VAC 7/23

[rsg_6100]

HMMMMM much like Erik Smith's e-mails the comments for each VAC update never change. Reading the comments from the last VAC post I happen to notice they are the same. Who cares if C-D or VAC is better im just glad someone is actually cares enough to try to stop the cheaters.

[MikeJ]

Oh by the way it kind of comes off like I'm bragging my previous post but believe me, that' not the case. I'm not trying to be mr cal-i pwnage or something stupid like that, there are plenty of people better than me and i get my ass handed to me like everyone else, but i'm merely trying to share some of my insight as a long time enthusiastic counter-strike player.



I honestly do not have any troubling run ins with cheaters on public servers ruining my game. I see an obvious hacker at most a couple times a month, if that. And I pub every day. I'm a competitive player so I don't have any special pubs i go to, i just want the practice so i filter whatever server has the lowest ping on ASE, so i think I have a pretty good feel on how the game plays here on the west coast. Maybe there are more cheaters elsewhere? Or maybe it just seems that way. I think the problem is blown a bit out of proportion, and VAC is given too much shit.



But in all honesty, i think deep down inside we like our anti cheats being only 90% effective or whatever they are. The slight possibility that that crazy headshot from the guy who's totally owning the server or owning your clan in a scrim could be cheating is comforting. My clan likes to shrug off horrible defeats by unknown cal-o clans in random scrims as a loss to hackers, and it helps moral. But I think deep down inside we all know the problem isn't as bad as we make it out to be.



Hackers are out there, you may or may not know about them. But if you sit back and enjoy the game as best as you can you'll find it's not as frustrating and you may just experience a bit of reverence not seen since the early days, when a headshot script was a term used to antagonize newbies.

[*Vamp*]

MikeJ, in a pefect world, everytime someone died on a public server they'd just go "Oh. Well, can't be helped, he's better then me I guess". However, as you well know, that never happens. given how big a problem cheating used to be in CS, regardless of how few people cheat now or how good the anti-cheat programs are, some people are still going to use the "OMG wtf he's a hacker!!1!!" excuse when they die in CS. As a result, there will always be people complaining about hackers on public servers. It's all very well saying "accept the fact that not everyone is cheating, suck it up, and try to switch up your strategy next round and deal with it", but nobody is ever really going to do that, and you know that. You said it yourself that it'd be nice to think that every time we get fragged the other person only got us because he or she was cheating, and due to human nature, that's what we'll blame our deaths on, since nobody actually likes to admit defeat without blaming other people on their on mistakes. It's a part of life Mike, live with it.



As for thos hackers that you claim are no more of a problem then any old player who just has a bit of skill when it comes to CS, that's bull too. If someone is good at CS, it'll annoy whoever they kill, but that's about all the harm they do. So long as they arn't getting scores of 50-0, then most people will, as I said before, go "omg wtf he's cheating!!", but that's about it. But when it comes to being owned by a hacker, no matter how much or how little they're cheating, it's insulting. I know personally, when I get killed by someone who is good, I want to be able to blame cheats, I want to be able to blame my crappy 56k ping, but in the end I just know they're really better then me. When I get killed by a hacker, it's insulting. Being killed by someone who's using a computer program to play for him is insulting. Being killed by someone who can't be bothered to actually get good at the game is insulting. Being killed by someone who doesn't even really need to aim properly is insulting. No matter how much or how little they're cheating, being killed by a hacker is much worse then being killed by someone who is simply better then you. I could take being killed by someone like HeatoN or potti. Hell, I can take being fragged by some random called 'Player' on a laggy public server. But it's so much harder to take being killed by a hacker.

[MikeJ]

Yea I agree i think you misread me. I don't think hackers have their place in CS, or are a "good challenge" or show any form of skill. And getting killed by a computer pointing and aiming at you takes everything there is out of the game, throws it out, and completely makes the whole system pointless. It isn't fair, at all.



With that out of the way there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Now whether or not CD blocks more cheats doesn't seem to be the problem here. If even one cheat gets by then you are right back to square one and there is no way to really be at peace of mind on a CD server as well.



Now you might be thinking "but that's not the point, if only one cheat gets by it still is an incredibly effective anti cheat that really dampens the amount of hackers in CD servers". And this argument is correct, but also contradicting to the VAC naysayers because the same is true for VAC, even if it is to a lesser degree. Regardless of which anti cheat stops more or less hackers is irrelevant because as long as one cheat can get by on either you still have a chance for an illegitimate kill. A kill that was not fair, a kill that was accomplished by a computer, a kill that took no skill on the opponent's part. And you're right back where you started yet again being frustrated over various kills that may or may not have been legitimate. And once again you are not enjoying the game.



So what I was bringing up is not that VAC is better than CD, or CD is pointless, or nobody cheats its all in your head, but rather that there is always a level of uncertainness when your opponent is hundreds of miles away in a dark room behind a closed door on an internet connection. It's this anonymity and freedom that is a curse and a blessing to the internet. And naturally it hit CS. You have little choice but to accept it and not let it ruin your game.



If you feel more comfortable playing on CD required servers then that's great and maybe you do see less hackers, but my philosophy is it doesn't really matter in the end, and you have to make the most of it.



I'm rambling and stuff but really i see too many negative comments towards VAC and i just wanted to get it all out here so i don't just keep sputtering out the same bits in every VAC update comment page.



Also i emailed erik and he said source engine went alot further with anti cheat. CS2 isn't going to be on an old hacked engine folks :)

[stooopid]

MikeJ seems to be onto the point here. Public servers just aren't full of cheaters like they used to be. I watch people play who are running consistent 4-1 ratios (or better) on pretty much most servers they join -- no cheats. VAC has successfully broken the pandemic cheating that plagued the community. Period. CD has its merits too but I'm not going to get into that...



About the CD keys though, Lento, I agree that you will not be able to ban cheaters effectively by CD key with the current system. Some kind of hashing of the login is needed so that individuals are not able to steal the keys as easily as they do. I have heard of some inventive, long-term strategies for stealing keys that really work well... something has got to change on that front.



Anyway...



-stooop

[MikeJ]

Yea i'm interested to know how CD keys are acquired. I know they aren't generated. Yes there are CD key generators out there, but generating a numerically correct CD key means nothing, if that generated key was never boxed and registered with WON as a shipped KEY it will not auth when WON as a real key.



Some of the login methods mentioned seem like a good idea and might be seen when everything is 100% steam, but it's a bit unpractical at the moment. EQ does it, and it is absolutely 100% impossible to use someone else's key in EQ unless you know there account name and password, and even if you do that person just calls up sony support, tells them someone got there account, and sony will change the password back for them (because all the billing information and account registration is your name, so they can verify it). However systems like this that are used in current MMORPGs like EQ are expensive and resource hogging, and part of the reasons MMORPGs have monthly fees. The benefit is of course that these gamers are never pirated.



Also another thing to note about that method is all the game servers are run by sony, so they are all integrated with the login server. Games like CS rely on community run servers, and it would be a bit more challenging to link all these community run servers up with these special accounts and assure that they are all in line with the authentication methods but I really don't know much about that.



I think a quick fix that we will see in Half-Life 2 is the CD key stored encrypted rather than a plane text string in the registry. It would make it impossible for a trojan or a nosy friend to quickly and easily steal it.

[Ravenium]

MikeJ:



I think you make a lot of good points. HL2 will be an interesting time for gamers, since it is arguably more anticipated than any game, possibly even doom3 (definitely is for me), and many will be looking to see what anticheat functionality the source engine offers. Obviously Valve is neither stupid nor foolish, so they will no doubt have some offering. This will also be far easier for them, as the source engine is state of the art as opposed to the hackneyed quake 1/2 engine they had to use to make HL1.



And yes, on the overall level, ANY level of effort is better than none. I can remember various points in my ancient cs history book where I laughed at people who even said aimbots were possible (beta 4?), when cheats overran CS (1.1-1.3), and today, when things seem to have settled down a bit. The cheating problem, at least in pubs, is not as prevalent - blatant cheaters are not seen nearly as much as a year and a half ago, when there really WAS no widely used anticheat. Also, I think I speak for many when I say having 3-4 different anticheat offerings at one time was nothing less than a nightmare, given that you'd have to have two different clients to launch (thanks, Paladin) or have to keep a server plugin or 4 up to date.



The current problem is cheating in leagues. With the current rise in competitive cs and other video games, it is more important than ever to keep cheats out to insure fairness across the board. In order to do that, the anticheat tool must also be effective. Unfortunately, even in CAL, VAC has caused enough uncertainty to remain in the backseat compared to a first person demo and a pair of eyeballs. Even worse, the banning is not controlled by the league, meaning if they determine the player to not be cheating or not apply, they still cannot do anything due to the player being banned until 2008.



I don't think C-D causes any false security, I hope at least. It's just a matter of it actually blocking more cheats than VAC. Whether this is due to its minority status, I am not sure (though according to what I am being told, the number is almost 1/3 of currently populated servers running it in some form). Now apply that metaphor to a league and you've got a lot less work for anticheat admins :)



The only real thing in your argument I outright object to, really, is your statement that "C-D messes with shots". There is not, and has never been, anything in Cheating Death that messes with aim/movement or anything else, EVER. I am not sure where you heard that, but it is simply not true. Cheating death does nothing to your aim in game.



Finally, I would have to say I agree with your assessment of the paranoia of the community - people are too suspicious of each other. This is caused by the horrible outbreaks of cheating in 1.1-1.3, and that in turn was of course caused by cheat makers. There is no happy end to this solution other than a migration to the end engine and new game architecture, which should rebuild some of the trust we've lost. In the meantime, the best defense against paranoia and cheaters alike is proper administration, good admins, etc. I am a bit more selective in the pubs I play at these days, but I like to think the ones I do play in are relatively cheat free (or at least nobody pops right out as one).



I think much of my original argument was directed at the ridiculous "VAC > C-D" people who only look at how often people update. The reality of the situation is that both programs are working to a common goal - to keep those who would spoil your game out of it. I would definitely look forward to there being only one anticheat solution in HL2, PROVIDED it is kept up to date and effective.

[Dirk]

My eyes hurt.



-dp-

[DirtyDevil]

wow a vac comments with actual intelagent posts i think i have seen it all now

[Lento]

intelligent posts

[Gpig]

rizzuh wrote..

Right, that's why virus scanners are pointless because there is one virus out there that they can't detect.



Wait, that's a really stupid opinion.

That's a horrible analogy. People don't go out and get viruses to use like cheaters go out and get cheats to use. People make their own viruses in most cases while very few make their own cheats. So as long as one gets by anyone who wants to cheat can easily just find and use that one. Don't criticize when you are completely wrong. My comment wasn't left open for any flaming and was merely that, a comment.

[Serious Sam]

How many times will csn have this arguement.

[mf4]

Gpig wrote..

That's a horrible analogy. People don't go out and get viruses to use like cheaters go out and get cheats to use. People make their own viruses in most cases while very few make their own cheats. So as long as one gets by anyone who wants to cheat can easily just find and use that one. Don't criticize when you are completely wrong. My comment wasn't left open for any flaming and was merely that, a comment.

virus scanners don't only catch virii, they also catch trojans (aka backdoors) which yes, people do go out and use them like they use cheats. the majority of people don't program their own trojans either, they download ones programmed by another person.

[Spartibus]

The only real thing in your argument I outright object to, really, is your statement that "C-D messes with shots". There is not, and has never been, anything in Cheating Death that messes with aim/movement or anything else, EVER. I am not sure where you heard that, but it is simply not true. Cheating death does nothing to your aim in game.

rofl, C-D has fucked up the hitboxes tonnes of times. It lags bullets and makes stupid bugs like people turning invisible. I bet you're one of the people to say that WWCL didn't mess up hitboxes a few months back either, yet finally it was proven how meta-mod screwed it up. C-D does the same thing practically.



your statistics are ludicrous Ravenium. You obviously don't do any research.

[rizzuh]

Gpig wrote..

That's a horrible analogy. People don't go out and get viruses to use like cheaters go out and get cheats to use. People make their own viruses in most cases while very few make their own cheats. So as long as one gets by anyone who wants to cheat can easily just find and use that one.

Once a cheat is easy to find, it becomes a bigger target. Your logic is flawed.



One person dying isn't the same as 2,000,000 people dying, just like a few cheats being available isn't the same as a few thousand cheats being available. For you to call the different pointless is to say that there are the same--if not more--cheaters now than there was during the CS 1.3 days: If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't work. That assertion is insane.



Instead of mocking my second analogy, perhaps you can come up with your own to explain why your opinion is rational. I cannot think of a single thing in the world where the power of a one is equal to the power of the sum.