89 replies to this topic

[Jensen]

Do we really need to talk WoT. In WoT, the KV-3 and KV-4 are "balanced"..

:\

[OICU812]

The one thing I have always wished for and have yet to see is one of these companies setting their legal teams on them. I doubt it is very difficult to find the location their servers are on and who is registered to them. A few lawsuits might send the hackers packing, or at least we could hope.....

[Twisted Power]

I don't know if you watched any of the mech video's they have here on the site but the travel time of the AC 20 is slow, it is NOT a weapon that you can point, shoot, and it hits the middle of the cross hair. Not at all.

The only weapons I could ever even potentially seeing getting headshots easily with an aim bot are Guass rifles (which just happen to be by cannon lore, headshot weapons) Because they fire straight, fast and where you pointed them. They also have high damage. However I do not think I've seen the Guass fire in any video so that is still not a garentee that it can do that.

As for lasers they have a duration of damage (posted in a dev blog), they are not instant fire like balistics. It would be rediculous to be able to hold them over the head long enough to get the headshot and anybody doing it on a regular would be detectable.

[Voyager I]

Twisted Power, on 02 July 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I don't know if you watched any of the mech video's they have here on the site but the travel time of the AC 20 is slow, it is NOT a weapon that you can point, shoot, and it hits the middle of the cross hair. Not at all.

At close range, it's plenty fast enough, and aimbots are perfectly capable of simple prediction.

Quote

The only weapons I could ever even potentially seeing getting headshots easily with an aim bot are Guass rifles (which just happen to be by cannon lore, headshot weapons) Because they fire straight, fast and where you pointed them. They also have high damage. However I do not think I've seen the Guass fire in any video so that is still not a garentee that it can do that.

Don't forget PPCs!

Quote

As for lasers they have a duration of damage (posted in a dev blog), they are not instant fire like balistics. It would be rediculous to be able to hold them over the head long enough to get the headshot and anybody doing it on a regular would be detectable.

Indeed, but these people don't care about being detectable (although that's not how anti-cheats work; they detect based on code, not performance). It costs nothing to make a new account, after all.

[Bushwacked]

I say don't ban cheaters!! Make there mechs change color to something like day-glow orange with a giant sunburst around them so you can see them anywhere they go and if they try and fire there weapons lamas fall out of the barrels and start running around the mech bleating continuously. Oh and lets remove the option of leaving the match so they have to shut down their client, Then make them show up as enemies to both teams. To keep the game balanced the cheater is replaced by someone else in the Que so teams are still same size.

[Xytaglyph]

I hate that we even have to worry about things like this.

Why cant people just get some skill and play?

[Grimarch]

Guys its a very stupid idea to put legal restraints on hackers it encourages that whole community to kill sites. Ignore them is often the best idea or put enough protection in that they go elsewhere.

[Teirdome]

I would imagine that headshot aimbots would be very difficult to write because of the mech's models (not that a case statement is difficult, but that the heads are often obscured by the rest of the torso). What types of bots were used in MW3/4?

[Khan Warlock Kell]

I played all through a couple of cycles of the NBT mercs with arguably the Best unit in the game. One shot Head kills were incredibly rare, we all heard the myths and rumours of the aim bots but to be honest i never saw enough concrete evidence to believe they afffected the league in any serious way. The unit i was in was accused a few times of using them. But the truth is it came down to the skill of the people in the mechs. Hours of practice and perfecting thier game play. Im fairly confident the Devs have considered this issue and already have a way to combat it. I will be very surprised if we see many one shot one kills in this game.

[Elizander]

Head location usually has 12 points of armor 9 points (corrected by BFalcon, thanks!) and 3 points internal structure so it takes 12 points of damage (for TT) to destroy it. In MWO from what I have read armor was doubled so you have 18 point of armor protecting your head and 3 internal so it would total 21 points before it is destroyed. You can potentially take an AC/20 shot to the face and live to tell about it.

Edited because I can't maths.

Edited by Elizander, 02 July 2012 - 12:23 PM.

[ZnSeventeen]

OICU812, on 02 July 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

The one thing I have always wished for and have yet to see is one of these companies setting their legal teams on them. I doubt it is very difficult to find the location their servers are on and who is registered to them. A few lawsuits might send the hackers packing, or at least we could hope.....

They did in Starcraft II. Don't have the article, but they did.

[BFalcon]

Kali Sukhoi, on 02 July 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

A report button does wonders as well.

Cheaters are the scum of the earth.

Sadly, not - not given the number of cries of "hacker!" you see on CoD 4 when you're in the groove (never mind all those games where you cannot even get out of the spawn area and you die pretty horribly the moment you try...)

The problems with reporting systems is that you need to filter out the whiners before you can get to the real cheat reports (and some of those will be inconclusive) - and some of those whiners' reports will actually be accurate, so you cannot afford just to discount reports from any given players.

The better way is to auto-report any mech engagement with an unusually high proportion of head-hit damage or other key locations for manual review. Hit percentage could be used also (but may not be conclusive on its own, since anyone with brains would assign only key weapons to be "enhanced", so could throw out the % (an MG for example could artificially depress the % easily)). I would then flag that player for an auto-update patch the next time they log in, with a check of all the skins in the folders for alterations. If altered files are found, they could then be suspended and then banned, with a name-and-shame policy in place (or dumped into a cheaters' server).

Elizander, on 02 July 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Head location usually has 12 points of armor and 3 points internal structure so it takes 15 points of damage (for TT) to destroy it. In MWO from what I have read armor was doubled so you have 24 point of armor protecting your head. You can take an AC/20 shot to the face and live to tell about it.

12 points? I thought 9 was the most you could have on the head? Sure you didn't add the 3 Internal Structure already?

[William Petersen]

Shoklar, on 02 July 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Hitbox skins were a major issue in World of Tanks, and I'd hope there wasn't a repeat of that here. In WoT, it was being constantly set on fire or ammo racked (which you could combat in a limited fashion), but if you take a head hit from an AC/20 or Gauss...you're pretty much done.

With doubled armour, it will take at least two shots from the most powerful weapons to head-cap, even the mighty AC-20. Between internals and armour a head location will have a maximum of 18 armour + 3 internal = 21 damage capacity. It can take a 20-damage shot and be a hair's breadth away from destruction, but still intact.

[Elizander]

BFalcon, on 02 July 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

12 points? I thought 9 was the most you could have on the head? Sure you didn't add the 3 Internal Structure already?

Sorry, my bad. I did add them. I'll correct my post. Thanks. You'd still live tho with 1 point internal.

[Stray Ion]

IP banning will not work as with some ISP's all you have to do is unplug the power to your modem and then plug it back in and you may be assigned a new IP. IMO MAC address banning on the other hand would be better. (yes it can be changed but there are ways of making it work).

I think replacing all a proven cheaters Mechs with Elementals/UrbanMechs would be best. I also feel if someone accuses a person of cheating multiple times which can not be proven, that person should also be stuck in Elementals/Urbanmechs for eternity as well. I am not referring to myself, but some people are just that legitimately good.

Edited by Stray Ion, 02 July 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Bushwacked]

Stray Ion, on 02 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I think replacing all a proven cheaters Mechs with Elementals/UrbanMechs would be best. I also feel if someone accuses a person of cheating multiple times which can not be proven, that person should also be stuck in Elementals/Urbanmechs for eternity as well. I am not referring to myself, but some people are just that legitimately good.

Elemental squads sound like fun TBH

[Stray Ion]

Bushwacked, on 02 July 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Elemental squads sound like fun TBH

They do , but when you're the only one in one: even a cicada can easily kill you just by mass alone.

[Grimarch]

I think there will need to be a better ranking and report system. I help run one for a strategy game and thats hard enough but for this would take a lot of moderators to pull off

[Voyager I]

Stray Ion, on 02 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

IP banning will not work as with some ISP's all you have to do is unplug the power to your modem and then plug it back in and you may be assigned a new IP. IMO MAC address banning on the other hand would be better. (yes it can be changed but there are ways of making it work).

Traditionally, you ban accounts. Of course, given that we're looking at a F2P game, the effectiveness of that measure is in serious question.

Quote

I think replacing all a proven cheaters Mechs with Elementals/UrbanMechs would be best. I also feel if someone accuses a person of cheating multiple times which can not be proven, that person should also be stuck in Elementals/Urbanmechs for eternity as well. I am not referring to myself, but some people are just that legitimately good.

Large-scale anti-cheats don't work off of individual accusations or human judgment. They're software that detects unauthorized modifications to game files and other forms of illegal input (the actual technical aspects of this are beyond me). Companies might respond to reports by trying to break down whatever hacks they're running, but they won't ban someone because his aim looked suspicious because they generally don't address individual cases like that. That's the business of private server administrators, which we won't have.

[Stray Ion]

Voyager I, on 02 July 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Traditionally, you ban accounts. Of course, given that we're looking at a F2P game, the effectiveness of that measure is in serious question.



Large-scale anti-cheats don't work off of individual accusations or human judgment. They're software that detects unauthorized modifications to game files and other forms of illegal input (the actual technical aspects of this are beyond me). Companies might respond to reports by trying to break down whatever hacks they're running, but they won't ban someone because his aim looked suspicious because they generally don't address individual cases like that. That's the business of private server administrators, which we won't have.

You're correct when it comes to modifying game files.

Although I have never used one, I have been told that some "aimbots" do not affect the game itself. Logically it is possible, after all we have had the ability to track motion with a simple webcam for years now. Remove the video feed from the webcam and replace it with the game itself similar to how fraps works. Server side would have no legal way of knowing unless they specifically put in their TOS (I actually read those) about monitoring running programs on the users computer; even then they can be hidden. The only other option is player accusations.

Global Agenda (sorry for not mentioning WoT, I have never played it) had/has aimbot problems, which were easy to prove when a recon dropped a decoy. The aimbotter could not look away from the decoy unless its target disappeared from his screen, thus leaving the recon 10 seconds to easily backstab the aimbotter, or histerically watching said aimbotter jetpack away backwards trying to find something to obstruct their view to disable the aimbot.

GA would in fact take user accusations seriously if there was proof with a screen capture or video, but then it wouldn't be accusation if there is proof.

Personally I would rather just kill them and laugh as I used their own tool against them. I also know people who were given free 60 day boosters for turning in aimbotters with proof.

Too me if someone happened to be able to apply 100% of a larger laser's damage at 500m to my cockpit, while I was at speed and zig zagging erractically, while they were at speed and on a different vector, I would be suspicious. If I seen it again I would be more suspicious. After the NDA is dropped I would run fraps (if and only if it was allowed to be recorded) to make my point and report them once and only once.

If software is perfect, then there would be no need for software updates to plug security risks. Sometimes player experiences are the best thing out there. But if it requires proof and also has consequences, it would just about limit the griefing potential.

Edited by Stray Ion, 02 July 2012 - 03:33 PM.