Idea for stopping gun cheats...

[Bolter]

Okay - I'm in a thinking mood today... please stop me if this has already been thought of/implemented/dismissed already... and bare in mind that I'm no gun-tech, or electronics type...

All electro-guns have some kind of software/firmware, right? All of this firmware can be updated, right? and presumably a ROM dump of this firmware can be taken into a single file on a laptop/PC, right?

If all of the above are true, then shouldn't it be possible for an event governing body to collate and store in a database a growing collection of accepted versions of marker software/firmware (ie, full ROM dumps of each version for each marker/board)? If so, then an event organiser could inform all participating team captains/owners of the currently accepted software versions and let it be known that totally random spot checks WILL be carried out on potentially any markers at a tournament.

A laptop could be carried around which has a copy of the software and database, and any necessary lead required, and take a ROM dump of the current software on the marker. A simple byte-by-byte comparison can then take place between this memory dump, and all of the currently stored and accepted (or otherwise) software versions. If the marker fails the test, then whatever appropriate action can be taken... such as confiscate the marker for the duration of the event or something...

Yes, I know that this will not deter everyone, but it will deter alot... and surely that's better than none?

Like I said, probably already been covered before... but if it hasn't, maybe some techy dude could enhance or dismiss this idea...

Dunc.

 

[manike]

You can't read the code back from many boards.

And if you think the manufacturers are going to happily allow access to such valuable intellectual property where it could easily get copied/stolen....

 

[noop]

I think you're better off having refs tackle players shooting too fast.

 

[Sherman]

It has been mentioned a few times here, but allowing gravity feed only would be a good start. It would be the easiest way to eliminate "benefits" of ROF cheats. It's virtually impossible to check the software on the markers, so somekind of mechanical limitations would be the way to go.

 

[Duncster]

You can't read the code back from many boards.

And if you think the manufacturers are going to happily allow access to such valuable intellectual property where it could easily get copied/stolen....

These are EPROMs right? Do they differ that much from gun to gun? And I'm not talking about downloading the program in it's original high-level code format, just get a binary "snapshot" of what's on the prorammable chip. This binary image would be pretty useless to anyone trying to work out how a guns software works.

Is it really that impossible?

 

[stongle]

Why not remove the incentive to cheat in the first place?

You will never catch determined gun cheats, and lets be honest, people with enough technical skill some even kids can re-hack boards themselves these days (it's not all at the manufacturer level) . I mean it's fairly difficult technically to uncover switchable boards (I'm not a techy just led to believe - Manike???), so you'll just end with the "gun-cheat" moving to the next evolution of cheat / complexity. Moreover make certain board settings illegal and you reduce the flexibility of gun setup as they react differently according to setup.

Easiest to introduce would be a limit to feeder speed - i.e. hopper regulation, but this would be resisted (with valid argument), fairly vigorously (it seems from reading other threads and contributors).

Even if we did revert to Tournament approved only boards / hopper limitation, we'll get complacent for a while, think problem solved, and people will have found away to bend the rules. What needs to be done is to tackle head on the desire, incentive belief it is acceptable to cheat. The FA / velocity ramp board hack is just a symptom of players psychological desire to win at all costs. Lets face it "good" paintballers are likely to be controlled aggressive Alpha male types (in the majority), where risk versus reward versus win ratio is a calculation that will exist. Since the penalty for cheating is fairly light, what's the logical conclusion of such a mental calculation???. Even the threat of a double eye out mask failure although a probability (at some point), its too small a risk, and often players can be seen to act with a "not me" type attitude. I'm sure someone can enlighten us further on the psychological makeup of good ballers, but that seems to be an attitude I've witnessed.

Also the penalty / punishment for cheating is localised at the individual level, there is very little collective responsibility for cheating. The 1:4:1 rule, extends collective responsibility for cheating, but again remains fairly localised to the individual and 1 other (it's very rarely extended to constant arm band pulling). If the penalties for cheating or even suspected cheating were expanded to include the whole team, or the team is forced itself to come to the conclusion cheating is illogical, not worth the risk. You'd see a pretty quick shift in peoples attitude. If the team orders are to play clean, fair and not cheat or be ostracised and thrown out of the team etc, players will soon self regulate.

So we need to look to disincentivise cheating to such a degree that the team comes to this conclusion. Players will likely follow team orders over tournament rules, so if the directives from upon high were:

1. Win
2. Don't cheat -or we bin you
3. Goobers in the snake etc

Players may at a personal level feel less inclination to cheat as the result of being caught is instantly serious. What we need is the team themselves to install this believe in "self regulation", and the way to do that is by altering the way in which we punish certain cheat types.

To link this back to gun cheats, and how to disincentives this, we need to expand the scrutineer role. Not necessarily by making all guns presentable and locked away prior to / during tournaments, but by allowing the scrutineers more in game and pre-game power. Any whiff that a gun is acting in an unacceptable fashion, pull the gun, in game if necessary. The gun goes to the scrutineer tent, with dedicated and better paid technical examiners. If there is any whiff of anything amiss, all the teams guns go to the tent. All disassembled, and tested rigorously. That team can't go back on field until their guns are given the all clear, or the offending ones yanked. This Japanese style inspection, also means the teams must re-build their guns under the direct supervision of the scrutineers. If this means they start missing games, so be it, the tournament running order should not be adversely affected, and the teams loses points due possibly a single team members stupidity. Hopefully with extensive testing and fully dismantling the guns, any serious designer gun cheats can be discovered.

Ok so maybe expensive to introduce, but hopefully the implication and indignity of having been found to have a designer / manufacturer gun hack would force all people to think twice before doing so. Also introduce fiscal fines for rule transgressions. Monies should be paid into a benevolence fund to cover the inevitable "eye out". No pay no play. If the cheat goes back to the top: Manufacturer no pay, no guns from said manufacturer. Hit everyone where it really hurts - in the pocket. Fines and penalties should be made public for all to see. As Paintball gets more limelight, some people may also link integrity to increased sales and revenue, thus further reducing the incentive to be sheisty mofo's

Tired now, so that's enough of that!!!!

 

[John C]

With code protect chips it costs at least £1000 to get near the compiled source.

This is because they set code protection using internal fuses and you have to dissolve the chip, rea-attach the fuse (which is so tiny you cant see it without a microscope) and then read off the chip.


Decompiling the source to something more inteligable is quite straightforward in comparison.

 

[Duncster]

Oh.

Ah well, that answers that question then...