Cheaters...

by blahville on 11/17/2006 03:41, 68 messages, last message: 05/19/2007 13:19, 12144 views, last view: 05/05/2024 02:31, closed on 05/19/2007 20:55

Hello,

People are cheating again. It is "Teddy" and someone named "PL". Maybe they are the same people. Usually you will also see them as "unnamed" with a really high score. Another sign is that rockets are missing when you start a level (thats happened a lot with PL).

So for the developers, is there anything in the works for cheaters? I liked the "trusted users" idea I read somewhere a while back. You can put the server in trusted mode and then if your master only people you have become "friends" with can play. Otherwise they sit in spectator mode.

   Board Index   

#49: ..

by Grogan on 05/10/2007 08:44

It's not actually *that* bad right now, is it? Maybe it's just the times I go on, and I haven't been playing online for very long, but it's really only been a few times that I've seen games ruined by cheaters. Maybe they've all grown up and gotten lives since (fat chance lol)

I've just started grabbing master mode if nobody's got it. (Ironically, I've never had to do anything beyond changing maps for people) I was mad at myself once for not taking it. Some clown came on with a full auto instagib rifle and took master mode as soon as he joined. Nobody reacted to him, they just kept right on playing and you know, he didn't stay long. It must not have been much fun for him without a reaction.

reply to this message

#50: hmm

by ringostarrowns on 05/10/2007 16:07

I thought of this before, but I will mention it again


How about some sort of checksum of the binary and/or maps, so if it doesn\\\\\\\'t match, you don\\\\\\\'t get in?

reply to this message

#51: ..

by Grinch on 05/10/2007 16:16

I actually think CounterStrike's multiplayer architecture is superior, servers do all the work while players are just thin clients. Clients cannot be trusted to obey the physics or deliver damage fairly, given the chance some will change the logic. The only thing that can be trusted is the server, if a server cheats it becomes common knowledge and nobody plays there anymore. Clients can only be trusted to send mouse and keyboard input. Do you put your trust in 10 players or 1 server?

That said though, it's really not worth changing to this architecture, it doesn't stop the most important hacks - aimbots and wallhacking, and suffers from performance issues -- it wouldn't have the required performance for a fast paced game like sauer.

Sending hashes wouldn't work either, modified clients would just send the correct hash...unless i've missed something here.

reply to this message

#52: ..

by Eris on 05/10/2007 19:03

It would be odd if PL was a cheater, hes quite nice and a good mapper.

reply to this message

#53: ..

by Zorro on 05/11/2007 05:57

Take a look at yourselves, you are swinging around the blame-stick like a pack of 10 year olds going after a pinata. Yes, there are people who use client modifications for illegitimate purposes among us. (I don't like either "hack" or "cheat", because they are two different things that get lumped together, like "quadrilateral" and "square") It is our duty to deal with the problem maturely, not to call out names of suspected cheaters, even if you "really saw them cheating." An identity can easily be assumed in sauerbraten, and you need to keep this in mind at all times.

The best route to enjoying your games is to be educated. Use master mode properly, and understand the technical functionality and limitations in place. If someone wants control of "their" server, they do not need to ask you for it, they *should* have the ability to take it directly. It has been said that through tampering with the client, anyone could "steal" mastermode. If this is true, it is a terrible vulnerability to Sauerbraten's unique anti-cheat system. If this problem does exist, though, resolving it will get rid of any threat of illegitimate tampering with gameplay.

Sauerbraten pins the decision making on a human, which many times can be much better then any algorithm created to date, if you do your job by making sure this power goes to the correct person, cheating is a non-issue.

reply to this message

#54: ID theft

by Zorro on 05/11/2007 06:01

Now for the issue of protecting your Identity. Really, no solutions exist other then trust, or a centeralized registration system. The former is what we are already using, and it works. Having the latter could be nice, but I think it would only serve to add bloat and limitations many players would not like (consider you change clans, or someone adds a clan tag to your name and plays, or something).

There is a saying, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." If you want to be sure about identity, you could always arrange your games on ICQ or IRC.

reply to this message

#55: So in summary...

by tentus_ on 05/11/2007 14:45

We're trying to correct a social problem with a technological fix. As pointed out many times in previous threads, there is no code that can be implemented that can't be broken. There is no system that can't be outwitted. The best we can do is come up with some basic means to slowdown the inexperienced recoders, and after that just approach the situation socially: if they're cheating, ignore them or go to a different server.

reply to this message

#56: Social Idea

by Morosoph on 05/11/2007 15:21, refers to #55

It seems to me that the problem of a cheater taking Mastermode has a social solution: vote for master. Someone with a single vote for master cannot be kicked until voting timeout, and a majority >=sqrt(num_players) votes (say) transfers mastermode to the new master as soon as that majority has been attained (or a simple majority on vote timeout).

An individual who acquired mastermode cannot be booted in this way, for they are (presumably) trusted by whoever is running the server.

reply to this message

#57: Edit: Password

by Morosoph on 05/11/2007 15:22, refers to #56

An individual who acquired mastermode /with password/ cannot be booted in this way, for they are (presumably) trusted by whoever is running the server.

reply to this message

#58: ..

by Drakas on 05/11/2007 17:59

Guys, most of you are fools.
First, read the thread before posting your suggestion.
Those with cheksums are simply stupid, because they take away the freedom of modifications.
The guy who is talking about physics is also stupid.... the deal is that this game was designed this way - the server is to be light and everything is done client-side.

Those 'cheaters' are just idiots. If you don't like them, don't play with them. Use the mastermode - it is there for you to use. It was made exactly for controlling who can play and what maps are to be played.
If you are stupid enough not to use mastermode, then, unfortunately - it is your own fault, not the developers'

Also, I am very sure that games can be arranged; woop clan and others play games inside, they don't need to go around public servers searching for fun with 'cheaters'.

cheaters are losers. End of the story. Don't feed a loser, otherwise they will continue.

reply to this message

#59: Using Mastermode

by Morosoph on 05/11/2007 18:27, refers to #58

I never claimed that it was the developers' fault. I was just suggesting that an incombent cheater could perhaps be usurped through voting. That's a possible improvement, not a finger of blame.

Mastermode is a good solution, but sometimes the cheater grabs it. Then being able to usurp them is a good thing. I'm not condeming mastermode by any means!

One advantage of allowing a cheating master to be usurped is the side-effect of encouraging more servers to leave mastermode turned on by default. This means that we have more servers with mastermode, which is great all round.

reply to this message

#60: ..

by Grinch on 05/11/2007 21:59

Drakas, having a trusted binary distribution doesn't mean source code couldn't be available. The problem with the checksum idea is how would the checksum be kept a secret? It wouldn't work, clients could simply forge the expected key/checksum.

The multiplayer system used by Counterstrike is better for it's security and extensibility, but sorry for suggesting it.

I've played against PL, and he's no cheat, he's just a good player. Sore losers tend to brand good players as hackers. Either, Blahville is a sore loser, or PL was impersonated.

How about just, majority vote to ban? With nice dialogs...

reply to this message

#61: ..

by Zorro on 05/11/2007 22:19

The reason checksums are bad is not because they prevent modification, but the exact opposite. It takes two seconds to circumvent the system. I want all of you to crack open your computer science books tonight and actually learn something before opening your mouths.

Additionally, since sauerbraten IS an opensource game, the binary output of each version of each compiler for each of the possible compile flag combos on each operating system will be different (for those of us with legitimate custum builds).

reply to this message

#62: ..

by Grinch on 05/11/2007 22:39

Zorro, re read my post. And there's no need to be rude. How exactly would checksums promote modification?

I agree binary compatibility would be a problem, that's another reason not to use it.

reply to this message

#63: ..

by Drakas on 05/11/2007 23:08

Seriously, just let it be as it is. There is no bulletproof way to go against cheating, even in most modern games. You simply have to accept it as it is.

reply to this message

#64: Message censored by administrator

by Gilt on 05/12/2007 02:56

#65: ..

by Passa on 05/12/2007 03:03

"cheaters are losers. End of the story. Don't feed a loser, otherwise they will continue."

"Seriously, just let it be as it is. There is no bulletproof way to go against cheating, even in most modern games. You simply have to accept it as it is."

Amen. Every game has cheaters, half the time when I'm playing Battlefield 2, the server and half of the clients connected crash because some loser spawns a thousand vehicle drops. Thats a game with Punkbuster, one of the most comprehensive cheat detection systems used. I think Sauerbraten has it relatively good actually, considering that it essentially has no cheat protection whatsoever (other than mastermode).

And like Drakas said, don't feed them. Cheaters want attention, so don't give them any.

reply to this message

#66: Re: Semantic readjustment to combat fraudulent play

by tentus_ on 05/12/2007 03:53, refers to #64

Is it bad that i understood all of that? Lit classes have ruined my brain.

Idea: could we implement a feature where people can assign icons to other players? (I'm drawing this idea from World of Warcraft, if anyone here plays WoW in groups). My idea is that small and subdued icons appear above the heads of players, and everyone sees the same icons. Players assign the icons to others (but not themselves) through a simple menu.

Hopefully, players can start highlighting obvious cheaters this way. Because you can't see your own icon (even in the menu), players won't notice the extra attention, but everyone else will know to avoid the player.

It's just a small idea, an indirect assistance.

reply to this message

#67: ...

by GON on 05/19/2007 11:05

Speakingfrom personal experience, i have played PL and for a fact he doesnt cheat, he is probably the best players in the whole of sauer and there is a good reason for it, to all those spreading rumours that he cheats or he uses 'special programs' go vs him 1on1 and youll really see the man in action. My opinion, those who claim that the 'top ranked' players are cheaters are just simply haters...and always will be

reply to this message

#68: Top-Ranked Players

by Morosoph on 05/19/2007 13:19, refers to #67

Being top-ranked, it would be pretty trollish to assume their identity. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happened here!

reply to this message

   Board Index