PDA

View Full Version : Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?


UBL
12th Jun 2005, 11:00 AM
Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

We hear how instant action and single player are being emphasized with regard to current UDN efforts.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

We see stunning graphics and more I candy than most any gamer could want.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

Recent press releases on and before the E3 convention reference how Epic is “In Touch” with the “Community” by lurking in forums.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

I have not been able to find a forum operated by the OEM’s (Epic, Miday, or the UDN) that even remotely cared about customer input, nor have received a survey request.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

I hear the rationale that 2k4 participation is diminishing because of other FPS such as CSS and COD. While no one mentions how the real reason is that cheating is rampant and is truly the main reason.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

Speed hacks, aim bots, radar cheats are now evolving faster than the game itself. It has evolved past anything to do with .ini files or UT system folder enhancements, even beyond extended console commands. We now see such craftiness where windows accelerators are used as an external application set to a bind key and where hax can be toggled on and off.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

Epic even states how 2k4 was less than what they really wanted to produce. Where are the quality assurance values?

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

Maybe, 2k4 was a quick and dirty to generate the cash cow needed for 2k7 development, again void of player input, but no one would want to think such a bad thought that the customer base was bamboozled.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

I am a die hard UT player that will remain in game as hundreds of severs remain empty.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

I am a hopeful, but not a satisfied customer.

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

Or

What can we reasonably expect?

T2A`
12th Jun 2005, 12:20 PM
Why did you post the same question 11 times?

It just doesn't make sense.

Why did you post the same question 11 times?

I mean, is once not enough to get your point across?

Why did you post the same question 11 times?

To answer the question: No. It's impossible.

Why did you post the same question 11 times?

You said it yourself that cheats were getting so technological it really has nothing to do with the game anymore.

Why did you post the same question 11 times?

Cheating is just one of the reasons for crap player counts. It is a factor, but certainly not the factor.

Why did you post the same question 11 times?

They do need some cheat protection instead of relying on the community, which is something they do too much.

BooGiTyBoY
12th Jun 2005, 02:22 PM
No game will ever be free of h4x no matter what any company can promise.

I think it's less up to a company to make sure there's "anti-cheat" measures and more up to them to make a game that's fun and enjoyable enough that noone will want to use teh h4x in the first place. ;)

But let us all hope and pray they don't use something as silly as punkbuster for 2k7 :eek: :D

I hear the rationale that 2k4 participation is diminishing because of other FPS such as CSS and COD. While no one mentions how the real reason is that cheating is rampant and is truly the main reason.

This one here makes me laugh as both those games have a much higher % of h4x and h4ckerz than any Unreal series game ever had.
I say LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL to you on that.

Maybe, 2k4 was a quick and dirty to generate the cash cow needed for 2k7 development, again void of player input, but no one would want to think such a bad thought that the customer base was bamboozled.


Where exactly did you get an idea like this from? 2k4 is a little more than a "quick and dirty cash cow". Also where do you think they got half the ideas for 2k4? Oh yeah... PLAYER INPUT AFTER 2k3.
Once again I LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at you.

I have not been able to find a forum operated by the OEM’s (Epic, Miday, or the UDN) that even remotely cared about customer input, nor have received a survey request.

That's because they don't NEED one. Enough Epic employees DO lurk on these forums and a few other popular UT communities and the players themselves are the ones usually coming up with the polls and feedback that they DO pay attention to. To think that Epic doesn't care about customer input has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen on this forum.

thatcher
12th Jun 2005, 03:18 PM
No game will ever be free of h4x no matter what any company can promise.
Probably true, but can anyone truly say that Epic has done all they can to combat cheats in UT? Its a sad indictment that third party developers had to step up to this particular plate.

Considering Epic's code is vulnerable to cheats, why wouldn't they take on the development of a third-party security product and build it into regular updates of the game? The answer, of course, is because they don't need to since we all bought the game already and they are clearly not that honorable. So pathetic. Why did the original poster ask his main question 11 times? Looks to me like its a question worth asking and Epic have failed to deliver up to now.

Might also agree that cheats are not the main reason for decline in UT popularity to other shooters. No doubt it is a component. Again, at this point, who would expect Epic to care that so many people no longer play a game that they paid for? We gave them our money ages ago and they don't care what game we choose to play right now.

The_Head
12th Jun 2005, 04:03 PM
100% completely agreed with Boogity there. CCS and COD are hackers paridise....

also agreeing with you there thatcher, congrats on your first post, glad it wasn't like UBLs...... (n00b style post)

hal
12th Jun 2005, 04:45 PM
I agree that they could do much much more to combat cheating.

I totally disagree that they do not listen to what we are saying about their product. I know for a fact that they do.

I completely disagree with your assertion that UT2004 numbers are dwindling due to cheats. Boogity summed it up pretty well. Plus, the fact that most servers are either passworded or running community-based anti-cheats keeps UT2004 from being a breeding-ground for hackers.

Your idea that UT2004 is a "quick and dirty cash-cow" is very suspicious. You sound more like someone who has an axe to grind than someone who is very concerned about cheating. There's nearly double the content of UT2003 in UT2004, including a new gametype that is carrying online numbers. Considering the tremendous amount of work that Epic, DE, Streamline, Psyonix, and all of the contracted mappers put into the game, calling it a "quick and dirty cash-cow" is a slap in the face to that tremendous effort. Not to mention the fact that the game debuted at a discount price. How can you possibly complain about that, barring an ulterior motive?

BooGiTyBoY
12th Jun 2005, 04:53 PM
Considering Epic's code is vulnerable to cheats, why wouldn't they take on the development of a third-party security product and build it into regular updates of the game? The answer, of course, is because they don't need to since we all bought the game already and they are clearly not that honorable. So pathetic.


I'd say it's more because they failed miserably at doing it in 2k3 and they knew the community itself would do a much better job. Why try to institute something you just aren't any good at when others will step up to the plate and fill in where it needs?

UT has always had a very strong emphasis on the community and the community has always lent it's support and talent to the game series in return.

I don't think it's so much a "they are too lazy to do it, and leave it up to the community/players to take care of themselves."

I think it's more like "We know the community may have different views of what they want for anti-cheat, so let them make their own which we know they are going to do anyway" kind of stance.

Look at Punkbuster. There's games I flat out REFUSE to play just because it uses that P.O.S. sorry excuse for anti-cheat. I'd much rather get kicked off a UT server for using a custom voice-pack cuz of anti-tcc which works 10x better than to have to deal with a program that slows down my system and does absolutely nothing to stop the most popular h4x. :lol:

T2A`
12th Jun 2005, 08:55 PM
It'd be nice if Epic could either come up with their own anti-cheat system or buy the rights from Wormbo for TCC. It is annoying, but at least it works most of the time. They need something, though. The fact that demo servers run without cheat protection is dumb. They probably left their own system out because they didn't want to resort to Punk[not]Buster.

The thing you must realize, UBL, is that Epic does NOT make their money from game sales. Their money comes from licensing their engine. You obviously don't have a clue what you're babbling about.

Discord
12th Jun 2005, 10:50 PM
It'd be nice if Epic could either come up with their own anti-cheat system

They had one for UT2k4, it was called UTSecure. Everybody immediately scoffed at it though, and decided they'd rather flame Wormbo instead. I'd say Epic dodged a bullet on that one.

And yeah, asking Epic to guarantee the elimination of cheating is like asking them to guarantee it'll never rain on saturday and to provide each customer with their very own time machine with 10 proofs of purchase...

You gotta forgive UBL, I've seen him around before and he has an, uh... "enthusiastic" rhetorical style to say the least :lol:. He used to run a really nice iCTF server though... :tup:

BITE_ME
12th Jun 2005, 10:50 PM
If people are cheating in a game. I just leave.

PS. All cheaters have a small wee wee, that fires blanks. Because God (EPIC) will not let them breed. :D

Ghost3021
13th Jun 2005, 02:04 AM
^^^ What bite me said

Wormbo
13th Jun 2005, 03:30 AM
Cheaters already switched to harrassing (former) anti-cheat coders on IRC because they (the cheaters) can't cut it ingame anymore. :D (even with most servers running only an "outdated" Anti TCC cheat protection, I might add!)

JaFO
13th Jun 2005, 04:46 AM
I have not been able to find a forum operated by the OEM’s (Epic, Miday, or the UDN) that even remotely cared about customer input, nor have received a survey request.

*ahem* UT2kx was published by Atari.
They had/have the official forums for the series and they used them for the MSUC-contest.
What Midway wants to do is still vague at this point in time.

// What can we reasonably expect?
Epic doing all they can possibly do to walk the fine line between easy access to custom content and cheat-protection.
So far they've done a great job.
Also note that since doesn't make a profit beyond the sale of their game there's no reason for them to support us at all. Yet still they've delivered more support than most companies have done ...

So anyone that expects 24/7 cheat-protection is deluding themselves.
That kind of stuff can only be delivered by a pay-to-play service (which fps's aren't) and the volunteers in the community (which Wormbo & co do already).

IMHO the impact of cheaters on multiplayer-games in general is overrated.
It's not the cheaters that are damaging the games.
It's the overzealous witch-hunters that do the real damage to a game's on-line experience. Like the cheaters themselves these people have a small wee wee that fires blanks as well.

Kyllian
13th Jun 2005, 05:00 AM
I'll give you one simple answer to your single question repeated too many fscking times!!

NO!

They can't guarantee that 2k7 will be cheat free because it is impossible to make it cheat-free.
Guaranteeing 2k7 will be cheat free is like guaranteeing world peace will be achieved tomorrow
They would have to completely lock down 2k7's code, eliminating custom content and reducing the User.Ini to simply keyboard binds and no aliases
They'd probably have to encrypt the piss out of the game as well, and even then there's no guarantee.

Like I've said, the only way to protect your content is to never release it.



And get this thru that thick skull of yours: Cheating is not rampant. I've played fairly regularly(and there's others that spend almost all their free time playing) and the last time I saw a cheater was during the demo phase of 2k4.
We now see such craftiness where windows accelerators are used as an external application set to a bind key and where hax can be toggled on and off.Hi, welcome to the past, please proceed to the present.
The speed-hack with the accelerators has been fixed in retail 2k4(you just need to play on patched servers instead of demo servers)
I am a die hard UT player that will remain in game as hundreds of severs remain empty. Then go back to UT
If you're not a "satisfied customer" fine, don't buy 2k7, we sure as hell won't miss you

Killavirus
13th Jun 2005, 05:30 AM
i have also never seen a cheat (but i secretly call all of the people better than me cheats)


and what really get on my nerves is when these cheats call themselves Hackers !!!!!!!


This is an insult i would never ever ever consider myself anywhere near their level, their is alot more to hacking than running a program.

edhe
13th Jun 2005, 05:43 AM
2k4 is suprisingly cheat free, from what i've seen.

The thing that people think is, being newbies more than anything, that everyone's cheating because they're so good compared to them. Fact is it's just the learning curve.

2k4 isn't big enough to attract massive cheaters anymore it's too niche. I have seen about 3 bots so far in 2k4, and all on demo servers with no cheat protection (which, admittedly, it should be up to wormbo to make (thanks go to wormbo, saviour of online 2k4 pub-gaming)).

EL BOURIKO
13th Jun 2005, 05:58 AM
I have seldom seen cheaters myself but i have seen some and that was some few too much (I even have a list of names of so called "players" who even admitted to be cheaters while playing online!!!).

here is my first very naive question?
(hey!! don t laugh at me guys if the answer is obvious and known all over the community, because i don t know the answer myself :S Answer me instead)
What does Epic do when they catch someone who is cheating??
(As to me I would break their balls off before firing them for life from any UT servers)

And here is the second part of my question:
What will Epic do in the next UT when they catch someone who is cheating??

here is my last point. As to me, I would like to know if such thing is technically possible and in a way politically correct? i was thinking to have a button in each server that would ask Epic to check instantly any player you suspect to be a cheater. if the player is clean then it s fine, if not then Epic can track this IP a while to know what s wrong with the player and to know how to deal the suspected player.

Killavirus
13th Jun 2005, 06:02 AM
Well most people get their game id banned for life unless they can prove otherwise

edhe
13th Jun 2005, 07:43 AM
Then they change ID being installing another Warezed Key.

\o/

Killavirus
13th Jun 2005, 08:11 AM
Then they change ID being installing another Warezed Key.

\o/
sad but true


so yes of course they will Promise there will be no cheating in ut2007 and if you can prove there is cheating they will hand over a free copy of their game to you

EL BOURIKO
13th Jun 2005, 08:43 AM
Well i maybe naive once again because i am not totally aware about all these cheating things and internet stuff...

... but can t we imagine that instead of checking the ID of players with a CD key (that obviously one can change in an easy way on some illegal places) we could check the ID through personnal IP adress?

edhe
13th Jun 2005, 09:39 AM
IPs change daily, or at request, never mind proxying etc, so no.

Basically, there is no way you can stop people from getting into a game. They can buy a new copy of the game, warez it, change keys, change IPs, change ISPs if necessary.

If poeple really want to be utter pain in the asses, then they can be.

All you can do is make it hard, with cd key hashes, tight control on *getting* these keys necessary online/email registration? etc. You can't stop human nature.

The_Head
13th Jun 2005, 10:49 AM
adding on to edhe's point. If they really want to go through all the hassle just to get slightly better stats and ruin others peoples fun they need to take a good look at there own lives.
On the witnessing cheating front. I have had 2 definent experiences of it, first one was on an iCTF server running Colossus. Someone had a speedhack and could cross the level in less than 10 seconds. (very fast if you remember the size of collosus)
Other time I watched my brother procede to play an aimbot on a 1on1 IG server.

Havent seen anything more recently though

ReTox
13th Jun 2005, 11:27 AM
"There are people that cheat and nothing in the computer world can be called 100% secure so there will always be cheating in games".

This seems to be the common "thread" of the replies to Ubl's post, But why should a game require its users to write their own security to fill the gap? Its like buying a car and you have to install your own airbags to make it safe.

How many leagues/ladders require Anti-Tcc because cheating is a problem?

How many different user written packages try to combat cheating in the UT world?

Punkbuster may be flawed but at least its a try and at least its a constantly updated part of the game. There is zilch for security in UT out of the box.

I've been playing COD:UO for about a year now and I have yet to get owned by a botter in that game, but I've seen LOTS of botters in my days as a server admin for UT2004 and as a player on other clan servers.

I applaude Wormbo for stepping to the plate but I'm also ticked at Epic for having an environment where Wormbo NEEDED to write Anti-Tcc and NEEDED to keep updating it so much. If Epic has ever approached Wormbo about integration of Anti-Tcc then my post is mute but if they haven't then they have done more to hurt the game then improve it.

For the Epic lurkers - Please, PLEASE add some decent security to 2K7.

Just my .02

thatcher
13th Jun 2005, 12:23 PM
Well most people get their game id banned for life unless they can prove otherwise
Banned by who? Only individual admins. (Maybe small collections of admins who chose to share log files.)

If Epic built auto-permaban functionality into the game, it would be a step in the right direction, IMHO. Yes - there would need to be safeguards. Yes - a new CDkey may not be so hard to find. etc etc.

But imagine a UT environment where anti-cheat measures were built into the game instead of being reliant on individual server admins to maintain an up-to-date 3rd party product which has also been configured properly and where a cheater will get caught and the effect of being caught is automatically reflected on EVERY server. Of course cheaters can reinstall with another CDkey but the point is that online cheating would have been made more bothersome.

To EL BOURIKO who has seen few cheats in UT2k4, I say he is lucky. To me, its been much worse than in 2k3. Maybe its more obvious to spot in the instagib world where I usually find myself? If cheating is not given appropriate concern by Epic, it will harm ongoing activity in UT2k7 just as badly as it has surely done in UT2k4. If they don't recognise that, it speaks volumes to me about their commitment to people who buy their game.

To Keltare who says cheating is not rampant, I would ask how would anyone really know? The system is undeniably flawed and vulnerable: so who can be 100% about anyone under such circumstances?

Finally, to Wormbo... I have much respect for the work you have done with AntiTCC and other products. Epic should be ashamed that they could not have done more to secure their product on their own. I applaud you.

Selerox
13th Jun 2005, 12:50 PM
In sloe to 6 years playing UT games, I have seen a grand total of 5 incidences of cheating in-game. It's not a big problem.

Does UT2007 need some form of anti-cheat? Certainly. Did the anti-cheat work done by Epic for UT2003/2004 do anything? No. Did the community make the game safer? Yes. Will that situation continue with UT2007? Probably. All easy questions with easy answers.

I can't remember who said it (so I can't credit them for it), but someone once said that the best cheat protection for a game is a clued up and active player and server admin community. Which I completely agree with. If players took the time to report cheats + details to server admins who activly take action against cheaters then the game would be a whole lot safer than it already is. The development of the UTAN system makes that player/admin relationship even more powerful. UTAN being fully integrated into the game (and without the ability to allow banned players to play on servers) would be a huge bonus.

So, I'll ask the question back to UBL + others. What are you doing to help remove cheats from the game?

EL BOURIKO
13th Jun 2005, 12:52 PM
To EL BOURIKO who has seen few cheats in UT2k4, I say he is lucky. To me, its been much worse than in 2k3. Maybe its more obvious to spot in the instagib world where I usually find myself? If cheating is not given appropriate concern by Epic, it will harm ongoing activity in UT2k7 just as badly as it has surely done in UT2k4. If they don't recognise that, it speaks volumes to me about their commitment to people who buy their game.




well actually I have seen few that were cheaters for sure, but I met many more that I highly suspected of being cheaters too. But well, I am often naive, and I want to believe that these highly suspected players were maybe some top rank players...In fact, it s a bit embarrassing to blame someone if they are just extremely good and no cheater at all :S .
If someone have the recipe to sort out for sure extremely good players from stinky brainless frustrated impotent cheaters, then send it to me.... ;)

ReTox
13th Jun 2005, 01:50 PM
So, I'll ask the question back to UBL + others. What are you doing to help remove cheats from the game?

Again with the owness to the user to "fix" the game. This is what we are trying to stop! Why the hell should I spend a day e-mailing every admin to every server, then go to every forum and every UT site to post a botters GUID? Can you promise me that my forum posts will stop that botter from playing or that their GUID will populate to every game server? No you can not so I think your question is flawed, yep pretty darn sure its flawed. It should not be up to us to secure the game!

Would you let Microsoft off if they decided to just not do security (err... at all) and let the users fix it? MS gets raked over the coals about security and Epic should fall under the same scrutiny, as should any software company. They both deliver a software based product don't they? Why is a game any different? If UT allowed someone to crack into your system you would be PISSED and screaming "Hey Epic!! Fix This NOW!!!".

I think the big problem is that we have become too "used" to cheaters in our games. We sit back and quietly rage internally but say things like "Well, what can you do?" or "Its just part of the game". Its BS is what it is.

thatcher
13th Jun 2005, 02:03 PM
UTAN being fully integrated into the game (and without the ability to allow banned players to play on servers) would be a huge bonus.
Exactly. (And throw in an automated way for cheaters to get themselves onto the banlist!)

That's why it has to come from Epic, of course, not the community. No doubt the community has filled a gaping hole rather better than any attempt from Epic to date but AntiTCC, UTAN and other products must be added and kept up-to-date by individual server admins - when an ideal solution would be to have them integrated into the game.

[Aside: UT2k3 had no in-game mapvote system, but presumably due to to demand and the 2k3 success of UT2Vote and others, an in-game system was introduced for 2k4. The continued support from UT2Vote did not stop Epic building a mapvote into the game - so why not add anti-cheat functionality to 2k7?]

So, I'll ask the question back to UBL + others. What are you doing to help remove cheats from the game?
Its not really right or appropriate, I think, to ask what a user is doing to remove cheats from the game. As a developer myself (non-gaming products), I happily receive constructive criticism from users of my code and don't expect any of them to contribute directly. It is arrogant for any closed-source developer to demand money for their product and expect others to patch up holes. Any criticism of Epic during this thread has been generally constructive, I think, in that the issue has been highlighted as a concern to at least some of their users. Now we have to see if Epic welcome such feedback in order to deliver a product its customers want.

Selerox
13th Jun 2005, 04:31 PM
It should not be up to us to secure the game!

Maybe not, but does that excuse an attitude of utter complacency? Not a chance in hell.

Yes, the game should be secure, but that doesn't mean for a second that players don't have a responsibility to assist when they can.

Cheat protection relies on the community as much as the community relies on cheat protection. Get used to that fact and start helping anyone and everyone who wants to stop cheats, wether they're Epic or in the community.

UBL
13th Jun 2005, 05:45 PM
IPs change daily, or at request, never mind proxying etc, so no.

Basically, there is no way you can stop people from getting into a game. They can buy a new copy of the game, warez it, change keys, change IPs, change ISPs if necessary.

If poeple really want to be utter pain in the asses, then they can be.

All you can do is make it hard, with cd key hashes, tight control on *getting* these keys necessary online/email registration? etc. You can't stop human nature.

tie it to a MAC address with self update.

UBL
13th Jun 2005, 06:39 PM
In sloe to 6 years playing UT games, I have seen a grand total of 5 incidences of cheating in-game. It's not a big problem.

Does UT2007 need some form of anti-cheat? Certainly. Did the anti-cheat work done by Epic for UT2003/2004 do anything? No. Did the community make the game safer? Yes. Will that situation continue with UT2007? Probably. All easy questions with easy answers.

I can't remember who said it (so I can't credit them for it), but someone once said that the best cheat protection for a game is a clued up and active player and server admin community. Which I completely agree with. If players took the time to report cheats + details to server admins who activly take action against cheaters then the game would be a whole lot safer than it already is. The development of the UTAN system makes that player/admin relationship even more powerful. UTAN being fully integrated into the game (and without the ability to allow banned players to play on servers) would be a huge bonus.

So, I'll ask the question back to UBL + others. What are you doing to help remove cheats from the game?

My minimum bill rate for what I do as a profession is $125/hr. If Epic wants to retain me I will play UT policeman. By example:

I coordinated two very prolific programmers capable of delivering superior security as an admin of a well know gib league/ladder and as a former member of the UT leadership council. They were accepted into a development team of 6, provided full disclosure of all testing and step protocols, fully disclosed, while the brillance of this leadership council never had any guidance for the developers in terms of testing. The two I speak of also played competitively, on a ladder in the league that most of the leadership were also admins. They get caught with a helios in the system folder and disqualified by the same set of fools who asked them to be part of the development team that they provided all test and development documentation to date.

Where is the incentive? Anyone, including myself, who tries to improve the environment will be ridiculed regardless of how fact based or presentation. Take Wormbo all you here is F N mid game check, not wow I really give props to the guy, it is the basic nature of the so called community referenced.

What I am currently doing is closing down the environment to just those within a specific player base that are close freinds for long periods of time. This reduces the play to about 25-30 players, but for the most part we are certain that our relationships will carry the integrity.

It is a joke to me that people in here state all is well in 2k4 it is a pathetic mess, which I agree is not worth fixing at this time. Those cards have been played, water under the bridge. Yes, I get sick of noobs using cheat excuses, and ping issues, server spikes. We have a time out channel in ts we drop people into when they rant too much. What I am trying to do here is justify the wait and training time spent now until 2k7 releases.

If the scope was narrowed to extracting CTF LGI 135/35 would there be a way to then reasonably address the issue?

However, and again, my original post ended with "What can resonably be expected" with one response so far that attempted to address bottom line.

Is Epic willing to release position?

You are either going to contribute or critisize.

What's it going to be?

I am willing to pony up $5K-$10K and a 1/4 man year (500 hours) of my time with a net value of $72,500 if others are willing to step up. I will expect a share in the intellectual property rights and any potential proceeds.

UBL
13th Jun 2005, 06:42 PM
adding on to edhe's point. If they really want to go through all the hassle just to get slightly better stats and ruin others peoples fun they need to take a good look at there own lives.
On the witnessing cheating front. I have had 2 definent experiences of it, first one was on an iCTF server running Colossus. Someone had a speedhack and could cross the level in less than 10 seconds. (very fast if you remember the size of collosus)
Other time I watched my brother procede to play an aimbot on a 1on1 IG server.

Havent seen anything more recently though

you havent seen anything ecause the servers are virtually empty

UBL
13th Jun 2005, 07:06 PM
Maybe not, but does that excuse an attitude of utter complacency? Not a chance in hell.

Yes, the game should be secure, but that doesn't mean for a second that players don't have a responsibility to assist when they can.

Cheat protection relies on the community as much as the community relies on cheat protection. Get used to that fact and start helping anyone and everyone who wants to stop cheats, wether they're Epic or in the community.


I paid $75 dollars for my LE copy with editor. I am the cutomer not the vendor. Since we are all so close knit in here why dont you come paint my picket fence and pay me to do it....man if I could capture the Tom Sawyer aproach for Defense contracting I would be in tall cotton.It is Epics responsibility not ours.

Selerox
13th Jun 2005, 07:06 PM
What can we reasonably expect? No fecking idea, ask Epic. As for what looks to be you begging for a job, trying mailing that to Epic with a resume. Might be a start...

thatcher
13th Jun 2005, 07:19 PM
Maybe not, but does that excuse an attitude of utter complacency? Not a chance in hell.

Yes, the game should be secure, but that doesn't mean for a second that players don't have a responsibility to assist when they can.

Cheat protection relies on the community as much as the community relies on cheat protection. Get used to that fact and start helping anyone and everyone who wants to stop cheats, wether they're Epic or in the community.
Your sentiment is great - but I'm not sure how practical it is. To a large extent, only one individual (Wormbo) has had any real impact on the entire UT community. The rest of us can mostly only hope to influence our own clan server - maybe the odd public server.

With the greatest respect for your 4000+ posts in this forum, whatever standing you have here and the achievements of this website, I think you would agree that your own influence hasn't reached the entire community either. But tell me what you have in mind that individual gamers can realistically do, and I'm with you 110%.

I'm not understanding who you think is being complacent. I would have thought the people fitting the definition of complacency are those raking in the cash whilst their customers are frustrated by the cheaters who exploit their code. It seems that you have it the other way around, somehow.



Also want to respond to The_Head. I had missed your initial welcome to this forum. Thank you very much.

I hope my point-of-view (which seems to be the opposite of many here) is taken with my intention to have a voice during reasoned and respectful discussion.

thatcher
13th Jun 2005, 07:21 PM
[I need to type quicker or shorter. I miss my opportunity to stay in the flow of the thread when I take too much time on a post... Sorry, all.]

UBL
13th Jun 2005, 08:01 PM
What can we reasonably expect? No fecking idea, ask Epic. As for what looks to be you begging for a job, trying mailing that to Epic with a resume. Might be a start...

I was asked what have I done to contribute, I document partof it, and continue to offer up and I get this response. I am a CEO of a defense contractor in the Beltway doofuss. That's right: bangers, boomers, fast attacks, and the very real WMD programs I have been involved.

This game gives me an out when the rest of the world is going nuts.

Discord
13th Jun 2005, 08:36 PM
I was asked what have I done to contribute, I document partof it, and continue to offer up and I get this response. I am a CEO of a defense contractor in the Beltway doofuss. That's right: bangers, boomers, fast attacks, and the very real WMD programs I have been involved.

This game is a cherished out for me when the rest of the world is going nuts.

Heh... UBL, a true original.


Well anyway, I think a significant part of your problem is competitive instagib... and I certainly don't mean that as a slam. Rather, insta (being all hitscan) is something of a cheater's paradise, and since it's competitive there's A. more incentive to cheat and B. greater consequence to cheating.

By way of comparison, your average ONS pubber doesn't lose any setup time if a cheater turns up, stands to lose nothing from match to match, and doesn't deal exclusively in hitscan weapons.

And, after all, the average ONS pubber is at the end of the day the Lowest Common Denominator. There are so many "interest groups" within UT these days that the best Epic can hope for is to please the big ones and maintain their revenue.

Hence, Epic is unlikely to go out of its way to address the higher- maintenance concerns of the (smaller) competitive insta scene. It is, as they say, nothing personal... just business. And that, I think, is bottom line what we can reasonably expect.

Pubbers (of which I am one) will tell you that cheating isn't a big deal in UT, and from their perspective that's true. Cheats of any real consequence on the pubs are rare, and if you do see one... so what? It's just a pub.

For the competitive crowd I see that it's different. You yourself have seen that even trusted players get the urge to cheat... but then again you've only seen that because you've also seen them get caught. So things can't be 100% bad.

As you should know from your line of work, for every measure there is ultimately a countermeasure. That's how arms races happen, and that's how cheat vs anti- cheat happens in online gaming. That battle is never going to be won, by either side, neither is it going to go away. As one of the "good guys" the only thing you can do is make life as hard for cheaters as you possibly can (or at least as you possibly have the time for ;) ).

To sum up: as a minority demographic, competitive insta is never going to get the full attention of Epic. 2k3 was the best chance it had, and it'll probably never be that good again. Furthermore, the endgame against cheaters is an outright impossibility.

So what can we reasonably expect? Simply that dishonesty has always and will always be with us, and even quitting the game won't insulate you from that problem. The things you value in life are always going to be something of a job... try not to let it get you down.

If, on the other hand, you think you've got the magic bullet, well... the range is clear, you may commence firing. Or not. Entirely up to you.

ReTox
13th Jun 2005, 09:54 PM
Maybe not, but does that excuse an attitude of utter complacency? Not a chance in hell.

Yes, the game should be secure, but that doesn't mean for a second that players don't have a responsibility to assist when they can.

Cheat protection relies on the community as much as the community relies on cheat protection. Get used to that fact and start helping anyone and everyone who wants to stop cheats, wether they're Epic or in the community.

I've help run a few popular servers, maintained the security and dealt with leagues and ladders and other admins, is that really complacency? I'm in here now trying to get something done with UT so it will be an even better game.

I never said we don't have the obligation to provide a secure enviro for our players, thats what I do with Anti-Tcc! My point is that if the features were there to begin with then the owness of security would not be 100% on our shoulders like it is now. And getting used to that fact IS the problem. We should not have to have a "well thats just the way it is" mentality. Least I don't think so. I've been writing code since I was 9 (Apple IIc) and if its one thing I have learned is that if you want the feature you can write the feature and Epic has talented people so whats the problem? Maybe they just aren't as smart as Wormbo! :)

I respect your opinion and point of view Selerox, but I think we see two different ways of solving the problem, I'd prefer to set the game up and play instead of having to constantly update security, post info about botters, subscribe to 1x10^18 forums so everyone will know about a cheater that may or may not ever play in my server again (with warez'd keys etc).

I think there should be more done by Epic about security.

UBL
13th Jun 2005, 11:50 PM
Discord']Heh... UBL, a true original.

Well anyway, I think a significant part of your problem is competitive instagib...

Your post is evidence we can have threads like this can remain posiitive.

I have had the privledge to play with some really good players, both weapons and gib, and realize gib is the blacksheep. The weapons guys amaze me, simple are a unique breed, can't say enough about them.

While unfortunate, you are spot on the money on most points, however european play adds another factor with over 200 clans sustaining gib ctf play while 100 speed.

So between state side and europe play you are looking at significant numbers...as pointed out revenues are really at the enginge agreements....etc

...and you are right........not 100% bad and actually from a pub vantage who cares.

Wondering if there is a way to realize a higher security if the scope was limited to 1 mode and 2 settings....could it be extracted and hardened and lliited ot the engine code that support the 1 mode and two settings....if so , thn i have the horsepower to join in the solution within reason.

Skold
13th Jun 2005, 11:56 PM
i just spoke to Robert and he guarantees that UT2007 will be cheat free and also that it will be out in 2 weeks.

thatcher
14th Jun 2005, 02:09 AM
I agree with much of what Apoc had to say. Points to add on others...

Discord']There are so many "interest groups" within UT these days that the best Epic can hope for is to please the big ones and maintain their revenue.
Anti-cheat measures would be good for all honest gamers.

Discord']Pubbers (of which I am one) will tell you that cheating isn't a big deal in UT, and from their perspective that's true. Cheats of any real consequence on the pubs are rare, and if you do see one... so what? It's just a pub.
Strongly disagree with that. If good players get hammered by cheats in public servers, what is encouraging them to take on more of a role in the community? And even then, this is where I share the same opinion as Selerox, perhaps - that the community at large should be doing their bit to keep cheats out by providing secure servers for all gamers. (Obviously we differ on how that can be achieved.)

Discord']for every measure there is ultimately a countermeasure. That's how arms races happen, and that's how cheat vs anti- cheat happens in online gaming. That battle is never going to be won, by either side, neither is it going to go away. As one of the "good guys" the only thing you can do is make life as hard for cheaters as you possibly can (or at least as you possibly have the time for ;) ).
This is a key point. If life is hard for cheaters, I believe less people will be drawn to it. If they know that their CDkey has to be changed after every visit to any server (especially considering a possibility that their CDkey is linked to their competetive league/ladder identity), I think that's a step change for the better. And I think that's easiest to be done at Epic's level rather than as a community add-on (even foregoing moral responsibilities).

Continuing with your real-life arms race analogy: would you prefer that your country or its allies sat back and let enemies build up their arsenal? I don't see any valid reason not to develop secure software just because there will always be people to crack it.


i just spoke to Robert and he guarantees that UT2007 will be cheat free and also that it will be out in 2 weeks.
Fabulous news! Me and my flying pig will take a copy each. :D

edhe
14th Jun 2005, 04:55 AM
CEO of a company that sponsors death, plays bleedin' pervert IG, multiposts and cries and whines like a kid about eval cheetarz.

No wonder the world's in a ****pot.

Killavirus
14th Jun 2005, 05:23 AM
hmm why dont they try identifying people from the serial number of their Graphic Card :D

how many cheaters would buy a brand spanking new Graphic card everytime they got caught :D :D :D

or just a combination of license and Graphic card serial.

EL BOURIKO
14th Jun 2005, 06:03 AM
it s a pity to see that such poor-stinky-ugly-brainless-frustrated-impotent-alone people (short version --> cheaters) succeed to get so much attention from fair players like most of us :S ...

Nunchuk_Skillz
14th Jun 2005, 02:00 PM
Wow, so many things to reply to. :P

First, the UTAN system allows Epic to ban a player from *all* servers that have UTAN on their servers. So if someone is clearly proved to be cheating and that is sent in to UTAN, that player can be banned from all servers running UTAN (which is a pretty high percentage), not just from an individual server.

Second, I totally agree that Epic should *not* leave the anti-cheat development to unpaid, totally voluntary 3rd parties. Huge props to someone like Wormbo who took it upon himself to develop Anti-TCC and help out the community, but I think it's really unacceptable that Epic would simply abandon anti-cheat development like they essentially have. At the very least, they should have hired Wormbo on a contract basis to at least give him some incentive to continue updating & developing it. Otherwise, you have a situation every so many months (almost inevitably) where someone will decide to stop development of their cheat protection, since no one really wants to have something become an unpaid, permanent job that they initially took on for the fun or challenge of developing it. :/

Third, I'm sure that cheating is probably far more rampant on demo servers (since they have zero cheat protection), and random pub servers, but it's *extremely* uncommon in the competitive communities. I find that it happens far more often that a top-shelf player will go into a pub server and almost immediately get accused of Happens to me every time that I go on a demo server (if none of my normal servers have anything happening, I sometimes stop in for a couple minutes) and I'm really only an average player in the competitive community, not an elite player at all.

Fourth, I seriously, seriously doubt that cheating is having any impact whatsoever on the player numbers for this game. As others pointed out, cheating is far more rampant in other games (like CoD, CS, etc.), so the argument simply doesn't hold water. In fact, maybe some of those games are so popular simply *because* cheating is easier. :P Hehe, okay, that's probably going too far. Actually, I think it's really due to the far simpler game play/learning curve than anything else, but that's a totally different discussion....

So in short, yes, I absolutely agree that Epic should play a far more active role in developing/maintaining/updating cheat protection for 2k7 than they did for 2k4. I think we're just lucky that some talented programmers like Wormbo decided to help out when Epic fell down there. However, I also think cheating is less prevalent than most people (especially inexperienced players) think, and I think it has had very little negative impact on player counts for the game as a whole.

Okay, I'll stop typing now. :P :D

Discord
14th Jun 2005, 04:45 PM
Strongly disagree with that. If good players get hammered by cheats in public servers, what is encouraging them to take on more of a role in the community?

Well, my point is kind of that the current level of cheat protection is adequate to the purpose on pubs. I've been pubbing for years and only seen a handful of cheats... there are a lot of people who would tell you the same. AFAIK, players aren't "getting hammered" by cheats. If public cheating was as rampant in UT2k4 as it is in CS, I'd be humming a different tune.

As things stand you don't see a lot of casual cheaters on pubs because the risk of Joe Admin turning your GUID and a demo in to UTAN is just too great. I think the global perma- ban by GUID is a great idea, and I think it's probably working pretty well. UTAN = stroke of community- based genius IMO.

I don't see any valid reason not to develop secure software just because there will always be people to crack it.

Yeah, I wasn't arguing that anybody should just give up. ;)

My point with that was simply that the question, "WILL Epic guarantee the end of cheating?" is superseded by the question, "CAN Epic guarantee the end of cheating?" For my money that answer is, "of course not."

All I'm saying is that anti- cheat is more of an ongoing process than a one- time decisive event.

Huge props to someone like Wormbo...

...they should have hired Wormbo...

Hear frickin' hear to that! :tup:

I hope he at least won something from the MSUC...


Second, I totally agree that Epic should *not* leave the anti-cheat development to unpaid, totally voluntary 3rd parties.

In fairness to Epic here, I think Wormbo kind of trumped them on that one. Epic did produce an anti- cheat tool called UTSecure (http://www.unrealadmin.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6448), it was available for both UT2k3 and UT2k4. The early 2k3 versions IIRC had some problems and caused some b!tching... meanwhile, AntiTCC appeared as an attractive alternative. Wormbo got the job as a fait accompli on the part of the community at large... a victim of his own success, as it were. ;)

...cheating (is) *extremely* uncommon in the competitive communities.

I can't say for sure because I'm not part of the competitive community. However, most of the really serious, sustained complaining I hear about cheating comes from that quarter and I can only assume that where there's smoke there's fire.

Plus, you've got to remember that under competitive circumstances even a teeny- tiny amount of cheating is a relatively big deal. The competitive community's anti- cheat needs are thus a good deal more stringent than the public community's.

-AEnubis-
14th Jun 2005, 05:21 PM
You guys are getting close, but still missing a couple key points in this big picture.

First of all: Higher player numbers have more impact on availible cheats then the other way around. More player means more potential cheat developers. Cheats don't kill player numbers, they come from it. System spec requirements are killing this franchise, totally different subject matter. CS didn't have more cheats because of shoddy coding alone (it was a user mod after all), it also had a lot of cheats because of player counts. Why would they have multiple iterations of the same cheats? Enough players playing, to get them, use them, and eventually one is capable of saying "I can do this better."

Discord']All I'm saying is that anti- cheat is more of an ongoing process than a one- time decisive event.

Actually, it's kinda both...

Discord']In fairness to Epic here, I think Wormbo kind of trumped them on that one. Epic did produce an anti- cheat tool called UTSecure (http://www.unrealadmin.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6448), it was available for both UT2k3 and UT2k4. The early 2k3 versions IIRC had some problems and caused some b!tching... meanwhile, AntiTCC appeared as an attractive alternative. Wormbo got the job as a fait accompli on the part of the community at large... a victim of his own success, as it were. ;)

Very correct. Now enter in missed factors...

Let's back that timeline up a bit. DrSin was a 3rp party cheat mutator developer as well during UT (CSHP and UTPure) and got his job with Epic in that respect. His compotency isn't what caused the problems with the cheat scene in UT2kx. He actually did as good a job as before, because cheating seemed equally proportional to how it as in UT, UT had more players, and hence more cheats.

Interesing how you worded it... "All I'm saying is that anti- cheat is more of an ongoing process than a one- time decisive event." It's actually quite both, and this is one of the factors that held DrSin back. Epic, at any cost, doesn't want their game to not be "playable" out of the box. Being a multiplayer game, that means retaining network compatibility, which patching the security holes they had, would require breaking.

This mean he literally had "one shot" at doing as good as he could. This is why DrSin did UTSecure, instead of using his employment benefits to push for official patching. So then when given the choice, server admins, and players chose 3rd party protection as opposed to official protection, since both had to be done by mutator. We made the decision. We (since wormbo is a player) volunteered for the role. We, not Epic, are to "blame" if blame is in fact to be placed.

DrSin left a big hole in his security plan. He's human, he made a mistake. He still did a good job, and made effort to follow up on his mistake, how I see it.

Now, with 2k7, he's got his mistake to learn from, and he get's another shot.

Nunchuk_Skillz
14th Jun 2005, 05:51 PM
Well, of course people will choose the better alternative when it comes to cheat protection. The problem is that Epic's effort stunk, and they basically gave up the ghost in terms of doing anything on an ongoing basis. You can't tell me that someone working on their own time should be able to provide better cheat protection than someone working full time and with all the resources of the developer of the game behind them. That fact alone speaks to how little effort and resources Epic actually put into cheat protection.

Again, props to Wormbo, but I'm guessing that he'd probably agree that if Epic really cared about cheat protection, it would be pretty easy for them to devote the manpower & expertise necessary to come up with something better, or to simply hire Wormbo to give him some more incentive to develop his own mod further.

But I don't see any way you're going to convince me that it's "our" fault that Epic gave up on cheat protection, or that it's wise to leave it in the hands of a 3rd party, unpaid, independant developer. It's just too much to ask of someone, and imo it is definitely Epic's responsibility to take a more active role in cheat protection for their game.

In fact, I'd say the same should hold true of something like UTComp. Unless the guys at Epic are completely blind, they should be totally aware of the competition mods for games like Q3 & 2k4, and should build those features into the game from the start. You don't have to make them part of the standard game play, but they should certainly be options built in from the get go, so that they don't have to (again) rely on 3rd party, unpaid developers to fix the game to the point where it's viable in a competitive setting. That's just silly, and leads to significant problems in promoting the game as something that can be played in serious competitions.

Discord
14th Jun 2005, 05:51 PM
It's actually quite both, and this is one of the factors that held DrSin back. Epic, at any cost, doesn't want their game to not be "playable" out of the box. Being a multiplayer game, that means retaining network compatibility, which patching the security holes they had, would require breaking.

This mean he literally had "one shot" at doing as good as he could. This is why DrSin did UTSecure, instead of using his employment benefits to push for official patching.


I'm not sure I follow you. You're saying that the single, decisive event here was the decision to publish anti- cheat as a mutator rather than as a series of non- backward- compatible patches?

If that's the case, the process still would continue as when one problem is patched another is potentially created... or there's the pre- existing hole that hadn't been exploited yet and thus wasn't considered for a patch. Regardless of the delivery method, anti- cheat is still an ongoing process.

There is, of course, the "nuclear option" (to borrow a current phrase), which would involve making all code native and eliminating moddability. Though it probably wouldn't be fool- proof it would certainly make things rough for the cheat crowd. I'm assuming that's not on the table, however...

If I didn't read you right, please elaborate.

Cheats don't kill player numbers, they come from it.

Good point, I'll buy that.

DrSin left a big hole in his security plan. He's human, he made a mistake. He still did a good job, and made effort to follow up on his mistake, how I see it.

Again, I don't follow. Is there some critical flaw in UT2kX that enables most cheats? And if so, was it recognizeable to Epic at the time of UT2k3's release or shortly thereafter?

My assumption is that software security can only be pro- active up to a point, after which it becomes by necessity reactive. Otherwise, you'd see cheat- free games and a lot less internet malfeasance in general.

-AEnubis-
14th Jun 2005, 06:23 PM
In fact, I'd say the same should hold true of something like UTComp.

That is a perfect example. They don't do that because things that Comp does comprimises their values, and changes things, they originally wrote for a reason. They didn't make glowstic skins an option in game, because it is a compimise of a value. They made models look the way they do for a reason, and visual acuity is as much a part of weapon balance as RoF's and damages.

AntiTCC checks for things that Epic might not agree as being cheats. UTSecure's implementation was a bit loose, but it seemed to only be focused on file based cheats. They are pretty conservative of the feel of the game, and have many concerns that out weigh the paranoia of the people. Things like wall hacks, skin hacks, radars and aimbots are huge cheats that deserve to be fought. AntiTCC does a bit more then that, and seemingly makes comprimises to cater to the paranoia of the people.

The fact is, there are many other factors at play on the dev side when creating a game, and it's security, and all those things must come in balance. With one person working it 3rd party, they can put a lot more thought into it, because that is their only focus.

Discord']You're saying that the single, decisive event here was the decision to publish anti- cheat as a mutator rather than as a series of non- backward- compatible patches?

Not exactly. I'm saying that native security is a single one time decisive event. Mutator based security is an ongoing thing. Both of which epic was willing to provide.

Discord']Again, I don't follow. Is there some critical flaw in UT2kX that enables most cheats? And if so, was it recognizeable to Epic at the time of UT2k3's release or shortly thereafter?

The two most rampant bots are based on one security hole exploit, yes. I'd assume the stand alone radars are as well, since they are packaged with the bots, and share code. There really aren't that many different cheats in this game to speak of. I can't say that is the whole reason (I don't code), but the cheat devs did a good job of thanking DrSin in their readme's for the hole, and from the nature of bot activation, I have a pretty good idea, much like hacked skins, the hole is based on modability, and definately feels like an oversight.

Wormbo
14th Jun 2005, 07:02 PM
Ah yes, the competitive community...
They want a cheat protection that not only catches 100% of the cheaters, but also doesn't harm game performance at all. If possible it also shouldn't cause any false positives, but you can't have everything. :rolleyes:

The thing is: It's simply impossible to implement a third-party cheat protection in a way that doesn't hurt game performance... and here the bitching starts.
I still sometimes get mails or IRC queries or read forum posts or news comments where players complain about the "horrific lag" Anti TCC causes. I won't comment on what I think of these complaints, but usually they are a result of a configuration problem - either on the client or the server side.

Another major problem with UT200x is that the modders don't have access to native headers, while cheaters simply generate them, ignoring all the potential legal issues. The current anti-cheat mutators can only hope to find traces of the new cheats, but they are (almost) perfect at finding UnrealScript cheats, which make up the largest part of the publicly available cheats. This stops "newbie cheaters" quite effectively, especially in combination with UTAN bans.


(Sorry if something might look out-of-context or if I'm just talking trash. It's late and I just wanted to write something. ;))

Discord
14th Jun 2005, 07:51 PM
(Sorry if something might look out-of-context or if I'm just talking trash. It's late and I just wanted to write something. ;))

Hey, no sweat... you're the expert. If anybody's got a right to speak on the subject it's you. :)

And yeah, the demands of the competitive community are always going to be the most extreme you'll get, no matter what the subject. If there's something that's not perfect, you can bet they'll spot it. And sometimes mount a tirade on the subject. ;)

Another major problem with UT200x is that the modders don't have access to native headers, while cheaters simply generate them, ignoring all the potential legal issues.

That, I'd guess then, is where Epic needs to be spending its anti- cheat time. Is that prolific at all?

And one other question, if you'll oblige: is the time you spent on Anti-TCC going to prove to be of any benefit to you career- wise (or in any other material way)? I'd like to think you got something out of all that other than simple satisfaction...


Not exactly. I'm saying that native security is a single one time decisive event.

OK, I see what you're saying now. I'd argue that that event isn't decisive (ie, I'd suggest it's impossible to catch everything on the front end), but obviously yes, it never hurts to be well- prepared going into the thing.

The two most rampant bots are based on one security hole exploit, yes. I'd assume the stand alone radars are as well, since they are packaged with the bots, and share code.

Didn't know that, thanks. And it certainly does support your point.

Nunchuk_Skillz
14th Jun 2005, 07:58 PM
AEnubis, I also don't buy the idea that Epic intentionally made the standard skins incredibly difficult to see, and made some skins damn near impossible to see. That just doesn't make sense. The bottom line is that they screwed up in 2k3 by making the skins so hard to see, admitted it and said they were going to fix it for 2k4, didn't fix it and then 3rd parties had to come in and fix it for them.

I agree that perhaps the UTComp brightskins might go too far, but they're much better than the inviso skins that shipped with the game. In UT'99, they simply weren't needed because the characters were visible. But in 2k4, they're not. Hell, there's one - Abadon, I think(?) - that looks grey no matter what color it is and is extremely hard to see under the best of circumstances. You're telling me that was intentional? That Epic wanted to create skins that were really difficult to see, and that they wanted to make some of them even harder to see than others? That just doesn't make sense to me.

edit = @ Wormbo, I'm interested in hearing pretty much anything you say on the subject of cheat protection, so feel free to keep going. :P hehe

-AEnubis-
14th Jun 2005, 09:13 PM
It wasn't perfect no doubt. I would actually do without bskins in TAM/COMP if it wasn't for abbadon, and abbadon alone. Force models with gorge though makes that model visible enough, and that is their alternative to bskins. Yes, bskins went to far. Yes, it sucks haveing to see everyone as the same model, but you do the same thing with bskins, and worse, so if you're willing to make that compimise, what is wrong with force models?

Believe it or not, they didn't say it, and I can't proove it. I can only try to draw my own conclusions. Making some models more visible then other was a mistake, no doubt, but luminecesnt models change weapon balance, just like average ping does. That though veers back into a different discussion, and this thread is about cheat prevention.

Here are the facts as I see them:
TTM introduced bskins, and gave epic the "idea" and chance to do it themselves.
They chose not to for reasons they disclosed, artistic compimises.
Epic saw the community's work on Cheat Protection.
Epic hired the main guy responsible for it, and now he does it officially.
Since epic employed this person, he has not been as thourough and free with his cheat protection methods as he was before.
Epic has always offered some alternative to the community's complaints, all of which to be accomplished by someone in the community that was willing to make compirmises epic wasn't.

*2 - Maybe they didn't want their game looking cheesy, maybe they knew how it would effect balance... their reasons weren't extremely detailed.

*5 - His work is most likely limited by standards and practices of the company, like the "not breaking network compatibility concept" among other things.

*6 - Force models is there for the visibility problem, and UTSecure for cheats. AntiTCC stops things that Epic put in the game, some things epic did later patch out.

In the end I respect Epics artistic integrity, and the decisions they have to make in light of the "whole community" and not just the competative community. The games modability is the answer to any of the competative community's needs. I'm sure if cheating became much more rampant in the average pub, they would do something more.

Also, something that hasn't been mentioned, Epic has taken legal actions against the people who invent, and distribute these things, as per violation of their EULA. I've personally seen three major cheat websites disappear, and the only thing I could imagine as being the cause, is exactly that. I'd also imagine with as many possible informants as they could have, they've accomplished much more then just that outside of the game.

Discord']I'd argue that that event isn't decisive (ie, I'd suggest it's impossible to catch everything on the front end), but obviously yes, it never hurts to be well- prepared going into the thing.

Definately. The initial code base, though of UT has always seemed to be the biggest deterant of cheating, as the biggest security problem has always been it's modability. So making their modability secure can go a long way, but as we all know, no system is perfect.

In the end my only point I guess is when you see the whole picture, it makes more sense... the way things are. I'm not saying epic is god, and does everything perfect, but they haven't made any decisions that I could understand and respect, when I got all the info. Mistakes are made by everyone all the time. Those I can forgive. Descisions are harder to forgive. Like Id deciding that strafe jumping was not a cheat like exploit of their engine. I don't play that game anymore.

shadow_dragon
14th Jun 2005, 10:04 PM
I think asking epic to make the game more secure to start with is, all fine and fair. Cheaters suck. etc.

However if Epic provide anti cheat protection and stand up and proclaim that they guarantee the elimination of cheating or, more realistically that they will do their utmost to prevent cheating, then, i think we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot. If they provide anti cheat support the cheats will be written to go around it, the anti cheat support would need to be update and maintained constantly, we'd end up with twice as many patches and... all that time spent on aptching cheaters out of the game means less time spent on gameplay issues or bonus content. This could be unrealistic but, essentially if epic promises it'll do it's utmost then it has to make such an investment into a never ending job that's just... not really a brilliant idea.

To my mind Epic provide us with a game, we play the game, we enjoy the game, they patch and pack us with content and fixes based around teh game. It is US that writes the cheats/hack and it's US, (the customers) who use the cheats/hacks, they provide their customers with a product and their customers perpetually break it and complain that it's broken at them and when they do try to fix it they just break it in a different way.

As i see it, Epic provides us with the battleground it's up to us to fight the war. It'd be nice if they packaged the game so it was initially as secure as it could be but should hope they don't waste too much time perpetually fixing a never ending problem. It's like bailing water out of a sinking ship.

thatcher
15th Jun 2005, 05:11 AM
Higher player numbers have more impact on availible cheats then the other way around. More player means more potential cheat developers. Cheats don't kill player numbers, they come from it.
That is an excellent point but I don't buy it 100%. A cheater only needs one busy server to get his rocks off, I guess.

The thing is: It's simply impossible to implement a third-party cheat protection in a way that doesn't hurt game performance...
Not a fact that will surprise many people - but it probably helps a lot of people to have it spelled out by such a respected voice on the topic. This is the biggest technical reason that anti-cheat should be handled by Epic. Their moral responsibilities were already very clear to me.

if epic promises it'll do it's utmost then it has to make such an investment into a never ending job that's just... not really a brilliant idea.

To my mind Epic provide us with a game, we play the game, we enjoy the game, they patch and pack us with content and fixes based around teh game. It is US that writes the cheats/hack and it's US, (the customers) who use the cheats/hacks, they provide their customers with a product and their customers perpetually break it and complain that it's broken at them and when they do try to fix it they just break it in a different way.

As i see it, Epic provides us with the battleground it's up to us to fight the war. It'd be nice if they packaged the game so it was initially as secure as it could be but should hope they don't waste too much time perpetually fixing a never ending problem. It's like bailing water out of a sinking ship.
A responsible developer should never come close to having that attitude. As Retox pointed out earlier in his example, you would never expect Microsoft to drop security patches after releasing a vulnerable product. Why would you be happy for Epic to do the same? That's just settling for UBL's suggestion in the original post to this thread that perhaps Epic developed UT2k4 as a cash cow with no real intention to provide meaningful support. (Not necessarily my suggestion.) If that is their motive, why would customers continue to buy into it?

If a software developer releases something that is insecure, customers should never allow them to get away with such behaviour unchallenged.

-AEnubis-
15th Jun 2005, 05:51 AM
That is an excellent point but I don't buy it 100%. A cheater only needs one busy server to get his rocks off, I guess.

Point taken, but not everyone can make cheats with minimal time, effort, and research. By law of averages, you'd need X amount of people playing in Y servers before one of them has what it takes to make the cheats. Another problem with current cheat protection, is they can only fight use of cheats.

If a software developer releases something that is insecure, customers should never allow them to get away with such behaviour unchallenged.

Completely agree. I don't disagree with the stance, but I don't believe the theory that Epic "doesn't support it." Think of how much less work it would take if you could fight the guys making the cheats, instead of just the use of cheats. It's the difference between cutting off the branches of a tree, and chopping it down from the trunk. It'll die eventually with no branches or leaves, but the trunk will be there to grow them back a few times before it does.

Maybe since AntiTCC did a good enough job of fighting cheat usage, that Epic decided to focus on legal actions against cheat developers as I mentioned before. They may also feel that other action within the game, may not be as necessary with the amount of cheating that is going on.

I bet if you took the number of cheats out for UT2004, and found a percentage of availible cheats per availible servers, the number would be lower then that of UT. UT had a lot of cheats, and CSHP when through a couple more revisions then AntiTCC has IIRC. Numbers don't lie. More theory's should be based on those. If that is the case, and cheating is less rampant in 2kx, then I'm glad Epic only spends so much time on that, and enough time on other things, like gameplay, or the new big issue, API optimization, and scalability.

UBL
15th Jun 2005, 09:30 AM
CEO of a company that sponsors death, plays bleedin' pervert IG, multiposts and cries and whines like a kid about eval cheetarz.

No wonder the world's in a ****pot.

.......and your point?........ besides your head!

How can anything be taken seriously from a country that wears skirts?

Regarding IG: approximately 3000+ EU players competing, and at one time in the not so distant past 500+ from the Americas.

As this thread matures you will see a the question evolve from:

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

To

What can be done to increase security for UT competitive play for 1 mode and 1 setting?

If we all try to remain positive I think something good will come from this discussion.

UBL
15th Jun 2005, 09:35 AM
A responsible developer should never come close to having that attitude. As Retox pointed out earlier in his example, you would never expect Microsoft to drop security patches after releasing a vulnerable product. Why would you be happy for Epic to do the same? That's just settling for UBL's suggestion in the original post to this thread that perhaps Epic developed UT2k4 as a cash cow with no real intention to provide meaningful support. (Not necessarily my suggestion.) If that is their motive, why would customers continue to buy into it?

If a software developer releases something that is insecure, customers should never allow them to get away with such behaviour unchallenged.

We continue because 1) the game is addictive, 2) a great excuse for not doing the dishes, and 3) we hope that somewhere the OEM would want to reach out thier not so valued customers.

winx
15th Jun 2005, 09:55 AM
works with cutting the grass too.

Wormbo
15th Jun 2005, 04:36 PM
I bet if you took the number of cheats out for UT2004, and found a percentage of availible cheats per availible servers, the number would be lower then that of UT. UT had a lot of cheats, and CSHP when through a couple more revisions then AntiTCC has IIRC. Numbers don't lie. More theory's should be based on those. If that is the case, and cheating is less rampant in 2kx, then I'm glad Epic only spends so much time on that, and enough time on other things, like gameplay, or the new big issue, API optimization, and scalability.
The reason why there are so few cheaters on UT2004 is the unexpected help we got from Epic ... and a cheat coder. Even before Epic started throwing legal threats at cheat distributors the best cheats were no longer available for free. Cheaters tried to hide their gems from us "antis" making it harder for the average player to stumble over a download for that crap. However, HelioS then did something really fortunate for us: he required people to pay money for his cheats.
The combination of the lack of public native headers, the (almost) entirely locked-down UnrealScript environment (it's almost impossible to load custom code without being detected by Anti TCC or SafeGame), Epic sueing cheater websites, UTAN (and the masterserver) kicking known cheaters off the servers and cheat coders keeping almost all their stuff to themselves is responsible for the incredibly low percentage of cheaters sightings in UT2004.

Well, maybe cheat coders also got a bit bored because Anti TCC isn't being developed anymore and they avoid SafeGame servers due to its supposed laggyness. (Admit it, Cruicky! This was your plan from the beginning. :p)


Don't tell the cheaters, but now that they are scared away SafeGame's performance improves with each version. ;)

Discord
15th Jun 2005, 08:35 PM
If we all try to remain positive I think something good will come from this discussion.

Well, it's been an interesting one at any rate... solid argumentation without a too terribly much in the way of flames... nice guest- star appearance by Wormbo... all in all pretty good fare for a UT forum. :lol:

What can be done to increase security for UT competitive play for 1 mode and 1 setting?

Well, aside from Wormbo I think most people in this thread are just knowledgeable end- users. You might have better luck at an admin's forum or maybe ProUnreal in that regard.

I did have one thought, dunno how feasible...

Maybe they could make an optional setting in UTComp that was super fascist about control bindings... as in it had a whitelist that it would recognize, and all other bindings would simply be ignored/ deleted from the user.ini. Further, among the deprecated commands would be those for opening the console and quick console... you'd set it up once just prior to the match and that would be all you'd get.

The reasoning there is that a botter who can't toggle his cheat on or off is pretty much a sitting duck for an anti- cheat app.

Really, though, the best possible solution is simply to have most if not all matches admined by an experienced referree. That's hard to achieve, I guess, but probably well worth it.

Beyond that I'm probably pretty well useless to you.

shadow_dragon
15th Jun 2005, 08:41 PM
A responsible developer should never come close to having that attitude. As Retox pointed out earlier in his example, you would never expect Microsoft to drop security patches after releasing a vulnerable product. Why would you be happy for Epic to do the same? That's just settling for UBL's suggestion in the original post to this thread that perhaps Epic developed UT2k4 as a cash cow with no real intention to provide meaningful support. (Not necessarily my suggestion.) If that is their motive, why would customers continue to buy into it?

If a software developer releases something that is insecure, customers should never allow them to get away with such behaviour unchallenged.

As i said, the developer has a responsibility to release the product as secure as they can in the first place. It is their obligation not to include any glaring holes that purposely and intentionally allow misuse,cheating or hacking. Windows should have no security holes ideally. Microsoft were responsible for giving you a product not for fixing problems other people make for you. (Most people use third party security for a reason BTW)
Same goes for epic, as long as they don't leave a hole that is designed specifically to let cheats past their protection ad they make some effort in the original product then i believe that is fair. Theyc annot be expected to clear up OUR spilt milk. They make patches to fix bugs that they make, THAT is fair but fixing problems other people make is above the call of duty i believe.

thatcher
16th Jun 2005, 01:35 AM
Well, maybe cheat coders also got a bit bored because Anti TCC isn't being developed anymore and they avoid SafeGame servers due to its supposed laggyness.
That, I think, is the whole concern about UT2k7; when released, the cheat developers are likely to give it some attention. Whilst development of anti-cheat software is down to 3rd party developers, there is no guarantee of continued updates.

It is their obligation not to include any glaring holes that purposely and intentionally allow misuse,cheating or hacking. Windows should have no security holes ideally. Microsoft were responsible for giving you a product not for fixing problems other people make for you. (Most people use third party security for a reason BTW)
Regarding vulnerabilities found after releasing a product, your opinion on what responsibilities a developer has is so far from my own that I guess we will never agree with each other about it. (The bit about people using 3rd party software [to secure Windows] made me laugh, for what its worth. ;))

gades
16th Jun 2005, 02:39 AM
I don't think cheating will be eliminated, the issue is quite a diverse one.

The best defence against cheaters is a vigilant and active admin.

Things like Anti TCC are okay, but cheaters will ALWAYS find a way around it (and Anti TCC is plain annoying for the rest of us when it kicks for having a bloody custom announcer pack).
:cool:

-AEnubis-
16th Jun 2005, 03:10 AM
Well, even there, sounds like Epic is doing more then even I know to fight cheating, and I seem to be more aware the most here, so it furthers my point. Just becaue we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not happeneing. I know, when I play on servers, I don't have frequent problems with it, and I see AntiTCC running, so credit to who it is acredited too, but I've been sure there is more going on behind the scenes then most know.

That sounded to me, like the main concern of the thread starter, how much effort Epic themselves is putting into it. The answer is more the you think.

Discord']Maybe they could make an optional setting in UTComp that was super fascist about control bindings... as in it had a whitelist that it would recognize, and all other bindings would simply be ignored/ deleted from the user.ini. Further, among the deprecated commands would be those for opening the console and quick console... you'd set it up once just prior to the match and that would be all you'd get.

Wouldn't work that way. From what I understand, helios, and zellius load into the serverinfo class, and they can't exactly be "turned off." If AntiTCC knows that bot, it's got before it's turned on. After activation, there are no key binds that toggle features, the bot acts as like a dx hook, like using TS shortcuts in game, and detects keypresses, which you configure in a sperate file, which can be renamed to make that chase pointless. Searching for text strings is mostly pointless.

One of the bots, I believe, requires a certain weird action just to survive a map change. The native security is actually not that bad.

JaFO
16th Jun 2005, 09:07 AM
I still reckon that UBL is demanding the impossible.

Just look at any real world security like your bicycle, car and house.
Unless it is a custom-built item there is no way the default 'security' will stop anyone except the unprepared burglars.

If you want your car/house to be really secure you will have to rely on third-party items (extra alarms) and paying for private security patrols (...).
Those same security-measures also require the users to use their brains (ie : don't leave the key to your fortress in your door ...)

Games are not going to be any different. And unless the distribution-model changes (ie : games become pay-to-play) it is unrealistic to expect companies like Epic to do anything at all after release. There simply is no profit for them if they need to continually update their software during its lifetime (they'd be loosing money).

The only thing Epic can possibly do is replace their MD5-checksums with something that's a little more secure ... ( source (http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/) )

Anything else will require hardware that's secure by default (ie 'trusted computing' and all that needlessly intrusive garbage).

// tie it to a MAC address with self update.
Should a server attempt to ban me based on my MAC then I simply change the MAC and tell my ISP that I've got a new network-card ... I'd be up and running within one hour.

You could of course disable any MAC-address spoofing, but then you'd prevent people from running (hardware)firewalls for their own security.

In other words : any security is a double-edged sword that kills both cheaters as well as innocent victims.

thatcher
16th Jun 2005, 10:44 AM
There simply is no profit for them if they need to continually update their software during its lifetime (they'd be loosing money).
Not exactly. If Epic, as an example then, decided to not patch UT2k3, how many people do you think would have bought UT2k4? Customers (in the modern software culture) put up with buggy releases of new software with the understanding that bugs will be fixed during an ongoing process. Take Microsoft or a thousand other companies as further examples: its a common business model to enable revenue to flow into a project before its fully ready.

You also need to bear in mind that the Unreal engine is licensed to other games manufacturers who will also demand continued support.

To say there is no profit in being a responsible developer is plain wrong.

JaFO
16th Jun 2005, 05:21 PM
There's fixing bugs/leaks for a recently released game (UT2k3) and there's supporting outdated software (You won't receive any security updates for Win98).

And then there's Tribes:Vengeance which didn't even get updates/fixes *because* too few units were sold ...

thatcher
16th Jun 2005, 06:42 PM
After another month, you will not get regular patches for Win2000 either. (Only one more cumulative patch pack later in the year, as I understand it.)

Not familiar with the Tribes story at all but I bet its developers had already given up on having a commercially successful follow-up release and they had no contractual obligation from licensing the code to other developers.

I personally wouldn't expect Epic to be patching UT2k3 any more. (I wouldn't know if they are because I uninstalled it after putting UT2k4 on my desktop.) If UT2k7 is a quality product, it wouldn't matter to me if UT2k4 development was withdrawn after the full version of 2k7 is out.

My expectation of any developer would be that they support the current version of a series, with props for working on older versions. You originally said: "There simply is no profit for them if they need to continually update their software during its lifetime" - and I totally disagree with that.

Anti TCC is plain annoying for the rest of us when it kicks for having a bloody custom announcer pack
If you define security as a feature in the same way you might define allowing custom announcers as a feature, then you have to pick between them when they are incompatible. This is probably at the root of insecurities in UT - sexier features have been enabled at the cost of security. (Just like Internet Explorer is a security disaster because MS want websites to be able to install their software on your machine via ActiveX when that software can easily be malicious.)

Sometimes, less is a whole lot more.

The trouble is, features like custom announcers and others are easier for marketing departments to get people excited about than the promise of life being made hard for cheaters.

JaFO
17th Jun 2005, 07:57 AM
The fact that even MS doesn't support their old products (even though they earn enough money and have enough resources) should be enough. They've killed support for Win98, NT and 2k not because the products themselves are old, but because they want people to buy their new products. They've effectively killed their "old" products because there wasn't any profit in fixing them anymore.

It's the same with any technology. Products are made to become obsolete.
Software is just one of those products that can only become obsolete as soon as you withdraw support.

thatcher
17th Jun 2005, 10:29 AM
Sure - agree with this view. But originally you said Epic shouldn't continue to support a release during its lifetime - not that they should drop support only for old versions.

SealClubber
18th Jun 2005, 12:43 AM
Fact: No game can guarentee the elimination of cheating in it!



What I just said is all that needs to be said about this subject. End of discussion.

Ghost3021
18th Jun 2005, 07:41 AM
Agreed.

Wowbagger
18th Jun 2005, 09:57 AM
I dont know if i dare post this ;)

Maybe, the MMORPG and BF2/HL2 road is an option?
An account that is more "tied" to your RL (tm) person be it email or (gasp) CC number.

Also BF2 will have 2 types of servers run by the community as i understand it.
One Ranked and one Unranked server.

I guess the Ranked server will be much stricter to what settings you can set and therefore (maybe?) making it easier to protect from cheats.

Of course we "unrealers" are used to our "freedom" since the beginning and it would be difficult for Epic to change this i guess.

Selerox
18th Jun 2005, 02:05 PM
Disclaimer: My connection's been toasted for a while, hence my very late response and complete non-knowlege of the rest of this thread besides the fact that UBL lost my interest the second he dissed Scotland...

With the greatest respect for your 4000+ posts in this forum, whatever standing you have here and the achievements of this website, I think you would agree that your own influence hasn't reached the entire community either. But tell me what you have in mind that individual gamers can realistically do, and I'm with you 110%.

OK, the numbers of posts I have, the ammount of time I've been here doesn't count for much. I'm some well-respected bastion of the community (here or anywhere else), I'm just some random guy who's hung around for a while, nothing more :)

As for what players can do, I'm not talking about anything terribly complex. Simply taking the time to report cheats if and when they see themm and server admins doing as much as they can realistically do to see that the reported cheats get banned. I'm not talking about much, I'm just hoping players/admins will lend a hand when it comes to keeping things ticking along.

So if you see a cheat on a server, don't just quit and join another server, take down the server/date/time/player name with screenshots or preferably a quick first person spec demo (uploaded to webspace), then mail the details to the server admin. If not, check out the server/site IRC channel, a lot of major hosting companies have an IRC channel with admins on there most of the time, get their attendtion and give them the details, if you're fast enough you can get the cheat nailed while he's still on the server.

"It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" as some wise guy once said :)

I respect your opinion and point of view Selerox, but I think we see two different ways of solving the problem, I'd prefer to set the game up and play instead of having to constantly update security, post info about botters, subscribe to 1x10^18 forums so everyone will know about a cheater that may or may not ever play in my server again (with warez'd keys etc).

I think there should be more done by Epic about security.

I agree entirely. There should be a far better attitude from Epic regarding anticheat support. My thoughts are that players should lend a hand as well as full and active support from Epic, not instead of. :)

Ghost3021
18th Jun 2005, 03:25 PM
Cheaters hack the game. Thus there is little Epic can do to prevent this.
If they did try, it would be like taking VitaminC instead of asprin when you have a headache.

-AEnubis-
18th Jun 2005, 05:50 PM
My thoughts are that players should lend a hand as well as full and active support from Epic, not instead of. :)

Quoted for truth. Not that I feel Epic isn't doing enough, but I definately agree with this statement.

edhe
20th Jun 2005, 07:43 AM
.......and your point?........ besides your head!

How can anything be taken seriously from a country that wears skirts?

Regarding IG: approximately 3000+ EU players competing, and at one time in the not so distant past 500+ from the Americas.

As this thread matures you will see a the question evolve from:

Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

To

What can be done to increase security for UT competitive play for 1 mode and 1 setting?

If we all try to remain positive I think something good will come from this discussion.

A country that wears skirts?
".......and your point?........ besides your head!"

You really are pretending to be a CEO yeah? Or am i forgetting you're business of murder where stupidity is inherent.

"As this thread matures" from posting the same question 11 times to which the answer is an obvious no...even pygmes would've figured that one out.

UBL, your title isn't associated with Acme perchance?

p.s. i hadn't noticed this post until sel said something ;)

EL BOURIKO
20th Jun 2005, 08:04 AM
A country that wears skirts?
".......and your point?........ besides your head!"




this was some real weird point!!!


France supports Scotland and all its kilts ;)

Ghost3021
20th Jun 2005, 09:20 AM
I do believe racism is grounds for banning, unless I am much mistaken. Lets get back on topic here, shall we? Or better yet, lock this thread.

/me loads a flare gun to signal the supa adminz

edhe
20th Jun 2005, 09:43 AM
It's hardly racism, it's a comment directed at the national dress.

Anyway, the topic is void.

JaFO
20th Jun 2005, 10:00 AM
There is one 100% perfect way of preventing anyone from cheating in UT2k7 :




by not publishing it at all. :p ;)

Seriously. A statement by Epic/Midway like '100% cheat-proof' (or something to that effect) will only serve as a challenge for the *beeps*

Ghost3021
20th Jun 2005, 12:46 PM
Well i know a dude that writes hax for ut2k4, he will go unamed, he says he does it for the fun. what jafo said, is only right. cheating and writing cheats will only become more fun for the dudes that write them if you make it harder. my point? have a special server or 2 that are completely dedicated to cheaters, with NO anti cheats, so that when someone gets teh urge to cheat, they can just go there and burn it off against other players...hey that may not be a bad gametype idea...:-)

utw-Mephisto
20th Jun 2005, 01:45 PM
Most people forget that the program has such easy to code to be able to create mods. When the program is save like a safe and hard-coded .. well .. harder to cheat for sure, but no mods at all anymore I guess

utw-Mephisto
20th Jun 2005, 01:47 PM
Well i know a dude that writes hax for ut2k4, he will go unamed, he says he does it for the fun. what jafo said, is only right. cheating and writing cheats will only become more fun for the dudes that write them if you make it harder. my point? have a special server or 2 that are completely dedicated to cheaters, with NO anti cheats, so that when someone gets teh urge to cheat, they can just go there and burn it off against other players...hey that may not be a bad gametype idea...:-)


I had once a cheating server .. it even was called [NO-UTAN]Cheataz welcome !

But soon I got an email from officials which quoted the manual that Epic does not support that .. which is fair enough ...

Shambler[Bishop
20th Jun 2005, 04:37 PM
A long but interesting read (I've just found this thread and read it from start to end) and I'm glad that (for the most part) it's been discussed with some level of maturity. *remembers similar posts at atari forums*


Personally I can't see Epic making a continued commitment to developing protections for future games but I really hope that they will at least give greater support for the development of community based protections.

As was pointed out earlier the cheat protection in UT2k4 is suffering because of the lack of native cheat protection (i.e. protection written at the same level of the engine code, NOT confined to UScript), in UT1 this is not a problem because the source code headers have been publically released....this means UT1 currently has WAAAYYYY better cheat protection than UT2k4.
Granted, this gives the cheat developers an easier time in making the cheats but at least it allows the anti-cheat developers to tackle the cheats on the same level....it has been mentioned that the cheat developers in UT2k4 simply create their own source headers (and ignore the legal implications of doing so) while the protection developers are confined to UnrealScript, which is very restrictive as far as detecting cheats goes.
Of course, they wont release public source for the next UT but they should definetly approve limited source access to a small group of trusted developers from the community. (similar to UTPG)


Ideally there would be a protection that is independant of the current patch (i.e. is in its own package and doesn't break net compatability), is written in C++ (so as not to be as inflexible as UScript protections), would have community support (so whenever Epic stops supporting it an appropriate group of people could continue it) and would be easy to update in-game. (if they did this with patches net-compatability issues would disappear right? After all, you can download all sorts of custom-content automaticly when joining a server..why not the patches)

That's not very hard to realise...

thatcher
20th Jun 2005, 07:06 PM
-Shambler-']A long but interesting read (I've just found this thread and read it from start to end) and I'm glad that (for the most part) it's been discussed with some level of maturity.
I personally think the thread has provoked some generally thoughtful discussion. I don't understand why anybody would say "end of discussion" or "lock the thread". If you don't want to be part of the discussion, I don't think anybody is being forced to take part in it.

There has been criticism of Epic and pro-Epic zealots might not like to hear it all - but it is fairly constructive, I think.

-Shambler-']in UT1 [...] the source code headers have been publically released....this means UT1 currently has WAAAYYYY better cheat protection than UT2k4.
Granted, this gives the cheat developers an easier time in making the cheats but at least it allows the anti-cheat developers to tackle the cheats on the same level.
[...]
Of course, they wont release public source for the next UT but they should definetly approve limited source access to a small group of trusted developers from the community.
Outstanding point.

It has been said in this thread that Epic has left it to the community to do a better job than they managed to do with regard securing their software. Except its not exactly the entire "community" but only a handful of individuals who actually did anything practical. Would it really take so many resources to bring those individuals into the loop? Especially if it turns out that a cheater-free game has a positive influence on sales.

*note* I said "cheater-free" not "cheat-free". I am willing to accept all the points about how difficult it is to secure the game - but if anybody who tried to exploit a hole got caught and locked out, we'd be approaching the same practical effect of a secured game.

Xaero_UT
20th Jun 2005, 08:29 PM
(this is what happened generally, im not big on the tech side of computers)

the clan i used to be in kAoS, had a player named ekynox, this player was an alright guy..one day, we heard from forums and players, that a person had hacked on a ctf server, with an aimbot..

the name on this player kAoS.2k, another player in our clan.

well accusations and blaming, and shouts of haxors could be heard from every direction, meanwhile 2k, protesting his innocence..

gammo, our leader, then began a hunt, for the alleged 2k's ip, for what was going on, so after a detailed search, gammo displayed his findings, about 6 pages long, which showed some of 2k's ip, which was im melbourne, and the alleged 2k, which was in queensland, so while we know it wasnt 2k, who was the aliaser?

during the search DDDooGGG from oceaniaut.com gave us an ip for ekynox, who we had suspected, because we were having problems with him, which did not match the alleged ip, however on our own server another ip belonging to ekynox matched the alleged ip, ekynox had 2 versions of ut, ekynox had gone on jsg server with an aimbot hacking as 2k, he was kicked from kaos, disgraced, and after giving the info to epic games, they have globally banned both his ip's, while this does not stop him from playing the game online, he could get another internet connection, be from somewhere else, etc, epic did what they could

i hate cheaters, and think if u can't learn to play the game properly, dont play it at all, and dont be a cheating, hacking weakass.

cheers

Ghost3021
24th Jun 2005, 06:10 AM
Cheeters = Newbs with h4x.
or
Cheeters = Dudes that write the hax that r 'testing'

whatever. it crap and there no REAL way to stop it. its cheating after all! getting rid of cheeters would be like getting rid of rapers...you just cant do it all the way. you can take precautions, but like for mountainclimbing peoples mountains exhist to climb, games exhist to h4xers to be hacked. so will epic guarantee no cheating? there is no way to guarantee that. so no they probably wont.

SealClubber
26th Jun 2005, 10:52 PM
Fact: No game can guarentee the elimination of cheating in it!



What I just said is all that needs to be said about this subject. End of discussion.


This guy's gotta point! ;) :wavey:

kafros
27th Jun 2005, 07:40 AM
Fact: No game can guarentee the elimination of cheating in it!



What I just said is all that needs to be said about this subject. End of discussion.

You are completely wrong. There are games in China that are cheat-free and this is how they do it:

If you are accused of cheating you are taken to the Tien-amen square and shot dead. You are also banned from playing the game (which is a bit far fetched IMO)

If they later find out they were wrong and you did not cheat, they re-allow you to play the game.

EPIC is planning on releasing this as a mutator.

Xelios
30th Jun 2005, 04:25 PM
Maybe they can get an system that checks ut files before it starts up so that none of them have any hacking traces in them so that the hacks are deleted before the game starts?

SealClubber
2nd Jul 2005, 09:44 PM
You are completely wrong. There are games in China that are cheat-free and this is how they do it:

If you are accused of cheating you are taken to the Tien-amen square and shot dead. You are also banned from playing the game (which is a bit far fetched IMO)

If they later find out they were wrong and you did not cheat, they re-allow you to play the game.

EPIC is planning on releasing this as a mutator.


Then Mr. T says: "I pity the fool who lives in China!"


:D

Wormbo
4th Jul 2005, 09:30 AM
Now here's a thought: let a few selected UT moders review the UT2007 UnrealScript code to check it for potential exploits and (more importantly) for modability prior to release.

-AEnubis-
4th Jul 2005, 02:48 PM
If they guys who are making the cheat protection aren't basically trying to make cheats for the game, then there is your problem.

Of course you should be looking for exploits. For the same reason the FBI hires hackers, and forgers, and what not. If you can't beat them, join them. Then beat them with what you learn of them.

BITE_ME
8th Jul 2005, 11:23 AM
For some reason people love to cheat in games. So just let them do it. Make it very easy for them to cheat. Heck give them the tools to cheat.
Them you ban their friggen ass's from all the "Cheat protected" servers. :)
O. and you kick them in the balls too.

Ghost3021
8th Jul 2005, 12:08 PM
For some reason people love to cheat in games. So just let them do it. Make it very easy for them to cheat. Heck give them the tools to cheat.
Them you ban their friggen ass's from all the "Cheat protected" servers. :)
O. and you kick them in the balls too.
that works too

Discord
8th Jul 2005, 08:00 PM
LMAO... somebody should make a mutator called AimbotArena. :p

EL BOURIKO
9th Jul 2005, 02:08 PM
HAHAHAHA!
Aimbot arena on an pro-cheaters league...

Zur
10th Jul 2005, 08:16 AM
What ? Do I hear that Epic should waste their time anticheating efforts and put up with constant whining from certain players instead of concentrating on polishing the game off ? Leave that to third parties. There are a few masochistic mod authors out there who are more than willing to put up with insults and personal attacks ^^ .

Persefone
13th Jul 2005, 11:21 AM
What ? Do I hear that Epic should waste their time anticheating efforts and put up with constant whining from certain players instead of concentrating on polishing the game off ? Leave that to third parties. There are a few masochistic mod authors out there who are more than willing to put up with insults and personal attacks ^^ .


Yes, Epic should waste their time, an online FPS without an efficient anti-cheat system is useless.

Of course third parties efforts are welcome.

JaFO
14th Jul 2005, 03:49 AM
There is no such thing as an efficient anti-cheat system.
Every single one causes too many problems for legitimate players, while the cheaters won't have any at all.

If Epic were to hire cheaters then you'd get all kinds of idiots writing cheats just so they can be hired. I'm not sure that's a good situation either.

But suppose Epic manages to kill any cheaters that directly interfere with their program, while still allowing for customcontent. The next point of entry would be the communication between player & server which would make reliable netcode for low-bandwidth connections a problem (any security/encryption will result in more bandwidth and thus more lag & related problems).
I'm not sure if that is a desirable endresult.

And if it is anything like WEP-keys as used by WiFi then you might as well play on password-protected servers.

Gumby
14th Jul 2005, 10:44 PM
If they hire "cheaters" to find exploits/holes in the code, you'll be damn sure that for every few exploits they find, they'll always keep a couple of others under wraps...