5 是否解决了这个问题？
问题是否发生了好几次？还是每次都发生？还是时好时坏？
如果你已截取此Bug的屏幕截图（好习惯），可使用任意图片托管服务（例如snipboard.io）上传后，将链接复制粘贴至此处。

取消更新报告

#109718: "Cheating? Player not entering any question and directly testing the right code"

这个案件是关于哪方面的？

发生什么事? 请从下方选择

发生什么事? 请从下方选择

请检查是否已有同课题案件

细节描述

案件历史

增加一些新内容到这篇报告

更改案件状态为：

帮助

贡献

导航

关注我们