locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683705:date=Jul 17 2008, 08:44 AM:name=TerraGamerX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TerraGamerX @ Jul 17 2008, 08:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683705"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The presence of anti-cheat devices certainly isn't going to stop hacking from those that intend to do so. But we don't want some immature fools to think they can just casually download some hacks and get away with it. Hacking hasn't been a serious problem in NS. But a popular game will attract more fools, and NS at the peak of its popularity might have had more problems if there was no VAC to say "Hackers unwanted".
There is no need for something advance to be developed, as long as there is something. An example can be my neighborhood itself. Most houses are without a modern security system. Instead all entrances to all houses has a silver sticker that warns criminals of the "neighborhood watch" program. There's no neighborhood watch. There's no security. I only know people in one of the houses around my house. That's not going to stop a genuine criminal from doing what they intend to. But the foolish people with influential minds that got there by influence will go away the same way they came.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Makes a note to visit Colorado with burglers' tools*
I wouldn't endorse security theater, but I can see how even something is better than nothing. I just think the work/cost ratio is not reasonable.
Has there been a single succesful anti-cheat program created by the game developers? The only dev created A-C program I know is VAC and it's not a very good one when it comes to detecting.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Killkrazy, I challenge you to find an FPS that's been ruined by hackers. I'll also accept RTS's, but sales/reputation must have suffered substantially for me to consider a game ruined.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I accept and fail your challenge, Locallyunscene. Only because, however, I cannot recall ever playing a multiplayer game that neglected to think of it's players by not adopting some form of cheat deterrence. And this is one of my strongest cases for UWE doing some AC work, whether they adopt something like Punkbuster or develop their own. I am not saying "everyone else does this, so be a sheep and follow" that's a fool's errand... but with good reasons following another's lead is perfectly acceptable <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
League play should stick to their own strict rules, but general community needs some kind of protection too <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It'd be nice if all blood effects were server side. A demo would carry a lot more weight if you knew a person was hitting 100% of the time according to the server, and not just your PC trying to understand the server trying to understand the person you're demo'ing.
Pretty sure it was client side in all HL and HL2 mods, am I wrong?
<!--quoteo(post=1683714:date=Jul 17 2008, 03:31 PM:name=NovusAnimus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NovusAnimus @ Jul 17 2008, 03:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683714"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It'd be nice if all blood effects were server side. A demo would carry a lot more weight if you knew a person was hitting 100% of the time according to the server, and not just your PC trying to understand the server trying to understand the person you're demo'ing.
Pretty sure it was client side in all HL and HL2 mods, am I wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right it's client side, but that is so you can get <i>any response at all</i> back before your attack has made the round trip to the server and back (say a second or so for transatlantic combat).
If you've got a full second latency you've got bigger problems than server side vs client side prediction. Even with HL1's client side display, you start noticing performance drop around 1/10 of a second latency, and anything over about 4/10s is completely unplayable.
Luckily, you can usually get a transatlantic connection in the 120 millisecond range without too much difficulty.
<!--quoteo(post=1683712:date=Jul 17 2008, 01:57 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 17 2008, 01:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683712"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I accept and fail your challenge, Locallyunscene. Only because, however, I cannot recall ever playing a multiplayer game that neglected to think of it's players by not adopting some form of cheat deterrence. And this is one of my strongest cases for UWE doing some AC work, whether they adopt something like Punkbuster or develop their own. I am not saying "everyone else does this, so be a sheep and follow" that's a fool's errand... but with good reasons following another's lead is perfectly acceptable <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
League play should stick to their own strict rules, but general community needs some kind of protection too <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most of the anti-cheat programs have been developed by some 3rd party. CoD 4 and HL1 are the only games where the devs have developed the software that I know of. My knowledge of the new shooters is quite bad, so think you could mention some good examples of games where the actual dev team has adressed cheating notably?
<!--quoteo(post=1683729:date=Jul 17 2008, 10:35 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jul 17 2008, 10:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683729"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most of the anti-cheat programs have been developed by some 3rd party. CoD 4 and HL1 are the only games where the devs have developed the software that I know of. My knowledge of the new shooters is quite bad, so think you could mention some good examples of games where the actual dev team has adressed cheating notably?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> CoD 4 uses PunkBuster.
<!--quoteo(post=1683732:date=Jul 17 2008, 07:14 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Max @ Jul 17 2008, 07:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683732"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CoD 4 uses PunkBuster.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think its somewhat integrated to the game. To be honest I'm not sure how the thing exactly works, but I've understood that the PB is included in the game install. That's something I've only heard from a friend though.
Should the programmers put in there own anti cheat code right??
About the only way you can make the system 100% cheat proof on the client side is if you make it so you have to download the game every time you join a server. The only other way is if it does a huge file check every time you do so. Which can take a good 10 mins. And the download the game option is ok for people who doesn't have a 56k modem.
I will only think that the programmer would make it so that it would be difficult to cheat on it. Cause making it imposable would be silly.
<!--quoteo(post=1683769:date=Jul 18 2008, 01:32 AM:name=DeadmanDieing)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DeadmanDieing @ Jul 18 2008, 01:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what exactly is this thread about??
Should the programmers put in there own anti cheat code right??
About the only way you can make the system 100% cheat proof on the client side is if you make it so you have to download the game every time you join a server. The only other way is if it does a huge file check every time you do so. Which can take a good 10 mins. And the download the game option is ok for people who doesn't have a 56k modem.
I will only think that the programmer would make it so that it would be difficult to cheat on it. Cause making it imposable would be silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But 100% is neither the intention, nor possible. People can find ridiculous workarounds. The intention is >0.01%. The question being to put in anti cheat or not. So any strength of security would be "yes".
<!--quoteo(post=1683778:date=Jul 17 2008, 09:50 PM:name=TerraGamerX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TerraGamerX @ Jul 17 2008, 09:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But 100% is neither the intention, nor possible. People can find ridiculous workarounds. The intention is >0.01%. The question being to put in anti cheat or not. So any strength of security would be "yes".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have often wondered if an open source anti cheating system similar to PB (but open source) would succeed better. I realize that the current concept behind anti-cheating is to hide what/how the program detects cheats. However, what if this info was common knowledge and the whole of the development/gamming community could contribute to the code base. Would it then be possible to develop better methods of cheat detection?
My 2cents: The better written a game is, and the harder it is to cheat, ultimately the less common it will be, and therefore the less of an issue it will be. There is a VERY small active cheating community in HL based games these days vs the total size of it as an entity. VAC is not a good anticheat, but it's a strong deterrent for the casual cheater who just wants to DL some hack and bug people. Other deterrents are beneficial as well. Voog's TF2 servers automatically detect speedhackers by monitoring the data they are sending to the server and turns off damage they inflict as well as making them die in one hit (as well as recording a demo of them). Most hacks are relatively easy to catch algorithmically... the more on board the upper powers that be are in terms of actually making that catch, the smaller and less threatening the cheating community will be.
I'm pretty sure it's all but impossible to kill cheating completely for any game, but if it's kept obscure it's still a benefit to the playing community.
<!--quoteo(post=1683780:date=Jul 18 2008, 02:56 AM:name=Superfly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Superfly @ Jul 18 2008, 02:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683780"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have often wondered if an open source anti cheating system similar to PB (but open source) would succeed better. I realize that the current concept behind anti-cheating is to hide what/how the program detects cheats. However, what if this info was common knowledge and the whole of the development/gamming community could contribute to the code base. Would it then be possible to develop better methods of cheat detection?
Just a random thought...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you make anti-cheat systems open source, you have the benefit of alot of people being able to contribute very fast and easily... but you have the downfall of hackers knowing exactly how to counter the counter measure <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1683273:date=Jul 13 2008, 06:01 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the rewards of making a decent anti-cheating system glaringly out-weigh the risks<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1683665:date=Jul 16 2008, 07:29 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 16 2008, 07:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I rebutted your original post with some good reasons why spending time on Anti-Cheat modules is worth the money<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A rebuttal is not the same as a repeated presentation of a viewpoint. You have repeatedly asserted that some form of anti-cheat would be a good choice for UWE in their new implementation, but have never explained what you mean by "anti-cheat". How would it function? What would its boundaries be? How far are you willing to go to delve into a <b>customer's</b> personal data to protect what <b>he is paying for</b>?
A rebuttal indicates a response. Re-hashing what you said previously without paying any attention to the counterpoints that create problems for you is not a rebuttal- it's the definition of insanity.
<!--quoteo(post=1683677:date=Jul 16 2008, 08:32 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 16 2008, 08:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683677"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree that anti-cheat software is a something that UWE should avoid so they can spend the money on other things, but how would you make the job easier for admins?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about a <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104138" target="_blank">soft matchmaking suite</a> that would promote the <i>right</i> kinds of players instead of just keeping out the wrong ones?
I just don't think you can expect an algorithm to protect itself enough. You need real human beings with common sense in order to have a great server. It doesn't take that much effort to ban a cheater most of the time, especially when the cheater isn't very good at what he's doing. The rest of the time the algorithm would not be intelligent enough not to be broken, unless it were arguably more invasive than The Warden, which, in my mind, makes my point of view that much stronger.
I've only read the first three posts and decided reading the rest was futile.
<!--quoteo(post=1683264:date=Jul 13 2008, 12:35 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jul 13 2008, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I recall reading the original Unreal Tournament had very little cheats. If my memory serves me right, the combination of a difficult-to-hack engine and a single good 3rd party anti-cheat program worked wonders there. HL1 on the other hand is really vulnerable with all the dll based stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I recall from UT1, it didn't have a third party anti-cheat program. It was all either inside the engine or implemented with UScript.
Anyways... My thoughts on the thread topic...
Of course we all know there is no uncrackable code, and thinking about an anti-cheating algorithm that can't be worked around is a hopeless waste of time. The point of creating anti-cheat programs/algorithms isn't to create an unbreakable anti-cheat system, the point of creating them is to simply prevent cheating as much as possible in your game. It sort of works like anti-virus programs and such. Eventually there is going to be a virus that comes along that doesn't get caught by ANY anti-virus programs. In that situation, the various anti-virus developers work on a 'patch', in most cases called a Virus Definition, to their anti-virus software that will allow their program to catch the virus.
In the case of an anti-cheat program, it will initially be developed to stop a certain amount of possible cheats. From that point on it will simply be reworked/updated to account for the newer types of cheating that people create to get around the programs initial algorithms.
As for VAC... I agree... its should be rewritten. However, you say there are still a few botters out there in games with VAC protection. My guess is that there are more than just botters but I believe VAC has gotten -MOST- of the cheating out of the game. Stopping most of the cheating is the ultimate goal because if our goal is to stop all types of cheating then our goal would be unobtainable.
As for anti-cheat technology in the new engine, I believe they stated that they could implement a variety of programs including VAC and punkbuster. They stop a reasonable amount of cheats. The rest of the cheating can be easily handled by a decent server admin or group of server admins.
Cheaters were caught in the intercontinental finals of ANSL vs ENSL, which are leagues similar to CAL, albiet ENSL has actual activity these days. The server was VAC secured, and the administration knows how to detect cheating at least as well as Demo Detectives.
You are mistaken. At the very best, it causes cheaters to re-buy a game every few months, and that doesn't even always work.
<!--quoteo(post=1684235:date=Jul 22 2008, 04:37 PM:name=Dalin Seivewright)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dalin Seivewright @ Jul 22 2008, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've only read the first three posts and decided reading the rest was futile. ... [Anti-cheat] sort of works like anti-virus programs and such.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough, but you did miss a fair number of points, most important, the fact that no one has been able to come up with a way to implement an anti-cheat system without delving extremely deeply into the <b>customer's</b> computer just to protect the game <b>that he paid for</b>.
You're making a class mistake with the anti-virus analogy though, I think. An anti-virus prevents automated algorithms from penetrating a system's infrastructure.
A firewall would be a better corollary, but how would you propose to create a firewall (or any other) system that would prevent aimbot or wallhack without <b>checking and enforcing every file on the client's machine</b>. It's definitely possible, but my argument throughout this post is that it would be prohibitively taxing to the client (in terms of play time) and also way too much work for the development team to concern themselves with.
A better idea is to create slick tools like I mentioned in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104138&st=0&p=1676352&#entry1676352" target="_blank">:this thread:</a> that allow server admins to easily and conveniently filter who they want to be on their server.
Aw, why was this topic revived... They clearly stated that they're working on an anti cheat system... They have their plans laid out. Debate at this point feels more like <i>bickering</i>...
Since you keep stating the same point Radix, I'll clarify my stance as strongly as possible. I'd give them my Social Security Number if it meant a flawless game. In the scenario they had some underhanded use for my SSN, I'd applaud them for me being too trusting. I'd laugh as I saw my life fall apart since a good game developing company did something that is far less rewarding than the risk they put their company in.
But since everything in that statement is far from reality, I'll just put my faith in whatever their current plans are. I'm playing <i>their</i> game, so ultimately I'll have to be content with what they release. I'm not going to whine over something I'm trying to enjoy. In that situation I should be doing something more productive.
The point I'm stating is called an argument. It's traditionally used in a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal. Those reasons are expected, in turn, to be rebutted, for the purpose of achieving a greater understanding of a subject matter.
I'm interested in hearing more about why people dislike Punk Buster. I don't know too much about it, although I can't say I've had any problems with the games I've played that integrate it (namely Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and the Battlefield games).
<!--quoteo(post=1684363:date=Jul 24 2008, 12:13 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Max @ Jul 24 2008, 12:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm interested in hearing more about why people dislike Punk Buster. I don't know too much about it, although I can't say I've had any problems with the games I've played that integrate it (namely Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and the Battlefield games).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm no expert on punkbuster, but here are a few:
First, punkbuster is incredibly invasive - perhaps moreso than the Warden. Such features are:
- Scans hardware and assigns bans based on it. - Scans all processes launched after game execution <b>and sends them to the server</b>. - Scans graphics libraries and other game-critical files (not so bad by itself) - Scans <b>entire contents of memory</b>
Punkbuster also contributes to system instability for many users in mild to moderate form:
- Updates in the background causing latency and processor usage - Creates an additional layer between the client and server, potentially causing fps and ping spikes. Can randomly drop clients due to minor connection problems that would otherwise not drop the player. - Due to a failure in the detection system, running any other program (such as antivirus) while playing has the potential to create a hardware ban against all servers in all games that run punkbuster. The proposed solution is to disable all background processes. - Punkbuster has a history of problems with 64 bit systems, such as completely locking players out of servers if they run on a 64 bit platform. - Punkbuster has a history of problems allowing user-level accounts from connecting to servers, and requires an additional process to run plus the pb client, and in some cases may still block users from connecting, depending on what game they're playing.
The EULA even states that Even Balance has final say in banning a client, not the server operator. If you get onto one of their global lists, it can be impossible to get removed, and can require a full re-purchase of the game.
I'm one of the most legit players I know, and an implementation of a system this invasive would make me want to crack it, which could result in my being permanently banned from NS2.
The system is far too obtrusive for a simple internet game. Its implementation, despite how much I like NS2, and despite the fact that I would likely still play it, would actually cause me to hesitate to purchase the game.
I don't have memories of hating PB. I hate it right now.
See, I've never changed any of the cvar's in COD4 yet I get kicked from servers for PB violations.
As for Warden, it's really invasive and bull######. People got in trouble for having trading websites open on their browsers and stuff. I don't think my documents and web browser need to be scanned for some sense of false security. Rely on the community to watchdog people and use whatever anti-cheat program you can develop without infesting our computers with spyware.
What I'm saying is...there needs to be a balance of anti-cheat software and human vigilance. VAC + good admins does the trick right now, its a good formula. It's really easy to spot hackers if you have knowledgeable players in your community.
<!--quoteo(post=1684388:date=Jul 24 2008, 02:55 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jul 24 2008, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684388"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm no expert on punkbuster, but here are a few:
First, punkbuster is incredibly invasive - perhaps moreso than the Warden. Such features are:
- Scans hardware and assigns bans based on it. - Scans all processes launched after game execution <b>and sends them to the server</b>. - Scans graphics libraries and other game-critical files (not so bad by itself) - Scans <b>entire contents of memory</b>
....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If PunkBuster is truly that invasive then I thouroughly discourage its implementation into NS2. Sure it may stop many types of cheating, but if its retrieving information that has nothing to do with the game you are playing, then thats a breach of privacy indeed. And really, the software could be doing a lot more than anyone knows. I'm sure they could put anything into it. Password stealing anyone?
I don't think the makers of PunkBuster have anything that specific, but you'd be completely naive to think it wouldn't be possible.
The extent I'm willing to go to maintain some level of game integrity is a game directory scan. Many people may claim that to be a breach of privacy also, but who's going to store private data in their game folder?
Would developing your own anti-cheating system be that difficult? I'm sure you implemented such things with NS1 other than VAC, and it could be made to conform to NS2 better than any generic anti-cheat software. If you think that it would take a long time to work on it... understanding that money doesn't grow on trees... why not form a 'mini' team to work solely on anti-cheat protection?
All we really need is something to help prevent speed hacking/aimbotters/TCCing. When the protection is exploited you can 'patch' it or something. Even adding a 'Potential Cheater' feature that would alarm admins of a possible cheaters would be decent.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're making a class mistake with the anti-virus analogy though, I think. An anti-virus prevents automated algorithms from penetrating a system's infrastructure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Signature-based virus scanners look for code patterns that have been identified as specific viruses. If part of a virus is encrypted, it needs a piece of code to unencrypt the encrypted part of itself. Virus scanners look for this part of the virus. Virus creators however can add-in useless bits of code into this unencryption algorithm to fool the pattern matcher of the virus scanner. When this happens and it is discovered, a 'patch' or new 'definition' for the virus scanner can be created which will allow the virus scanner to identify the changed virus program... Which I suppose would stop a virus from doing any harm to a system's infrastructure.
<!--quoteo(post=1684406:date=Jul 25 2008, 04:24 AM:name=Dalin Seivewright)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dalin Seivewright @ Jul 25 2008, 04:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684406"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And really, the software could be doing a lot more than anyone knows. I'm sure they could put anything into it. Password stealing anyone?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you guys really distrust the devs so much? We're talking about people who enjoy developing games and want to make something gamers enjoy. It would get less publicity to just kill and steal from someone than to try robbing from a global audience.
Anyhow, at this point this discussion is unrelated to me. I was in the discussion of any anti-cheat vs no anti-cheat. I'm content now.
But with the recent news, the information presented here holds a different significance. I really suggest that you <b>start a new topic</b>. Radix's last post would be a suitable opening. This way users interested in this topic direction can join in and not have to look over finished discussions.
<!--quoteo(post=1684410:date=Jul 24 2008, 11:19 PM:name=TerraGamerX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TerraGamerX @ Jul 24 2008, 11:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you guys really distrust the devs so much? We're talking about people who enjoy developing games and want to make something gamers enjoy. It would get less publicity to just kill and steal from someone than to try robbing from a global audience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't refering to UnknownWorlds, I was refering to the developers of PunkBuster (as well as other generic anti-cheat platforms). And if it did occur, it wouldn't get less publicity if no one found it :\. At any rate... I agree. Thread closed.
Comments
There is no need for something advance to be developed, as long as there is something. An example can be my neighborhood itself. Most houses are without a modern security system. Instead all entrances to all houses has a silver sticker that warns criminals of the "neighborhood watch" program. There's no neighborhood watch. There's no security. I only know people in one of the houses around my house. That's not going to stop a genuine criminal from doing what they intend to. But the foolish people with influential minds that got there by influence will go away the same way they came.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Makes a note to visit Colorado with burglers' tools*
I wouldn't endorse security theater, but I can see how even something is better than nothing. I just think the work/cost ratio is not reasonable.
I accept and fail your challenge, Locallyunscene.
Only because, however, I cannot recall ever playing a multiplayer game that neglected to think of it's players by not adopting some form of cheat deterrence.
And this is one of my strongest cases for UWE doing some AC work, whether they adopt something like Punkbuster or develop their own. I am not saying "everyone else does this, so be a sheep and follow" that's a fool's errand... but with good reasons following another's lead is perfectly acceptable <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
League play should stick to their own strict rules, but general community needs some kind of protection too <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Pretty sure it was client side in all HL and HL2 mods, am I wrong?
Pretty sure it was client side in all HL and HL2 mods, am I wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right it's client side, but that is so you can get <i>any response at all</i> back before your attack has made the round trip to the server and back (say a second or so for transatlantic combat).
Luckily, you can usually get a transatlantic connection in the 120 millisecond range without too much difficulty.
Only because, however, I cannot recall ever playing a multiplayer game that neglected to think of it's players by not adopting some form of cheat deterrence.
And this is one of my strongest cases for UWE doing some AC work, whether they adopt something like Punkbuster or develop their own. I am not saying "everyone else does this, so be a sheep and follow" that's a fool's errand... but with good reasons following another's lead is perfectly acceptable <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
League play should stick to their own strict rules, but general community needs some kind of protection too <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the anti-cheat programs have been developed by some 3rd party. CoD 4 and HL1 are the only games where the devs have developed the software that I know of. My knowledge of the new shooters is quite bad, so think you could mention some good examples of games where the actual dev team has adressed cheating notably?
CoD 4 uses PunkBuster.
I think its somewhat integrated to the game. To be honest I'm not sure how the thing exactly works, but I've understood that the PB is included in the game install. That's something I've only heard from a friend though.
Should the programmers put in there own anti cheat code right??
About the only way you can make the system 100% cheat proof on the client side is if you make it so you have to download the game every time you join a server. The only other way is if it does a huge file check every time you do so. Which can take a good 10 mins. And the download the game option is ok for people who doesn't have a 56k modem.
I will only think that the programmer would make it so that it would be difficult to cheat on it. Cause making it imposable would be silly.
Should the programmers put in there own anti cheat code right??
About the only way you can make the system 100% cheat proof on the client side is if you make it so you have to download the game every time you join a server. The only other way is if it does a huge file check every time you do so. Which can take a good 10 mins. And the download the game option is ok for people who doesn't have a 56k modem.
I will only think that the programmer would make it so that it would be difficult to cheat on it. Cause making it imposable would be silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But 100% is neither the intention, nor possible. People can find ridiculous workarounds. The intention is >0.01%. The question being to put in anti cheat or not. So any strength of security would be "yes".
I have often wondered if an open source anti cheating system similar to PB (but open source) would succeed better. I realize that the current concept behind anti-cheating is to hide what/how the program detects cheats. However, what if this info was common knowledge and the whole of the development/gamming community could contribute to the code base. Would it then be possible to develop better methods of cheat detection?
Just a random thought...
I'm pretty sure it's all but impossible to kill cheating completely for any game, but if it's kept obscure it's still a benefit to the playing community.
Just a random thought...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you make anti-cheat systems open source, you have the benefit of alot of people being able to contribute very fast and easily... but you have the downfall of hackers knowing exactly how to counter the counter measure <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1683273:date=Jul 13 2008, 06:01 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the rewards of making a decent anti-cheating system glaringly out-weigh the risks<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1683665:date=Jul 16 2008, 07:29 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 16 2008, 07:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I rebutted your original post with some good reasons why spending time on Anti-Cheat modules is worth the money<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A rebuttal is not the same as a repeated presentation of a viewpoint. You have repeatedly asserted that some form of anti-cheat would be a good choice for UWE in their new implementation, but have never explained what you mean by "anti-cheat". How would it function? What would its boundaries be? How far are you willing to go to delve into a <b>customer's</b> personal data to protect what <b>he is paying for</b>?
A rebuttal indicates a response. Re-hashing what you said previously without paying any attention to the counterpoints that create problems for you is not a rebuttal- it's the definition of insanity.
<!--quoteo(post=1683677:date=Jul 16 2008, 08:32 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 16 2008, 08:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683677"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree that anti-cheat software is a something that UWE should avoid so they can spend the money on other things, but how would you make the job easier for admins?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about a <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104138" target="_blank">soft matchmaking suite</a> that would promote the <i>right</i> kinds of players instead of just keeping out the wrong ones?
I just don't think you can expect an algorithm to protect itself enough. You need real human beings with common sense in order to have a great server. It doesn't take that much effort to ban a cheater most of the time, especially when the cheater isn't very good at what he's doing. The rest of the time the algorithm would not be intelligent enough not to be broken, unless it were arguably more invasive than The Warden, which, in my mind, makes my point of view that much stronger.
<!--quoteo(post=1683264:date=Jul 13 2008, 12:35 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jul 13 2008, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I recall reading the original Unreal Tournament had very little cheats. If my memory serves me right, the combination of a difficult-to-hack engine and a single good 3rd party anti-cheat program worked wonders there. HL1 on the other hand is really vulnerable with all the dll based stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I recall from UT1, it didn't have a third party anti-cheat program. It was all either inside the engine or implemented with UScript.
Anyways...
My thoughts on the thread topic...
Of course we all know there is no uncrackable code, and thinking about an anti-cheating algorithm that can't be worked around is a hopeless waste of time.
The point of creating anti-cheat programs/algorithms isn't to create an unbreakable anti-cheat system, the point of creating them is to simply prevent cheating as much as possible in your game.
It sort of works like anti-virus programs and such.
Eventually there is going to be a virus that comes along that doesn't get caught by ANY anti-virus programs. In that situation, the various anti-virus developers work on a 'patch', in most cases called a Virus Definition, to their anti-virus software that will allow their program to catch the virus.
In the case of an anti-cheat program, it will initially be developed to stop a certain amount of possible cheats. From that point on it will simply be reworked/updated to account for the newer types of cheating that people create to get around the programs initial algorithms.
As for VAC... I agree... its should be rewritten. However, you say there are still a few botters out there in games with VAC protection. My guess is that there are more than just botters but I believe VAC has gotten -MOST- of the cheating out of the game. Stopping most of the cheating is the ultimate goal because if our goal is to stop all types of cheating then our goal would be unobtainable.
As for anti-cheat technology in the new engine, I believe they stated that they could implement a variety of programs including VAC and punkbuster.
They stop a reasonable amount of cheats. The rest of the cheating can be easily handled by a decent server admin or group of server admins.
Cheaters were caught in the intercontinental finals of ANSL vs ENSL, which are leagues similar to CAL, albiet ENSL has actual activity these days. The server was VAC secured, and the administration knows how to detect cheating at least as well as Demo Detectives.
You are mistaken. At the very best, it causes cheaters to re-buy a game every few months, and that doesn't even always work.
<!--quoteo(post=1684235:date=Jul 22 2008, 04:37 PM:name=Dalin Seivewright)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dalin Seivewright @ Jul 22 2008, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've only read the first three posts and decided reading the rest was futile.
...
[Anti-cheat] sort of works like anti-virus programs and such.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough, but you did miss a fair number of points, most important, the fact that no one has been able to come up with a way to implement an anti-cheat system without delving extremely deeply into the <b>customer's</b> computer just to protect the game <b>that he paid for</b>.
You're making a class mistake with the anti-virus analogy though, I think. An anti-virus prevents automated algorithms from penetrating a system's infrastructure.
A firewall would be a better corollary, but how would you propose to create a firewall (or any other) system that would prevent aimbot or wallhack without <b>checking and enforcing every file on the client's machine</b>. It's definitely possible, but my argument throughout this post is that it would be prohibitively taxing to the client (in terms of play time) and also way too much work for the development team to concern themselves with.
A better idea is to create slick tools like I mentioned in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104138&st=0&p=1676352&#entry1676352" target="_blank">:this thread:</a> that allow server admins to easily and conveniently filter who they want to be on their server.
Since you keep stating the same point Radix, I'll clarify my stance as strongly as possible.
I'd give them my Social Security Number if it meant a flawless game. In the scenario they had some underhanded use for my SSN, I'd applaud them for me being too trusting. I'd laugh as I saw my life fall apart since a good game developing company did something that is far less rewarding than the risk they put their company in.
But since everything in that statement is far from reality, I'll just put my faith in whatever their current plans are. I'm playing <i>their</i> game, so ultimately I'll have to be content with what they release. I'm not going to whine over something I'm trying to enjoy. In that situation I should be doing something more productive.
this thread
is dead
Punk Buster, that is.
"I remember having to separately download PB and make sure it was updated and running and it was just annoying."
But now it's easy, like steam. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh yeah, and PA2+FISA+FHA+WARDEN = THEY WANT YOUR SOUL. I'm against intrusive anti-cheat measures.
I'm no expert on punkbuster, but here are a few:
First, punkbuster is incredibly invasive - perhaps moreso than the Warden. Such features are:
- Scans hardware and assigns bans based on it.
- Scans all processes launched after game execution <b>and sends them to the server</b>.
- Scans graphics libraries and other game-critical files (not so bad by itself)
- Scans <b>entire contents of memory</b>
Punkbuster also contributes to system instability for many users in mild to moderate form:
- Updates in the background causing latency and processor usage
- Creates an additional layer between the client and server, potentially causing fps and ping spikes. Can randomly drop clients due to minor connection problems that would otherwise not drop the player.
- Due to a failure in the detection system, running any other program (such as antivirus) while playing has the potential to create a hardware ban against all servers in all games that run punkbuster. The proposed solution is to disable all background processes.
- Punkbuster has a history of problems with 64 bit systems, such as completely locking players out of servers if they run on a 64 bit platform.
- Punkbuster has a history of problems allowing user-level accounts from connecting to servers, and requires an additional process to run plus the pb client, and in some cases may still block users from connecting, depending on what game they're playing.
The EULA even states that Even Balance has final say in banning a client, not the server operator. If you get onto one of their global lists, it can be impossible to get removed, and can require a full re-purchase of the game.
I'm one of the most legit players I know, and an implementation of a system this invasive would make me want to crack it, which could result in my being permanently banned from NS2.
The system is far too obtrusive for a simple internet game. Its implementation, despite how much I like NS2, and despite the fact that I would likely still play it, would actually cause me to hesitate to purchase the game.
Again, I'm no expert.
See, I've never changed any of the cvar's in COD4 yet I get kicked from servers for PB violations.
As for Warden, it's really invasive and bull######. People got in trouble for having trading websites open on their browsers and stuff. I don't think my documents and web browser need to be scanned for some sense of false security. Rely on the community to watchdog people and use whatever anti-cheat program you can develop without infesting our computers with spyware.
What I'm saying is...there needs to be a balance of anti-cheat software and human vigilance. VAC + good admins does the trick right now, its a good formula. It's really easy to spot hackers if you have knowledgeable players in your community.
First, punkbuster is incredibly invasive - perhaps moreso than the Warden. Such features are:
- Scans hardware and assigns bans based on it.
- Scans all processes launched after game execution <b>and sends them to the server</b>.
- Scans graphics libraries and other game-critical files (not so bad by itself)
- Scans <b>entire contents of memory</b>
....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If PunkBuster is truly that invasive then I thouroughly discourage its implementation into NS2.
Sure it may stop many types of cheating, but if its retrieving information that has nothing to do with the game you are playing, then thats a breach of privacy indeed.
And really, the software could be doing a lot more than anyone knows. I'm sure they could put anything into it. Password stealing anyone?
I don't think the makers of PunkBuster have anything that specific, but you'd be completely naive to think it wouldn't be possible.
The extent I'm willing to go to maintain some level of game integrity is a game directory scan. Many people may claim that to be a breach of privacy also, but who's going to store private data in their game folder?
Would developing your own anti-cheating system be that difficult? I'm sure you implemented such things with NS1 other than VAC, and it could be made to conform to NS2 better than any generic anti-cheat software. If you think that it would take a long time to work on it... understanding that money doesn't grow on trees... why not form a 'mini' team to work solely on anti-cheat protection?
All we really need is something to help prevent speed hacking/aimbotters/TCCing. When the protection is exploited you can 'patch' it or something. Even adding a 'Potential Cheater' feature that would alarm admins of a possible cheaters would be decent.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're making a class mistake with the anti-virus analogy though, I think. An anti-virus prevents automated algorithms from penetrating a system's infrastructure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Signature-based virus scanners look for code patterns that have been identified as specific viruses. If part of a virus is encrypted, it needs a piece of code to unencrypt the encrypted part of itself. Virus scanners look for this part of the virus. Virus creators however can add-in useless bits of code into this unencryption algorithm to fool the pattern matcher of the virus scanner. When this happens and it is discovered, a 'patch' or new 'definition' for the virus scanner can be created which will allow the virus scanner to identify the changed virus program... Which I suppose would stop a virus from doing any harm to a system's infrastructure.
Do you guys really distrust the devs so much? We're talking about people who enjoy developing games and want to make something gamers enjoy. It would get less publicity to just kill and steal from someone than to try robbing from a global audience.
Anyhow, at this point this discussion is unrelated to me. I was in the discussion of any anti-cheat vs no anti-cheat. I'm content now.
But with the recent news, the information presented here holds a different significance. I really suggest that you <b>start a new topic</b>. Radix's last post would be a suitable opening. This way users interested in this topic direction can join in and not have to look over finished discussions.
I wasn't refering to UnknownWorlds, I was refering to the developers of PunkBuster (as well as other generic anti-cheat platforms). And if it did occur, it wouldn't get less publicity if no one found it :\.
At any rate... I agree. Thread closed.