Will Epic guarantee the elimination of cheating in 2k7?

[UBL]

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]

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]

I agree with much of what Apoc had to say. Points to add on others...

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.

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.)

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.

 

[edhe]

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]

hmm why dont they try identifying people from the serial number of their Graphic Card

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

or just a combination of license and Graphic card serial.

 

[EL BOURIKO]

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]

Wow, so many things to reply to.

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. 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.

 

[Discord]

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, 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-]

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."

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...

In fairness to Epic here, I think Wormbo kind of trumped them on that one. Epic did produce an anti- cheat tool called UTSecure, 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]

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]

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-]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

(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]

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. hehe

 

[-AEnubis-]

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:

1. TTM introduced bskins, and gave epic the "idea" and chance to do it themselves.
2. They chose not to for reasons they disclosed, artistic compimises.
3. Epic saw the community's work on Cheat Protection.
4. Epic hired the main guy responsible for it, and now he does it officially.
5. Since epic employed this person, he has not been as thourough and free with his cheat protection methods as he was before.
6. 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.

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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.