Always on Anti-Cheat, worst than always on DRM?

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

It's not and current anti-cheat systems already provide good results at sniffing them out given that the vast majority of cheaters are just kids buying the latest cheat tool without even knowing how it works.

The paid ones are the ones that are currently undetectable, that's the whole point of paying for them. The ones you can obtain for free etc are older versions that will get you banned. Young idiots get banned, assholes pay the small fee to continue to be assholes.

 

Long time ago I went through the effort of learning how to make the tools, it's not as hard as it should be. I bet it's harder today, at least for me with no current experience and not an active hobby coder or anything.

 

Most people today play with either just wall hacks on or aim assist, and the aim assistance now days is a lot smarter and doesn't just snap to making it really obvious.

 

If it seems impossible that someone knew where you were or should have been possible to get round to where they got to without encountering any of your team then it probably was without some 'assistance'.

[jasonvp]

To be perfectly fair, I'm not sure BFV, or even the new Warzone are good examples to use.  BFV doesn't have an active software-based anti-cheat running at all.  Any bans that have happened in it are entirely manual.  While InfinityWard is quiet about what they're doing with Warzone, it's been all but confirmed there's nothing running for it, either.  They've gone through and done massive ban waves when the BR first launched, but again: all manual.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, GreyestGoat said:

Play anything at a high enough level and they become easy to spot.

Geez BFV is as bad as MOHAA.

[suicidalfranco]

8 minutes ago, GreyestGoat said:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cheating+is+out+of+control+pc

 

 

 

[GreyestGoat]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

 

 

At this point i seem to be talking with a deluded person, the person who mentioned you likely are a cheater is likely correct.

 

You don't even accept even 1 part of any of our words, you just dismiss it fully.

[suicidalfranco]

11 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

While InfinityWard is quiet about what they're doing with Warzone, it's been all but confirmed there's nothing running for it, either.  They've gone through and done massive ban waves when the BR first launched, but again: all manual.

i can say that warzone relies on easy anti-cheat and they've had wave bans

https://blog.activision.com/call-of-duty/2020-03/Cheaters-Not-Welcomed-in-Call-of-Duty-Warzone

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, GreyestGoat said:

At this point i seem to be talking with a deluded person, the person who mentioned you likely are a cheater is likely correct.

 

You don't even accept even 1 part of any of our words, you just dismiss it fully.

because it's simply blown out of proportion and not true that cheaters are such a rampant issue. 

And no, i don't cheat, i don't feel the need nor want to risk my library for it just to have 5 seconds of glory on a single game.

Either you get good or you don't, i clearly don't since i've never won a battle royale game ever since the introduction of PUBG, but i do go around screaming bloody cheater from the top of my lungs every time someone manages to headshot me from places i can't even see

[jasonvp]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

i can say that warzone relies on easy anti-cheat and they've had wave bans

https://blog.activision.com/call-of-duty/2020-03/Cheaters-Not-Welcomed-in-Call-of-Duty-Warzone

I'm not sure you actually understand what you're reading.  Is English a second language for you, perhaps?  I very clearly said they've banned folks, but it was 100% a manual ban wave (or set of ban waves).  Nowhere in that useless link that you posted does it say anything about software-based anti-cheat.  Just that they're "monitoring" the game.  Just to be clear:

 

·      Our security teams monitor 24/7 to investigate data and identify potential infractions. 

·      The teams review all possible cheats and hacks, this includes identifying use of aimbots, wallhacks and more.

·      We’re working to improve our in-game system for reporting potential cheating. Plans are underway to streamline the UI for a more seamless reporting experience.

·      For all reports that are received in-game, they are both analyzed and filtered based on key data.

·      Once investigations are complete, we will continue to work as quickly as possible to ban.

 

See any mention of software being used in-game?  No.  Because there likely isn't any.

 

There are a LOT of cheaters in Warzone.  Lots and lots and lots.  They just haven't been caught and/or manually banned yet.

[GreyestGoat]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

because it's simply blown out of proportion and not true that cheaters are such a rampant issue. 

And no, i don't cheat, i don't feel the need nor want to risk my library for it just to have 5 seconds of glory on a single game.

Either you get good or you don't, i clearly don't since i've never won a battle royale game ever since the introduction of PUBG, but i do go around screaming bloody cheater from the top of my lungs every time someone manages to headshot me from places i can't even see

When clearly there is a big cheating problem in games you supposedly do not play and there is evidence as such, you still pick your own non-knowledgeable narrative, that my friend is either deluded or you are in on the same thing we are against.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

i can say that warzone relies on easy anti-cheat and they've had wave bans

https://blog.activision.com/call-of-duty/2020-03/Cheaters-Not-Welcomed-in-Call-of-Duty-Warzone

Wave bans are a direct indication that there is a problem, there should never be wave bans. If the anti-cheat systems are working there would be no influx of cheaters and cheaters that do try would be banned promptly, not later, or basically never because month time frames to bans may as well be never.

 

Any game wave banning players is a game that has a serious cheating problem.

[jasonvp]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Any game wave banning players is a game that has a serious cheating problem.

I play a lot of Rainbow Six: Siege and have since it was launched a bunch of years ago.  The ban-waves in that are epic.  And announced for everyone to see, too.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, leadeater said:

Wave bans are a direct indication that there is a problem, there should never be wave bans. If the anti-cheat systems are working there would be no influx of cheaters and cheaters that do try would be banned promptly, not later, or basically never because month time frames to bans may as well be never.

 

Any game wave banning players is a game that has a serious cheating problem.

when they show 50k cheaters out 50M players, i'm gonna keep seeing it as an insignificant amount, too small to even be considered "rampant"  

[jasonvp]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

when they show 50k cheaters out 50M players, i'm gonna keep seeing it as an insignificant amount, too small to even be considered "rampant"  

Enjoy your bliss.

[suicidalfranco]

4 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

I'm not sure you actually understand what you're reading.  Is English a second language for you, perhaps?  I very clearly said they've banned folks, but it was 100% a manual ban wave (or set of ban waves).  Nowhere in that useless link that you posted does it say anything about software-based anti-cheat.  Just that they're "monitoring" the game.  Just to be clear:

 

 

 

 

See any mention of software being used in-game?  No.  Because there likely isn't any.

 

There are a LOT of cheaters in Warzone.  Lots and lots and lots.  They just haven't been caught and/or manually banned yet.

easy anti-cheat it's software logo that pops up when you run the game... 

[BachChain]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

It runs at Ring 0 of the Windows Kernel which means it always has the same rights as administrator from the moment you boot.

Rings are a processor feature, not kernel. And ring zero is even higher than administrator level

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

I play a lot of Rainbow Six: Siege and have since it was launched a bunch of years ago.  The ban-waves in that are epic.  And announced for everyone to see, too.

I should get back to playing that, really did like it. I've essentially lost all interest in online multiplayer though, not bothered since CoD4 which I played for years and years, mildly competitively as well.

 

I think you can guess what ruined my enjoyment of online multiplayer and why I almost outright stopped. Right now games that are single player or have single player is a very large selling point for me.

 

For about 10 years now I've gone out of my way to avoid online multiplayer as much as I can.

[suicidalfranco]

6 minutes ago, GreyestGoat said:

When clearly there is a big cheating problem in games you supposedly do not play and there is evidence as such, you still pick your own non-knowledgeable narrative, that my friend is either deluded or you are in on the same thing we are against.

there isn't 

And what ever measure currently in place already works good enough at fighiting back any of those small instances

And again: no, not part of it

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I should get back to playing that, really did like it. I've essentially lost all interest in online multiplayer though, not bothered since CoD4 which I played for years and years, mildly competitively as well.

 

I think you can guess what ruined my enjoyment of online multiplayer and why I almost outright stopped. Right no games that are single player or have single player is a very large selling point for me.

 

For about 10 years now I've got out of my way to avoid online multiplayer as much as I can.

this is how i do things these days too. if i want to get my multiplayer fix, i play against bots or play co-op games with friends

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

when they show 50k cheaters out 50M players, i'm gonna keep seeing it as an insignificant amount, too small to even be considered "rampant"  

With your zero knowledge of the detection ratio that number is literally irrelevant. Ban 50k out of a few million is an epic fail.

 

But as I already explained it only takes 1 to ruin the game so if it's a 64 player game it only takes 1 and the other 63 get screwed. So it only actually takes 800k cheaters to ruin every single game for every player always. Statistical odds is not on your side for your argument here.

 

Edit:

P.S. What I'm saying is not an invitation or request to implement rootkit/kernel level persistent anti-cheat software, that is just going to compound my already existing lack of desire to buy your games. You might even drive me to recommend to others not to buy it rather than just ignore it.

[jasonvp]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

For about 10 years now I've gone out of my way to avoid online multiplayer as much as I can.

I've gone through stages like this but not for 10-year stretches, heh.  Cheaters suck, and should be strung up by their reproductive organs.  I learned to just vent about them and move on knowing some fraction of them would get caught, and a larger fraction wouldn't.  What causes me to pause for a bit of time is my old age.  I just can't move as fast as I used to; the reflexes have slowed (and it'll happen to everyone, just wait).  When I get matched up against my 20-year-old self and get my clock cleaned, it's just an obnoxious realization that: I'm getting too old.

 

I was 20 when the original Doom was launched.  And I've been playing PC-based FPS games energetically since then.  Quake brought the first of the online multiplayer games that we've enjoyed ever since, and I was right there at the beginning of that, too.  The "old age" frustration does cause me to sit it out for a bit (measured in months), but I do ultimately come back.

 

Maybe the WHO was right; it's an addiction.

 

[suicidalfranco]

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

With your zero knowledge of the detection ratio that number is literally irrelevant. Ban 50k out of a few million is an epic fail.

 

But as I already explained it only takes 1 to ruin the game so if it's a 64 player game it only takes 1 and the other 63 get screwed. So it only actually takes 800k cheaters to ruin every single game for every player always. Statistical odds is not on your side for your argument here.

and without knowing the actual numbers claiming that games are plagued with cheaters is just as irrelevant.

at least i've got something to go for: 50k/50M, enough for me to go "probably i just sucked", then get to watch the kill cam and say "yeah, i just sucked"

[MageTank]

29 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

played PUBG, playing Warzone, played OW, played Destiny2. 

The probability of encoutering someone cheating are so slim it's a none issue, and shouldn't require an anticheat of this level compared to already present, acceptable solutions. 

I've come across my fair share of cheaters in competitive Overwatch. What makes modern cheating so interesting is that it's not as blatant as it was in the past. Most sophisticated cheating programs won't snap to targets or pull the trigger for you, but they'll assist in tracking your targets or provide soft aim assists (akin to console controller aim assist settings) that give you a pretty significant advantage. They even allow you to configure whether or not you want to track through walls, or only within your line of sight, as well as whether or not you want to automatically aim for the head or the body. There was a few interesting youtube videos on some of the various Overwatch cheating tools, sadly Blizzard has done everything in their power to remove them, even when they served to educate the public. Luckily one was just uploaded a couple months back.

This video shows the most blatant kinds of cheating, but does not really touch upon the more subtle cheating people do to avoid detection and bans. 

 

The point is, it's getting harder for anti cheat systems and players alike to detect cheating. You are correct in that there are some salty individuals that refuse to believe they are inferior to their opponents and will accuse anyone that is better than they are of cheating, but it's equally true that cheaters do exist, and can be incredibly difficult to detect. I will say as a disclaimer, I played competitive Overwatch for 10 seasons straight but have not played since, so I can't say if it's still as common as it was, but it was definitely a thing back then. 

[GreyestGoat]

13 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

and without knowing the actual numbers claiming that games are plagued with cheaters is just as irrelevant.

at least i've got something to go for: 50k/50M, enough for me to go "probably i just sucked", then get to watch the kill cam and say "yeah, i just sucked"

BFV & CSGO are very valid,  CSGO especially is widely talked about, not just by the newbies but even legitimate Pro's.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's not even comparable, you are trying to compare a medical product people not only consume but have no way to understand to a piece of optional software that we already know what it does. 

What's hard to understand about "poison"? It's definitely easier to understand for most than "it runs in the background in Windows' ring 0". The point here is that just because they don't have a monopoly doesn't mean we should just tolerate all kinds of anti-consumer practices.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

If someone wants to write  a piece of software that randomly deletes files from your hard drive and tells you exactly what it does what right do you have to demand they can't?

They're not telling us exactly what this does. It just runs in the background at elevated privileges and you have no way of knowing what it's doing because it's a black box. It could be logging your passwords or mining monero for all you know.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

they aren't tying it to an essential service and they aren't playing with the health of people for profit.

So now regulation is fine for health but not other things. You're already raising the bar here and basing it on a completely arbitrary distinction. As I said, we can argue over what is worth regulating - but it's absurd to say that regulation is inherently wrong so long as there isn't a monopoly.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why should anything stop them. regulation is to prevent companies taking advantage of consumers, not to dictate what non essential and completely optional products they can sell.

I consider "you buy our game and in exchange we take full control of your computer" to qualify as "taking advantage of consumers". A lot of people won't read the fine print (it's not like the store page has a big red warning saying they'll take over your computer) or won't understand what this implies.

 

Gambling is a "non essential and completely optional" service too and yet it's regulated. So are cigarettes, alcohol and all sorts of other things that you could easily live without. You could do without the vast majority of food products for that matter but they're still heavily regulated to prevent health issues to an extent. There's no shortage of examples I can make here, many of which - I think you'd agree - are important.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because it's not ethical, you can't just decide a product should be regulated because you don't like it.  If you don't like it  don't buy it. 

I don't think it's ethical to sneak what is essentially malware onto your costumer's computers. Since the game can just as well be distributed and monetized without it, I don't see how this even hurts Riot beyond preventing the company from acting unethically - not that I would have a problem cutting into their profits if it served to protect their customers.

 

If you think it is ethical then we can argue on that but that's beside the point - regulating companies to prevent highly unethical behavior is at times both ethical and necessary.

 

Also 1) this has nothing to do with liking the product, it's about malware that is bundled with the product and 2) don't conflate regulation with a ban. I never said the game should be banned, I'm saying there should be regulation to prevent Riot from adding malware to it.

 

And mind you, regulation doesn't necessarily mean "they can't do it"; it could just mean imposing that they make it really clear on the store page that they're installing malware, which wouldn't change the product and would just let costumers make a more informed decision. Are you saying that it's unethical to demand transparency in the transaction?

2 hours ago, jasonvp said:

Don't like it?  Don't buy it.  Simple, easy, done.  Legislating ethics and morality on this scale is decidedly the wrong response.  Speak with your wallets.

So simple and so easy that it has pretty much never worked. I can't think of a single high profile case where a boycott of a large company for unethical behavior has succeeded. Even just the threat of regulation has very often caused companies to backtrack immediately - while malding on social media never has. That's because they know the latter won't actually end up undercutting their bottom line while the former very well might.

[TetraSky]

Always On "anti cheat" that's always looking up shit in the background?

Sounds like malware to me. Who is to say that is all they use it for.
That sort of malware could easily look through all your files and send info back to the server, especially if it has admin privilege. 

Remains to be see if there will be any sort of backlash about this or if gamers will continue playing it regardless. (I sure don't play it... I don't even watch it on Twitch)

 

IMO, this sort of garbage is why every applications should be sandboxed by default. If it needs some sort of dependence from windows, it can always get a copy of them, but other that that, it shouldn't be able to access part of the system that you don't allow it to.