<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is when a decision needs to be made.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First and foremost, what is "it"? Be concise. Second, no, a decision doesn't <i>need</i> to be made on this subject in relation to the development of this game any more than yesterday or the week before.
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In my view, the point of this whole thread is to determine how highly UWE should prioritize actions to reduce cheating in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point of this thread is to raise an awareness on the importance of first person spectating. Simply put, the purpose has been to explain <i>why</i> first person spectating is necessary, not <i>when</i>. It is unfortunate that you don't grasp this.
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, the urgency of the need is dependent on the prevalence and severity of cheating in the current beta.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yet again, you are putting your creaking cart before your wheezing horse. You don't introduce a method of catching cheaters once you know people are already cheating, not only because you can't, but because it is a given that some people will cheat. You implement the method to catch people when they cheat in advance, this way you actually know that it is happening. Why is this difficult for you?
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The decision is thusly, (A) If <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->cheating is widespread<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> and game-breaking, <!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->action needs to be taken sooner<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> (B) If <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->cheating is not widespread<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> or game-breaking, <!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->action can be taken later<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a false dichotomy. <i>Any</i> cheating is a problem and is ultimately game-breaking, prevalence is irrelevant. First person spectating is a basic element of any multiplayer FPS and everyone involved in testing this game should understand that this should have been implemented years ago.
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->If we had first-person spectating/some other way to collect data on NS2 cheating,<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->the correct choice would be more obvious.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <b>In lieu of that, we can only rely on hearsay and anecdotes, which isn't great, but its better than nothing.</b> From my personal experiences, B is the correct decision at this time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is an argument from ignorance and your statement is completely unsound. This is what you are saying: "<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->If there were a method of detecting cheating,<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->we would know whether there is cheating<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->and could decide when to develop a method to detect cheating.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->"
Its actually a really easy decision to make... You are way over complicating this. Anyone that cheated with a traditional aimbot would be instantly noticeable, as they would kill atleast 4 skulks with a single LMG clip. Anyone that used one of those supposed 'human' aimbots may be able to go unnoticed yes, but they are then not really creating an immediate problem are they? It would be just like you are fighting another skilled player. Just because you cannot determine if people are cheating or not directly with first person spectate does not mean you have no idea if cheating is currently ruining the game.
Obviously you have your opinion regarding this and that does not appear to be something you are willing to change, however you should show a little more respect to people having their own opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1916188:date=Mar 21 2012, 10:53 PM:name=Mkk_Bitestuff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mkk_Bitestuff @ Mar 21 2012, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916188"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its actually a really easy decision to make... You are way over complicating this. Anyone that cheated with a traditional aimbot would be instantly noticeable, as they would kill atleast 4 skulks with a single LMG clip. <b>Anyone that used one of those supposed 'human' aimbots may be able to go unnoticed yes, but they are then not really creating an immediate problem are they?</b> It would be just like you are fighting another skilled player. <b>Just because you cannot determine if people are cheating or not directly with first person spectate does not mean you have no idea if cheating is currently ruining the game. </b> Obviously you have your opinion regarding this and that does not appear to be something you are willing to change, however you should show a little more respect to people having their own opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, an aimbotter is creating a problem, there are no exceptions.
First person spectating is <b>the</b> way to detect cheating in normal circumstances and the very existence of cheats ruins games, it's that simple. That said, I don't know if someone is ruining my game currently. I think that's a problem. It's sad we don't share that sentiment.
<!--quoteo(post=1916189:date=Mar 22 2012, 05:10 AM:name=hampton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hampton @ Mar 22 2012, 05:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916189"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, an aimbotter is creating a problem, there are no exceptions.
First person spectating is <b>the</b> way to detect cheating in normal circumstances and the very existence of cheats ruins games, it's that simple. That said, I don't know if someone is ruining my game currently. I think that's a problem. It's sad we don't share that sentiment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't know your game is being ruined, then it's sort of not being ruined, because ruining something is sort of by definition, noticeable.
I just simply dont care, i have faith that uwe are fully aware theres massive potential for hacking and they will have a plan ready for when they have finished the game.
I mean theres still plenty of hackers in css and tf2 that get away with it. welcome to online gaming.
<!--quoteo(post=1916256:date=Mar 22 2012, 08:05 AM:name=xorex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xorex @ Mar 22 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really want them to add a killcam in this game when you die :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would be nice with a killcam. But then it should be an option for the servers to allow it.
I have encountered a number of people using aimbot, I watch as the server population drops to zero or everyone ready rooms. Just today I was in a server and a marine never missed a shot took out 8 skulks all by himself with 4 rifle but kills every skulk died as soon as he was in los of him no matter how far away or even if they were partially behind cover.
once he got a shotgun every skulk kill was one shot one kill 8 skulks would rush him and 8 skulks would die, he was 33-0 within the first 5 mins of the game. He never got meds from the com or ammo, he didn't need them once he got shotgun no one was able to get within 10 meters of him without instantly dieing. Litereally the entire server called bs on him at about the same time.
<!--quoteo(post=1915398:date=Mar 20 2012, 07:58 AM:name=Ohnojojo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ohnojojo @ Mar 20 2012, 07:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1915398"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While its easy to code hacks for this game, I haven't seen anybody so noob and rage-y enough to code an aimbot for this beta game thus far.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like they'll come out on the forums or in-game and be like "h3y br3h, I cod3d 7hi5 1337 aimb07. I'm 5o cool, br3h."
If they're doing it for the purpose of "I wonder if I can do this" like player, maybe. If they actually have the intention of using it in-game, you can safely bet they'll never reveal the script's existence to anyone, ever - unless they want to sell it of course.
<!--quoteo(post=1914827:date=Mar 18 2012, 07:26 PM:name=peregrinus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peregrinus @ Mar 18 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1914827"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having said all this I support the idea of removing k/d info<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why? for me at least it lets me know how well i'm doing especially sense my 3 month break. seriously, a 3 to 9 K/D ratio!
To be fair, hampton is right, even if half of his efforts are aimed at shielding from poorly formed arguments and points. I think it would put a lot of people at ease if UW put-forth some more details about anti-cheating tools other than just lua constancy checking such as 1st person, demo recording, client side sceen-shots, etc. Last I heard, 1st person is hard to do for some reason due to the way the engine works. If you dont think cheating will ever be a problem? Ignore this thread and the release notes when the tools are released.
This is just a call for (hopefully) pre-emtive action on UW part to discuss and implement quality cheat detection tools asap, and that the need for this action is independent of the state of cheating or non-cheating as it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1984480:date=Sep 29 2012, 01:08 AM:name=stickyboot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stickyboot @ Sep 29 2012, 01:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1984480"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it would put a lot of people at ease if UW put-forth some more details about anti-cheating tools other than just lua constancy checking such as 1st person, demo recording, client side sceen-shots, etc. Last I heard, 1st person is hard to do for some reason due to the way the engine works. If you dont think cheating will ever be a problem? Ignore this thread and the release notes when the tools are released.
This is just a call for (hopefully) pre-emtive action on UW part to discuss and implement quality cheat detection tools asap, and that the need for this action is independent of the state of cheating or non-cheating as it is.
Can everyone agree on that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Demo recording, client side screen-shots and silent spectator (a feature that was present in NS1 by some means unkown to me: admins that look like they're still on a team whilst able to view first person of a player to lure them into a false sense of security and continue using rather than deactivate their cheat) are vital for this game to survive the efforts of a few malicious coders. It needs to be a strong focus on the dev team moving forward and con-checks are the most basic, most easily bypassable Anti-cheat that exists.
I am rather worried that as prize tournaments are coming into play we still don't have the first person spectator mode implemented. Nor the NS2 version of HLTV. Not so much as to catch cheaters, but to quell any suspicion of cheating.
Comments
First and foremost, what is "it"? Be concise. Second, no, a decision doesn't <i>need</i> to be made on this subject in relation to the development of this game any more than yesterday or the week before.
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In my view, the point of this whole thread is to determine how highly UWE should prioritize actions to reduce cheating in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point of this thread is to raise an awareness on the importance of first person spectating. Simply put, the purpose has been to explain <i>why</i> first person spectating is necessary, not <i>when</i>. It is unfortunate that you don't grasp this.
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, the urgency of the need is dependent on the prevalence and severity of cheating in the current beta.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet again, you are putting your creaking cart before your wheezing horse. You don't introduce a method of catching cheaters once you know people are already cheating, not only because you can't, but because it is a given that some people will cheat. You implement the method to catch people when they cheat in advance, this way you actually know that it is happening. Why is this difficult for you?
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The decision is thusly,
(A) If <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->cheating is widespread<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> and game-breaking, <!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->action needs to be taken sooner<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
(B) If <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->cheating is not widespread<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> or game-breaking, <!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->action can be taken later<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a false dichotomy. <i>Any</i> cheating is a problem and is ultimately game-breaking, prevalence is irrelevant. First person spectating is a basic element of any multiplayer FPS and everyone involved in testing this game should understand that this should have been implemented years ago.
<!--quoteo(post=1916166:date=Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 21 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1916166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->If we had first-person spectating/some other way to collect data on NS2 cheating,<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->the correct choice would be more obvious.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <b>In lieu of that, we can only rely on hearsay and anecdotes, which isn't great, but its better than nothing.</b> From my personal experiences, B is the correct decision at this time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an argument from ignorance and your statement is completely unsound.
This is what you are saying: "<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->If there were a method of detecting cheating,<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->we would know whether there is cheating<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->and could decide when to develop a method to detect cheating.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance</a>
Obviously you have your opinion regarding this and that does not appear to be something you are willing to change, however you should show a little more respect to people having their own opinion.
</b>
Obviously you have your opinion regarding this and that does not appear to be something you are willing to change, however you should show a little more respect to people having their own opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, an aimbotter is creating a problem, there are no exceptions.
First person spectating is <b>the</b> way to detect cheating in normal circumstances and the very existence of cheats ruins games, it's that simple. That said, I don't know if someone is ruining my game currently. I think that's a problem. It's sad we don't share that sentiment.
First person spectating is <b>the</b> way to detect cheating in normal circumstances and the very existence of cheats ruins games, it's that simple. That said, I don't know if someone is ruining my game currently. I think that's a problem. It's sad we don't share that sentiment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't know your game is being ruined, then it's sort of not being ruined, because ruining something is sort of by definition, noticeable.
I just simply dont care, i have faith that uwe are fully aware theres massive potential for hacking and they will have a plan ready for when they have finished the game.
I mean theres still plenty of hackers in css and tf2 that get away with it. welcome to online gaming.
Would be nice with a killcam.
But then it should be an option for the servers to allow it.
once he got a shotgun every skulk kill was one shot one kill 8 skulks would rush him and 8 skulks would die, he was 33-0 within the first 5 mins of the game. He never got meds from the com or ammo, he didn't need them once he got shotgun no one was able to get within 10 meters of him without instantly dieing. Litereally the entire server called bs on him at about the same time.
Like they'll come out on the forums or in-game and be like "h3y br3h, I cod3d 7hi5 1337 aimb07. I'm 5o cool, br3h."
If they're doing it for the purpose of "I wonder if I can do this" like player, maybe. If they actually have the intention of using it in-game, you can safely bet they'll never reveal the script's existence to anyone, ever - unless they want to sell it of course.
Why? for me at least it lets me know how well i'm doing especially sense my 3 month break. seriously, a 3 to 9 K/D ratio!
This is just a call for (hopefully) pre-emtive action on UW part to discuss and implement quality cheat detection tools asap, and that the need for this action is independent of the state of cheating or non-cheating as it is.
Can everyone agree on that?
/Thread
This is just a call for (hopefully) pre-emtive action on UW part to discuss and implement quality cheat detection tools asap, and that the need for this action is independent of the state of cheating or non-cheating as it is.
Can everyone agree on that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Demo recording, client side screen-shots and silent spectator (a feature that was present in NS1 by some means unkown to me: admins that look like they're still on a team whilst able to view first person of a player to lure them into a false sense of security and continue using rather than deactivate their cheat) are vital for this game to survive the efforts of a few malicious coders. It needs to be a strong focus on the dev team moving forward and con-checks are the most basic, most easily bypassable Anti-cheat that exists.
Not so much as to catch cheaters, but to quell any suspicion of cheating.