Weekly Steam News (25/03/2005)
- Thread starter KagePrototype
- Start date
ray_MAN
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 4,655
- Reaction score
- 2
I really hope that VAC isn't buggy like UT2004's anti-cheat system. I always got kicked from servers because I "cheated", but I don't even know how to cheat in MP games. It would be worse from VAC because you could get banned from Steam!
PoeticRocker
Spy
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 865
- Reaction score
- 0
Its on at 4pm for me, so im waiting patiently...
C
cyt0plas
Guest
I'm not so sure that the way Valve is handling cheats (perm ban) is the best way to go about it. I have a fair amount of experience cheating; in fact, I was the author of (as far as I can tell) the most hacked QuakeWorld client back in the day. Pretty much any cheat you have ever heard of, and quite a lot you haven't were thrown in it.
First off, what Valve is attempting to do is fundamentally a losing battle. Computers do what they are told, and the user gets first dibs. APIs can be hooked, memory patched, processes hidden, etc. Personally, I've got some interesting kernel-level stuff going on - I patch application while they are being ran, but any attempt to read the memory shows the original, unaltered program. There are also proxies, which if written properly will be undetectable, especially ones that perform a man in the middle attack. Cryptography can make things more difficult, but it suffers the same problems as any DRM scheme. Cryptography is great for two parties to communicate together and keep everyone else out. It is not very good at keeping either party from doing what they want with the data after it's been decrypted. The publisher is trying to simultaneously allow and deny decryption of the same data. Either the user has the key somewhere (which can be extracted and used in a proxy), or the user does not (and the user can't play in the first place).
A system like this will make keygens and trojans that steal steam logins more popular. It will also only catch the really stupid cheaters. This has the side effect of "raising the bar". Providing hackers with a challenge doesn't mean no hacking, it just means better, more undetectable hacks.
Besides, Valve doesn't exactly have the best anti-cheat track record. There are still working, undetected versions of the OGC hook, and some hacks have been working for over a year. A simple Google search turns up a fairly extensive of cheats for the various Half-Life games, and some sites even provide "detected/undetected" lists.
All in all, I suspect it's simply made for monetary reasons, not because it makes the game more enjoyable for the users.
Yes, I cheat. I cheat a lot. However, VAC isn't really a concern for me, as I don't get caught. As a player, though, I'm not looking forward to this software in the least. Like life, software evolves. The creation of the antivirus did not mean the end of the computer virus. Instead, it simply marked the beginning of "better" viruses, and a long expensive arms race with the antivirus companies, who are always a step behind.
First off, what Valve is attempting to do is fundamentally a losing battle. Computers do what they are told, and the user gets first dibs. APIs can be hooked, memory patched, processes hidden, etc. Personally, I've got some interesting kernel-level stuff going on - I patch application while they are being ran, but any attempt to read the memory shows the original, unaltered program. There are also proxies, which if written properly will be undetectable, especially ones that perform a man in the middle attack. Cryptography can make things more difficult, but it suffers the same problems as any DRM scheme. Cryptography is great for two parties to communicate together and keep everyone else out. It is not very good at keeping either party from doing what they want with the data after it's been decrypted. The publisher is trying to simultaneously allow and deny decryption of the same data. Either the user has the key somewhere (which can be extracted and used in a proxy), or the user does not (and the user can't play in the first place).
A system like this will make keygens and trojans that steal steam logins more popular. It will also only catch the really stupid cheaters. This has the side effect of "raising the bar". Providing hackers with a challenge doesn't mean no hacking, it just means better, more undetectable hacks.
Besides, Valve doesn't exactly have the best anti-cheat track record. There are still working, undetected versions of the OGC hook, and some hacks have been working for over a year. A simple Google search turns up a fairly extensive of cheats for the various Half-Life games, and some sites even provide "detected/undetected" lists.
All in all, I suspect it's simply made for monetary reasons, not because it makes the game more enjoyable for the users.
Yes, I cheat. I cheat a lot. However, VAC isn't really a concern for me, as I don't get caught. As a player, though, I'm not looking forward to this software in the least. Like life, software evolves. The creation of the antivirus did not mean the end of the computer virus. Instead, it simply marked the beginning of "better" viruses, and a long expensive arms race with the antivirus companies, who are always a step behind.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,356
- Reaction score
- 165
Which is 99% of the cheaters. Obviously it's not a perfect system, but it's adequate for removing the majority of the morons that like to ruin the game for everyone else. Yes, that description includes you.
C
cyt0plas
Guest
Some people cheat just to ruin the game for others, some people cheat to have fun for themselves (ruining the game as a side effect), and some of us cheat just for the challenge in doing so. This does not have to include making the game less any less "fun" for others.
Personally, my specialty is AI. Trying to come up with a bot that plays like a human. Not a superhuman; any moron can come up with a bot with perfect aim. The trick is to make a bot that has the same limitations as a human (response time, latency, viewable range, memory, and the like ). I have a bot that does nothing more than imitate myself; I have measured my response times and the like. It features neural networking, adaptive pathing, dynamic objective adjustment, and the like.
Is it cheating? I would imagine most people would consider it to be. However, if you are playing against me, there's not really a difference. My bot is just as slow to fire, has the same accuracy, and view abilities (can't see behind him), so at _BEST_ he's just as good as me. If the code breaks, he sits there spinning in circles, an easy target. I hardly see how this "ruins" the game for you.
Some of my other hacks could easily be abused, but the fact remains that I kept my stuff private, and did not do so. Adaptive stealth autoaim (it actually behaves like a human lining up a shot) could be a real pain, but I wrote it to see how it would be done, and what could be done to stop it. I did _not_ use it in-game. The remote camera _could_ be used to see around corners for campers. I did use it so I could watch my bot run around the level from better angles. cl_spin simply let me spin in circles while running around in a straight line (it strafed while spinning to approximate a straight line, and showed me a straight line). I couldn't even shoot, since I was spinning in circles. Cheating, probably. Ruining the game? Hardly.
What I _don't_ want to see any more than you do is some script kiddie going "ooh, VAC is supposed to be unhackable. I'll make a kernel-level DirectX autoaim, and release it to the world". I don't want CS:Source becoming another CS:Half-Life.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,356
- Reaction score
- 165
If your cheats are being used in an environment where other people are playing, then you are having an effect.
If, as you say, you're trying to make some kind of AI bot, then why are you trying it online?
Take it elsewhere. If people wanted to play against bots, they'd do it offline.
If, as you say, you're trying to make some kind of AI bot, then why are you trying it online?
Take it elsewhere. If people wanted to play against bots, they'd do it offline.
C
cyt0plas
Guest
Everything I do in the game, "cheating" or not has an effect. Personally, I'd consider it a matter of Harm. If the end result is the same, or more in the favor of the other players, I'd have a hard time seeing any harm being caused. Your conscience may vary.
If I wanted to test against bots, I would too.
Similar threads
