Digital Paint Discussion Board
Paintball 2: The Game => Paintball 2 Discussion => Topic started by: payl on January 31, 2012, 01:45:08 PM
-
Hi guys,
first of all, i don't need any flame here, so if you want to troll do it somewhere else. I ONLY need your opinion and arguments. No offtopic etc . Okay? Thanks.
History begins like a month ago: I was developing my anticheat, and i decided to give to Jitspoe demo of it to add it to paintball. Jitspoe told me that he can get source to improve his anticheat, but i decided to not give it to him, because i thought that he won't do anything because of lack of time.
I think that Jitspoe is just too closed for new development so i want to know your opinion about my anticheat (I can't really tell how it does work, but i think it will be better than existing one. Why? I've checked how actual anticheat works, i was able to crack it easily.).
If you guys want to know anything about my anticheat, ask, but i can't tell much about it. I think i would add it as DLL and detect suspicious tools , look for file modifications (Checksum), check for loaded DLL files (and block it), also it would check for WinApi injections (not present in old one). Those are just some features which i would include to fight against cheaters. So i guess cheating wouldn't be that easy anymore (many tools use just DLL injection which i simply block).
Also, if you want to help me in development of anticheat, you might give me some cheats, which i will decompile to look for modifications to make protection and include hash in anticheat database. (I will give you my mail to send it as attachment - I take responsibility for sending it to me).
How would adding my anticheat result? Cheating would become harder and really hard to not get detected. Also i would try to make automatic ban system for known cheats, so those would get banned in minutes = Many cheats doesn't work anymore; Jitspoe lose less development time; bans might get reduced back to 64 days.
Do you think that new anticheat is needed? Give me arguments both for yes and for no. Maybe if you support me, Jitspoe would agree on my help. Discuss!
Edit #1: Removed infos about old anticheat as joonas requested
-
personally i like the step jitspoe just took. i think it was a huge step in preventing people from trying out cheats. basically banning you permanetly if you're caught should stop alot of people from trying "new" cheats. but for those in the community who have been hacking and are still currently using undetectable cheats im sure they'll just continue to use them
-
Ill send you a cheat(s), but ill need jitspoe's approval.
I agree with what you have said, but remember if we can improve the anticheat, then it might or it will improve the game experience, for both the experienced players and for new players.
Riddick, look at it this way, if you ban those players who are hacking atm, and give them the new ban times, because of the improvement of the.old anticheat or a new anticheat you might be able to discourage other players from hacking as well, or even the player who used hacks might change his mind and not hack again.
-
personally i like the step jitspoe just took. i think it was a huge step in preventing people from trying out cheats. basically banning you permanetly if you're caught should stop alot of people from trying "new" cheats. but for those in the community who have been hacking and are still currently using undetectable cheats
I think that changing ban times, won't stop random cheaters. If those won't work, they don't even try this again. So less work. And well, i tried to catch NOT ONLY known cheats, but also many unknown with many methods...
Ill send you a cheat(s), but ill need jitspoe's approval.
Of course.
it will improve the game experience, for both the experienced players and for new players.
Sure, but as i have made new one (it's almost done), why not include it? It might cooperate with old one.
-
Payl, don't take this as an offense please, but by publicly posting your ideas, you just ruined your chances of your efforts actually getting implemented into the game. No matter if you like it or not, the best thing about Jitspoe's detection is that nobody really knows how it works (you can trust me when I say that not even the committee has info...). Publishing your ideas on how the anti cheat should work, is the first step for potential hackers to build up new hacks.
I seriously appreciate the fact that you're still trying to help (I think this might turn out into a real addition), but I think your current way of working won't be a success. I was happily surprised to hear about it when you contacted jitspoe a few weeks ago offering your help, and I hope you will not consider this offer after my post. But again, please discuss these things with him in private, even if you might have the feeling that Jitspoe needs a little more time.
-
Payl, don't take this as an offense please, but by publicly posting your ideas, you just ruined your chances of your efforts actually getting implemented into the game. No matter if you like it or not, the best thing about Jitspoe's detection is that nobody really knows how it works (you can trust me when I say that not even the committee has info...). Publishing your ideas on how the anti cheat should work, is the first step for potential hackers to build up new hacks.
I seriously appreciate the fact that you're still trying to help (I think this might turn out into a real addition), but I think your current way of working won't be a success. I was happily surprised to hear about it when you contacted jitspoe a few weeks ago offering your help, and I hope you will not consider this offer after my post. But again, please discuss these things with him in private, even if you might have the feeling that Jitspoe needs a little more time.
Those aren't all features, i haven't said for example anything about self protection system (which is i think biggest one). Those are just some, to make impression... I haven't really made big clue for people which would try to decompile it/crack it.
So don't worry, those are just basics, i have much more...
-
Good effort but you should probably talk to jitspoe first since this involves you messing around with hacks... And it's been quite some time since he has let anyone join the Development Team, doubt he'll do it again anytime soon, just assuming here.
-
It'd be nice to see this, please just do it independently as it seems unlikely to get implemented...
-
Good effort but you should probably talk to jitspoe first since this involves you messing around with hacks... And it's been quite some time since he has let anyone join the Development Team, doubt he'll do it again anytime soon, just assuming here.
I'm not sure if i can join Development Team because i don't know C++ well, but i know Pascal so well... it's up to jitspoe.
It'd be nice to see this, please just do it independently as it seems unlikely to get implemented...
Thats not that simple, because rights under Windows... I would need to hack paintball itself to include my anticheat... kinda strange and i guess Jitspoe wouldn't approve that. But if Jitspoe wouldn't want to include it, we can see. I'm open for ideas how to use it.
Like it was discussed on IRC, it's impossible to include anticheat without Jitspoe help, and i'm not going to share source because it would then be just left because of no time or some other reason. I don't want to put much effort and simply hear thanks while giving source worth some money.
-
payl sorry but your source is not worth any money.
-
payl sorry but your source is not worth any money.
Of course it is.
It isn't as simple as i made anticheat for you. it might be included into any game. If Jitspoe doesn't want to include it i might decide to find someone who will pay for it... It is in fact my choose that i want to give it for paintball, but it's not as simple as you grab source and use it, of course. There are some things to do, and i don't want to be left just when i finish it. You have to understand that... Or rather Jitspoe have to.
-
Of course it is.
It isn't as simple as i made anticheat for you. it might be included into any game. If Jitspoe doesn't want to include it i might decide to find someone who will pay for it... It is in fact my choose that i want to give it for paintball, but it's not as simple as you grab source and use it, of course. There are some things to do, and i don't want to be left just when i finish it. You have to understand that... Or rather Jitspoe have to.
What is it that you want? Ofcourse a better cheat detection system would be good, and wed want one. But I doubt Jits would want to pay for it. The current one works fine.
-
What is it that you want? Ofcourse a better cheat detection system would be good, and wed want one. But I doubt Jits would want to pay for it. The current one works fine.
Of course, as this game is free, i don't want money for anticheat. I want to help, not just to be send away when it's done (like it was before when i done some utility). I guess i'll be needed to check logs etc anyways... Is it much for having like 3x better anticheat? No.
And why do i think it would be 3x better? Because i seen how actual anticheat works, and it would be really easy for people with knowledge like me to hack it, to avoid bans, to avoid detection... I tried to make mine much harder to analyze or hack. I personally think that Jitspoe just try to show us "This anticheat is good, no one can hack it. I won't publish any info about it" and this is reason people think this is good anticheat. In fact, it is poor... Thats my opinion, and i'm not sure if anyone other than me and jitspoe seen how in fact his anticheat works.
-
What is it that you want? Ofcourse a better cheat detection system would be good, and wed want one. But I doubt Jits would want to pay for it. The current one works fine.
Meh.. i don't think it does.
Payl see if someone like superman will let you try it out on some of his servers. if more people are caught then great.
What i think is needed is like ZBLOCK. in CSS this forces textures so that material walls can't be used.
and i wouldn;t be saying yours is "better" because this might turn jitspoe off when wanting to use yours. don't be so cocky about it and suggest a trial usage or something.
-
Meh.. i don't think it does.
Payl see if someone like superman will let you try it out on some of his servers. if more people are caught then great.
I already sent Jitspoe demo of early version some time ago. I don't need you to believe, that i'm trying to make something usefull, but before i done some utilities, why would i lie? You think like Jitspoe: "everyone want to hax or destroy something". While i might understand that Jitspoe had history with ZGH, so he might be not so positive, i don't see reason you are like that.
What i think is needed is like ZBLOCK. in CSS this forces textures so that material walls can't be used.
But someone would have to make it, and Jitspoe seems to reject my help. It is easy to dream about something, but it is harder to do it. And when someone does it, he isn't welcome (as far as i can see, no one contacted me to finish it and include it into paintball - i hope this will change).
EDIT:
and i wouldn;t be saying yours is "better" because this might turn jitspoe off when wanting to use yours. don't be so cocky about it and suggest a trial usage or something.
I don't like to lie, i say what i think. IMO mine would be better. I don't blame Jitspoe, he might not have as much time as i have to do it, or other reason, but facts are clear for me.
Of course my anticheat might cooperate with old one, there is no problem making trial before usage everywhere (this might also help to big find bugs in it). But again, it's up to Jitspoe.
-
Payl, no matter how experienced you are in developing anticheat software, I think it's unfair to judge someone's work or say yours is better, if you don't know the details of the other system. I don't doubt you know stuff lots of us don't, but based on your posts above it sounds like Jitspoe's cheat detection isn't worth excrement. I doubt anyone will accept your offer to help if you keep presenting yourself with this attitude.
-
Payl, no matter how experienced you are in developing anticheat software, I think it's unfair to judge someone's work or say yours is better, if you don't know the details of the other system.
I know many details of it because i hacked it (ofc won't used publicly or somewhat). It was in fact easy...
I don't doubt you know stuff lots of us don't, but based on your posts above it sounds like Jitspoe's cheat detection isn't worth excrement. I doubt anyone will accept your offer to help if you keep presenting yourself with this attitude.
I got your point. I'm just kind of annoyed that Jitspoe won't give any informations about security of his anticheat, so it might feel like it is safe, while it is not. I know that it might not be nice, but someone have to say that clearly. I don't mean it isn't worth anything, but it is in fact, poor. So don't misunderstand me, i'm not trying to say old anticheat does nothing, but mine is much better. It isn't offense against old one, just information to show fact. I hope you understand me.
Ah, also i found name for mine anticheat: PAC = Payl Anti Cheat. Hope you will like it ^.^
-
I'm just kind of annoyed that Jitspoe won't give any informations about security of his anticheat, so it might feel like it is safe, while it is not.
This is what I thought for a while as well, but let me tell you this.
I can't recall if this was just a rumor or actually a fact, but I believe Jitspoe once trusted someone to help him with the anti cheat development. This guy was called Zalttek and later created the ZGH hack, as he exactly knew how it worked and thus how to evade it. Knowing this, do you still think Jitspoe is just trying to make us believe something? Or might it just be to secure the current cheat detection?
-
This is what I thought for a while as well, but let me tell you this.
I can't recall if this was just a rumor or actually a fact, but I believe Jitspoe once trusted someone to help him with the anti cheat development. This guy was called Zalttek and later created the ZGH hack, as he exactly knew how it worked and thus how to evade it. Knowing this, do you still think Jitspoe is just trying to make us believe something? Or might it just be to secure the current cheat detection?
I know ZGH history. Jitspoe have to choose if he want to trust me and include it or not trust me and don't include it. I don't ask for anticheat or paintball source, i just want API and Jitspoe would have to provide me API which i would use.
EDIT (lol clicked post by accident): If you think thats too much, okay. But as far as i know, ZGH haven't FIRST done most of work, am i right? And look, here is almost ready anticheat, check it if you want. i don't ask for any source, i ask only for API and some test versions to let me end it. Then we can start to work on automatic ban system. Can i do cheats with that what you give to me? I don't think this gives me any advantage, do you?
Sorry, but thats not my fault that someone fooled Jitspoe. If you gonna only think that i'm going to do same, we cannot work. But if you let me help, you might make right decision.
I know this might be hard to tell, if i don't want to fool Jitspoe too, but what can i do to prove i'm not going to? Sorry, i don't think i can do anything. So you risk, thats obvious, but i'm trying to prove that i really want to help. Sorry, can't do anything more. There is allways risk. Tell me what more i can do to prove risk is small.
-
i don;t see why jitspoe has to give YOU any information.. but still why can't you just give him your version to look over and to maybe implement. If he likes what he sees he might let you help out.
of course you should be PMing him not openly posting like this on the thread. This thread was supposed to show that the community was interested in a new cheat detection system, now its mostly begging.
-
i don;t see why jitspoe has to give YOU any information.. but still why can't you just give him your version to look over and to maybe implement. If he likes what he sees he might let you help out.
because it might be hard to do it for him, maybe just because of other programming language, other compilator, and my extra things like obfuscator i done to protect code which wouldn't be easy to port to C++.
It is just much easier to add this anticheat as dll. Then also i would control my source, i don't want anyone to modify or steal it, you have to understand that you. And as Jitspoe doesn't seem to trust me much, i can't really trust him. It might change in future if there would be better solution.
And well, if you doesn't see reason why Jitspoe should give me some information, you probably never made anticheat, am i right?
of course you should be PMing him not openly posting like this on the thread. This thread was supposed to show that the community was interested in a new cheat detection system, now its mostly begging.
I don't go here into any details, but i think that people should know more about anticheat protection to decide if it's safe. Just some informations that doesn't give big clue to hackers but show that it's done goodly. I response to community questions about PAC in this thread. I don't see anything from begging in it... But you are always negative, i should get used to that.
-
Yo brother, I usually like when people try to help and excrement. But you look dumb as intercourse. What you want, will never ever happen. If you want to help, then you need to trust jitspoe.
-
Yo brother, I usually like when people try to help and excrement. But you look dumb as intercourse. What you want, will never ever happen. If you want to help, then you need to trust jitspoe.
Then he needs to trust me. It isn't one way trust. I don't accept it like that. If Jitspoe trust me, i trust him, thats really simple. And if in reponse to my PM about anticheat he says that he will never ever send me anticheat source, despite the fact that i never asked him for that, how i can feel? I feel like he treats me like cheater, haxor or at least some kind of noob. So how can i trust him? It isn't my fault that he won't doesn't give me reasons to trust him. I try to give reasons to trust me (But i don't want to lie etc. so i don't say old anticheat is good). If he will still treat me just like danger not helpful people, i'm not going to sit here, you should understand that. I hope you do.
-
Yeah.
-
Payl, Jitspoe will never ever give you any bit of his anti cheating source. I would not take this as a personal offense for the reasons I posted before. This has nothing to do with trust, but with principles. One guy intercoursed it up for the rest, don't blame Jitspoe for this.
I understand that you invested some of your time in a project that you would like to see implemented into the game, and in best case also with a little reward. However, if you really like DP2 as much as you claim to do, this reward would be nothing to discuss about.
You are currently presenting yourself as "the hero that will kick out all cheaters of DP", by saying the current detection is bad and claiming your code is way better than the existing one. I think this is rather disrespectful to Jitspoe and I don't think anyone will appreciate such an attitude. At least I don't.
Also, I'm quite curious how you know that your detection is so much better, if you admit that Jitspoe refuses to share any of his info with you. Yes, I know you told me you more or less cracked the current code. Why did you not just inform Jitspoe about this leak in his code? Because that's what people who really care about the game would have done...
-edit- grammarnazi
-
Payl, Jitspoe will never ever give you any bit of his anti cheating source. I would not take this as a personal offense for the reasons I posted before. This has nothing to do with trust, but with principles. One guy intercoursed it up for the rest, don't blame Jitspoe for this.
I mean he is overreacting a little bit. But as i made almost whole anticheat, give demos, give informations, even send big part of source to him yesterday, i thought he would start to help me to end it and include it finally. well i was wrong. I'm now waiting to let him look at source. I hope he will finally change his mind and decide to include it.
I understand that you invested some of your time in a project that you would like to see implemented into the game, and in best case also with a little reward. However, if you really like DP2 as much as you claim to do, this reward would be nothing to discuss about.
You are currently presenting yourself as "the hero that will kick out all cheaters of DP", by saying the current detection is bad and claiming your code is way better than the existing one. I think this is rather disrespectful to Jitspoe and I don't think anyone will appreciate such an attitude. At least I don't.
I'm often too positive about project, of course, but in fact, i invested much time to create good anticheat, i think it's only project in which i invested so much time to research about cheats, about WinApi, about EXE structure, even about memory organization. So i expect this to be good anticheat which will prevent many people from cheating. I think that if you know that much like i do about PAC and old anticheat, you would agree with me that PAC is at least 3x better, but, as you don't know, this might be too positive for you. I understand your opinion, but anyways, why don't let me try? I think it is better than just waiting till cheaters will make more bans than players active.
Also, I'm quite curious how you know that your detection is so much better, if you also admit that Jitspoe refuses to share any of his info with you. Yes, I know you told me you more or less cracked the current code. Why did you not just inform Jitspoe about this leak in his code? Because that's what people who really care about the game would have done...
Because you must never heard about hacking tricks. I've learned much about that, so i was able to see his code (i mean assembler code). It isn't leak, it is general anticheat poor protection against hacks, that isn't easy to prevent. So i tried to make my anti-hacking system, which then was renamed to anticheat and now it's finally PAC, which includes not only cheat protection but also anti-analyzing system. I was learning about hacks while creating PAC, and when i finally found how poorly protected paintball is, it was almost ready, so i decided to end it.
When i look now at it, it looks like creating anticheat is much easier than including it into paintball, because of people treating you as cheater... Hm, i don't think it should it be like that.
-
because it might be hard to do it for him, maybe just because of other programming language, other compilator, and my extra things like obfuscator i done to protect code which wouldn't be easy to port to C++.
It is just much easier to add this anticheat as dll. Then also i would control my source, i don't want anyone to modify or steal it, you have to understand that you. And as Jitspoe doesn't seem to trust me much, i can't really trust him. It might change in future if there would be better solution.
And well, if you doesn't see reason why Jitspoe should give me some information, you probably never made anticheat, am i right?
I don't go here into any details, but i think that people should know more about anticheat protection to decide if it's safe. Just some informations that doesn't give big clue to hackers but show that it's done goodly. I response to community questions about PAC in this thread. I don't see anything from begging in it... But you are always negative, i should get used to that.
I mean he is overreacting a little bit. But as i made almost whole anticheat, give demos, give informations, even send big part of source to him yesterday, i thought he would start to help me to end it and include it finally. well i was wrong. I'm now waiting to let him look at source. I hope he will finally change his mind and decide to include it.
I'm often too positive about project, of course, but in fact, i invested much time to create good anticheat, i think it's only project in which i invested so much time to research about cheats, about WinApi, about EXE structure, even about memory organization. So i expect this to be good anticheat which will prevent many people from cheating. I think that if you know that much like i do about PAC and old anticheat, you would agree with me that PAC is at least 3x better, but, as you don't know, this might be too positive for you. I understand your opinion, but anyways, why don't let me try? I think it is better than just waiting till cheaters will make more bans than players active.
Because you must never heard about hacking tricks. I've learned much about that, so i was able to see his code (i mean assembler code). It isn't leak, it is general anticheat poor protection against hacks, that isn't easy to prevent. So i tried to make my anti-hacking system, which then was renamed to anticheat and now it's finally PAC, which includes not only cheat protection but also anti-analyzing system. I was learning about hacks while creating PAC, and when i finally found how poorly protected paintball is, it was almost ready, so i decided to end it.
When i look now at it, it looks like creating anticheat is much easier than including it into paintball, because of people treating you as cheater... Hm, i don't think should it be like that.
It sounds like you made a clienthook that fights classic clienthooks, and in order to protect it from hackers you need to keep most or all of the source for yourself. You claim to need access to jitspoes cheat detection source to better implement your anti-cheat, so that you can catch all the hackers.
1. You already dissassembled his code, so you dont need it.
2. Jitspoe should never give out his anti-cheat source. If you can't see that its a rule with NO EXCEPTIONS then you're just laffable.
3. Sending ALL of your source, with detailed explanations as to how/why it works in regards to your "obfuscator" is the best thing you can do. If you really did come up with some great ways to catch cheat methods, and great ways to prevent hacking the cheat detection, then awesome. Tell jitspoe, he'll add it. He cant just include your dll in the game and just assume its legit. He shouldn't need to dissambled your 3rd party addon to ensure its safety.
Don't take my post the wrong way. I think its amazing that you spent so much time developing what seems to be a very thorough cheat detection, but what you are proposing is impossible. Jitspoe can't let you see his raw code. Jitspoe can't include anything he doesnt make himself in the cheat detection. Jitspoe can look over your implementations and come up with similar ones :)
I'm glad you are truly dedicated to "PAC", but please just give it to jitspoe in private, and let him do what he can :D
- Cusoman
-
I don't know if its just me who thinks this but there should be some kind of grammar on these forums would make reading payl's post way easier.
-
It sounds like you made a clienthook that fights classic clienthooks, and in order to protect it from hackers you need to keep most or all of the source for yourself. You claim to need access to jitspoes cheat detection source to better implement your anti-cheat, so that you can catch all the hackers.
1. You already dissassembled his code, so you dont need it.
2. Jitspoe should never give out his anti-cheat source. If you can't see that its a rule with NO EXCEPTIONS then you're just laffable.
3. Sending ALL of your source, with detailed explanations as to how/why it works in regards to your "obfuscator" is the best thing you can do. If you really did come up with some great ways to catch cheat methods, and great ways to prevent hacking the cheat detection, then awesome. Tell jitspoe, he'll add it. He cant just include your dll in the game and just assume its legit. He shouldn't need to dissambled your 3rd party addon to ensure its safety.
"So ok payl, you made much work now give it to us, because we know better". No i won't accept it like that. I know better what to do with my source, i don't want anyone to copy it, i give it to jitspoe just to review not to include it in his old anticheat. I'm not going to give Jitspoe source, because it's mine work, not his. I want to actively support you by adding new functions, helping in banning those etc.
Don't take my post the wrong way. I think its amazing that you spent so much time developing what seems to be a very thorough cheat detection, but what you are proposing is impossible. Jitspoe can't let you see his raw code. Jitspoe can't include anything he doesnt make himself in the cheat detection. Jitspoe can look over your implementations and come up with similar ones :)
I'm glad you are truly dedicated to "PAC", but please just give it to jitspoe in private, and let him do what he can :D
I don't want him to do so, i'll consider it as stealing my ideas!
Cusoman, you look like you want to fool me to send Jitspoe whole source and then hope anything will be included.
I'm NOT going to do so or allow anyone to do so!
Also it seems like you haven't read part where i said I DO NOT WANT JITSPOES ANTICHEAT SOURCE. I'm finally clear? It is possible to add it without viewing me any code line, if Jitspoe want so. But i'm not going to allow to include my source in his work or to copy my ideas i come with in his work! I'm not like proposing you to get my anticheat source, i'm proposing to include my done work into your project.
Am i clear? I hope so. And i hope that i won't need to repeat it in that form, because i was speaking about it over and over, but no one really listen to me, so i had to use that form, sorry cusoman.
I don't know if its just me who thinks this but there should be some kind of grammar on these forums would make reading payl's post way easier.
Em? Maybe i should use translator, lol... I have to repeat once more: I'm not english, my english isn't perfect, i'm trying to change that, but that isn't easy.
-
Payl, I think we're back at a point we've been at before.
I understand your opinion, but anyways, why don't let me try?
Cusoman, you look like you want to fool me to send Jitspoe whole source and then hope anything will be included.
I usually don't like speaking for others, but I think in this case I can say that neither Cuso or I tried to attack you for your efforts on your anti cheating software. Also none of us tries to force you to do anything, nor did we try to make a fool out of you.
We just both spotted that with your current attitude, the situation will not change and therefore shared our thoughts on how you could do things better. As Jitspoe will not share his source with you, you won't share your source with him. You two are having a bad case of impasse and I don't think demanding Jitspoe to change his opinion is correct in this case.
Again Payl, I did not see a single critical note about your developments in this thread, the only comments are on the attitude you're showing. Downsize your attitude and you'll notice not everybody on the DP2 forum is trying to rage you. In fact, people support good ideas and I'm sure you'll find more fans if you'd only consider our advise.
-
Payl, I think we're back at a point we've been at before.
I usually don't like speaking for others, but I think in this case I can say that neither Cuso or I tried to attack you for your efforts on your anti cheating software. Also none of us tries to force you to do anything, nor did we try to make a fool out of you.
We just both spotted that with your current attitude, the situation will not change and therefore shared our thoughts on how you could do things better. As Jitspoe will not share his source with you, you won't share your source with him. You two are having a bad case of impasse and I don't think demanding Jitspoe to change his opinion is correct in this case.
Of course, but i had to say NO. Sure, if jitspoe want my source, and won't give his, it is senseless.
Again Payl, I did not see a single critical note about your developments in this thread, the only comments are on the attitude you're showing. Downsize your attitude and you'll notice not everybody on the DP2 forum is trying to rage you. In fact, people support good ideas and I'm sure you'll find more fans if you'd only consider our advise.
I understand, but it's annoying when one idea is repeated over and over so i had to tell it really seriously (maybe i a little bit overreacted lol).
If there isn't way to include it without knowing exact source, okay. Then don't include it. But i guess you won't find another chance like that.
-
Of course, but i had to say NO. Sure, if jitspoe want my source, and won't give his, it is senseless.
No whats senseless is that you won't give him the source to make the proper changes to it so it will be implemented into the game correctly
1.) You don't know for a fact if the anticheat will even work properly for a game so why would he want something thats a (P.OS) not saying that it is but you don't know that for a Fact
2.) How can you expect him to help you when you won't even give him the source and you're trying to sell it on irc to a bunch of people who don't know what the hell to do with it. Its common sense.
-
No whats senseless is that you won't give him the source to make the proper changes to it so it will be implemented into the game correctly
1.) You don't know for a fact if the anticheat will even work properly for a game so why would he want something thats a (P.OS) not saying that it is but you don't know that for a Fact
2.) How can you expect him to help you when you won't even give him the source and you're trying to sell it on irc to a bunch of people who don't know what the hell to do with it. Its common sense.
1. I would need time to test it for sure and fix bugs. I'm able to do so.
2. It possible to include it without giving him source, lol. If you don't know how DLL works, then you might not know it, but it is possible to cooperate without giving source.
So if Jitspoe would want me to help, he would just provide API which i would follow and it would work, i don't see problem in fact.
-
help jitspoe help you... give him what you have ALL OF IT let him look it over.. i trust jitspoe and if you don't, go to the patent office and patent that excrement then send it to jitspoe, if he likes it he will have to put your name in the credits somewhere.
there you go hero.
-
1. I would need time to test it for sure and fix bugs. I'm able to do so.
2. It possible to include it without giving him source, lol. If you don't know how DLL works, then you might not know it, but it is possible to cooperate without giving source.
So if Jitspoe would want me to help, he would just provide API which i would follow and it would work, i don't see problem in fact.
1. I would need time to test it for sure and fix bugs. I'm able to do so.
2. It possible to include it without giving him source, lol. If you don't know how DLL works, then you might not know it, but it is possible to cooperate without giving source.
So if Jitspoe would want me to help, he would just provide API which i would follow and it would work, i don't see problem in fact.
Maybe you're not quote getting what i'm saying here. What i'm saying is how in the hell are you gonna fix bugs and test it when you know for a fact that it probably doesn't work for the game in general.
-
Maybe you're not quote getting what i'm saying here. What i'm saying is how in the hell are you gonna fix bugs and test it when you know for a fact that it probably doesn't work for the game in general.
I don't understand, do you think i'm noob and i can't debug it or what... I was testing it before with some test apps, it's working in general, i just need to test it with paintball (to disable false positives)... I really don't see any problem... But well, looks like you know better so whatever. I have no time to discuss about how do i debug my projects or how i could know that this work. I just know.
help jitspoe help you... give him what you have ALL OF IT let him look it over.. i trust jitspoe and if you don't, go to the patent office and patent that excrement then send it to jitspoe, if he likes it he will have to put your name in the credits somewhere.
there you go hero.
Do you see anything interesting in your post? Because i don't unfortunately.
Maybe i will use Viciouz idea and make my anticheat to hack into paintball and protect it that way lol, i'll look what have to be done to do that, so maybe it won't be included into paintball...
-
I don't understand, do you think i'm noob and i can't debug it or what... I was testing it before with some test apps, it's working in general, i just need to test it with paintball (to disable false positives)... I really don't see any problem... But well, looks like you know better so whatever. I have no time to discuss about how do i debug my projects or how i could know that this work. I just know.[/u]
Case and Point?
-
Should've just kept this whole conversation between you and Jitspoe. If PAC is as good as you say, you have nothing to worry about it. Once Jitspoe reviews the code, he will surely message you back, but that chance might be gone after making this thread. (It just makes you look like a whiney kid that wants to get his way).
-
Should've just kept this whole conversation between you and Jitspoe. If PAC is as good as you say, you have nothing to worry about it. Once Jitspoe reviews the code, he will surely message you back, but that chance might be gone after making this thread. (It just makes you look like a whiney kid that wants to get his way).
Well, for sure i doesn't want to simply give source i was doing for long time. Well, i hope it is worth time i was doing it, and also i hope i will be understand that i doesn't want to simply give it. But i'm kind of bored because of Jitspoe never having time for anything... I first PM'ed him long time ago, but well, he is allways busy. =/ So it is allways fun to talk to some people like MOFO that say they know that PAC won't work...
Case and Point?
For sure you know more about my project than me. Don't you think that i might know better? Then go ahead, but i don't expect bigger issues...
-
lol you see how he curved my post? Payl stop being stubborn if you want to help, give jitspoe all that you have because you're not getting any of his source; and by saying you are going to hack into the game now has made you look like Zaltekk just as jimmy said.
don't bother commenting on this thread again. just PM jitspoe
-
lol you see how he curved my post? Payl stop being stubborn if you want to help, give jitspoe all that you have because you're not getting any of his source; and by saying you are going to hack into the game now has made you look like Zaltekk just as jimmy said.
I have to say once more, that i'm not going to? You will never understand that, right? And you will never understand why. If i do so, nothing would happen, but that's too hard to understand to you that PAC is written in Pascal not in C++ so Jitspoe won't know how to compile it etc. Even if he make it, he won't know how to improve it, because he doesn't really know what it is about nor know language. But of course, you know better. I have enough of ideas like "give everything to Jitspoe and hope he will include ur name in credits". I'm not going to.
And about hacking, i don't think that you would say i look like Zaltekk if you know what i really hack. But well, once more, you know better... You guys must all be programmers and you all developed anti cheat, right? Because this is only way i can understand your ideas. Otherwise it come out that you just talk without any knowledge.
I'm not going to response posts about "give everything to jitspoe" unless you provide arguments and you know what is going on, enough of people thinking that is soo easy.
-
If you expect anyone, who responses in this thread, to be developers, then why did you post this in public?
Just shut the intercourse up already, noone gives a excrement.
-
Just shut the intercourse up already, noone gives a excrement.
Be nice.
I expect people which response to have at least basic knowledge about it. But yeah, you are right, i can meet only nice people which doesn't know what dll is in fact ^.^ ..
-
If you expect anyone, who responses in this thread, to be developers, then why did you post this in public?
Read this again Payl. If you want to speak to people who have knowledge about the anti cheating system, speak to Jitspoe directly.
-
Read this again Payl. If you want to speak to people who have knowledge about the anti cheating system, speak to Jitspoe directly.
Rather they post ideas without having any knowledge about it, thats problem. So i think no one should post technical questions and ideas if he doesn't know much about it.
I'm still speaking to jitspoe, but he never got time to response so it is very slow.
ATM i'm doing injectable client, i think it can be used on matches... Also there are very minor updates to PAC.
Also, i still need testing subjects (=cheats), so if anyone want to send me them, write PM or on IRC..
-
You have responded to this thread about 20 times in 2 days. You don't expect such activity from jitspoe right?
-
Also, i still need testing subjects (=cheats), so if anyone want to send me them, write PM or on IRC..
Which makes that person a distributor? I seriously do not suggest anyone to send you cheats. Not even if you claim to have good purposes for them.
-
Which makes that person a distributor? I seriously do not suggest anyone to send you cheats. Not even if you claim to have good purposes for them.
Distributor... it's funny how you guys react on anything related to cheating. It's again policy of disinformation. Do not talk about cheats, about hacking or anything related to that...
Ah well, i don't want anyone to got banned for sending me cheats of course, but i think you are overreacting. How i can make good anticheat without knowing what cheats do? Ok whatever, i do not force anyone to distribute cheats cuz i also might get banned for creating anticheat...
Of course i understand jimmy that you try to prevent bans for that etc, but well, i think that you guys have too much problems with cheats to be 'normal 'about that... :P
-
If you are indeed as smart as you say, it would be no problem for you to find some good "testing material". Again, everything on your own risk.
-
Distribute your client and server DLLs in a new folder. After your library is loaded, have it load the game library from the pball folder. You'll have to proxy the calls between paintball2.exe and pball/gamex86.dll. The server will be advertising the game as pball_pac (or whatever you choose for a directory), which should make the client load pball_pac/gamex86.dll and then your DLL can instruct it to load pball/gamex86.dll. This is what I would do.
Or you could distribute it as a standalone application and also have a modified paintball2 binary for server admins.
Best of luck.
-
Distribute your client and server DLLs in a new folder. After your library is loaded, have it load the game library from the pball folder. You'll have to proxy the calls between paintball2.exe and pball/gamex86.dll. The server will be advertising the game as pball_pac (or whatever you choose for a directory), which should make the client load pball_pac/gamex86.dll and then your DLL can instruct it to load pball/gamex86.dll. This is what I would do.
Or you could distribute it as a standalone application and also have a modified paintball2 binary for server admins.
Best of luck.
I tried to not modify paintball, as this might be treated as cheat then.
For now i simply inject dll and then create my thread where anticheat runs. Seems to work fine (ignoring problems with paintball crashing created with CreateProcess but i think i resolved it), but then paintball need to be launched from injector. I think it's enough for tournaments.
Idea with loading my gamex86.dll is interesting, but i think there are many calls i have to redirect.
Also, PAC isn't serverside anticheat, it is clientside, so it should be as easy as running my aplication and clicking "Run with PAC".
-
i think the whole problem is just, that jitspoe and you don't want to share u'r sources. I can understand that. I think the only way to work this out, is talkin with jitspoe, i must admit that i have really no idea about this coding thing+programming language, but if you want to find a solution, talking with the community won't make much sense cause they only agree this should be implemented. But this will only be possible if you work together WITH jitspoe. And if he doesn't want to work with you, this won't be ever implemented. I see that u really worked on this hard, and i believe that PAC is really better than jitspoe's.
Someone told you to go to patent office, i know this seems ridiculous but it could be the only way to protect u'r source, so one of your basic points would be fullfilled.
BTW, it would be nice if you told us how this should work clientside? Would it just crash pball if a mod was detected? (if you have to give source here just ignore it)
thanks.
-
i think the whole problem is just, that jitspoe and you don't want to share u'r sources. I can understand that. I think the only way to work this out, is talkin with jitspoe, i must admit that i have really no idea about this coding thing+programming language, but if you want to find a solution, talking with the community won't make much sense cause they only agree this should be implemented. But this will only be possible if you work together WITH jitspoe. And if he doesn't want to work with you, this won't be ever implemented. I see that u really worked on this hard, and i believe that PAC is really better than jitspoe's.
Someone told you to go to patent office, i know this seems ridiculous but it could be the only way to protect u'r source, so one of your basic points would be fullfilled.
BTW, it would be nice if you told us how this should work clientside? Would it just crash pball if a mod was detected? (if you have to give source here just ignore it)
I give part of source to Jitspoe and he told me that everything i have he also have, but well, i can't agree, simple example: Speedhack with PAC? Not working, error. Speedhack with Jitspoe anticheat? Working. Thats why i can't agree that his anticheat is as good as mine. And as he won't share his source, we can't really know what he have there, so i can't really believe.
For now i'm implementing methods to make allow my client to send logs to server, so on tourneys you have to have PAC turned on so logs go to my server and if someone won't run PAC then he might got kicked out from tourney etc... I think i'll end basic version today but this will take few more days to test it and fix all bugs.
-
Jitspoe can detect most of the hacks. But he doesn't want insta bans... If 1 member of a clan downloads a hack and gets banned instantly, then it warns his teammates, and they go look for another hack. If the first person doesn't get banned in the first week, then he gives it to others and then BAMMM, they are all banned.
I just don't believe that you are capable of creating something that is 'superior' to jitspoes. Jitspoe has proved himself by basically creating this game. And now you come here and DEMAND that everything goes as you want? No way, brother.
-
Jitspoe can detect most of the hacks. But he doesn't want insta bans... If 1 member of a clan downloads a hack and gets banned instantly, then it warns his teammates, and they go look for another hack. If the first person doesn't get banned in the first week, then he gives it to others and then BAMMM, they are all banned.
Okok, but why you know it is good anticheat? Many people got banned just by demos. Also, i found that it doesn't provide at least some functionality that mine have, then why don't you want to add it?!
You seem to want to ban everyone, go ahead, do so, but i think that it's better to prevent from cheating than just ban for it. We need more players, not less, so multiple bans aren't cool in fact.
I just don't believe that you are capable of creating something that is 'superior' to jitspoes. Jitspoe has proved himself by basically creating this game. And now you come here and DEMAND that everything goes as you want? No way, brother.
Jitspoe haven't made this game only himself, keep that in mind, it's still just modified Q2. I don't demand anyone to go as i want, i propose new anticheat which might help old one detecting more things. I think 2 anticheats are allways better than one. Also it seems like rest think like me and want new anticheat.
I think blaa you got some nice cheats so you doesn't want PAC lol :P .
-
use your cheat detection in unrateds tourny today.
-
use your cheat detection in unrateds tourny today.
It isn't possible as it's still not ended. Also rules didn't said anything about PAC so no one would have to use it.
No worries, for next tournament i'll have PAC ready and tested hopefully. I'm looking for beta testers btw, i think i'll gather some people on IRC later on.
I guess i'll end PAC 1.0 in 3-4 days...
-
Sorry payl, after reading this thread, it seems the committee doesnt want cheats being distributed, so im not going to give u any hacks, unless jits give permission.
Why dint you try to find cheats by yourself?
-
Sorry payl, after reading this thread, it seems the committee doesnt want cheats being distributed, so im not going to give u any hacks, unless jits give permission.
Why dint you try to find cheats by yourself?
Oh no problem, i already found some myself but i was looking for hmhm, some cheats done with some strange method etc. For sure i don't want you to get banned (lol) because of me.
Well i think i'll have to think about detection of some more cheats i got now... Found some with someone help (hmhm, this is funny btw that helping to find cheats is okay but sending not :) ).
For now i want to end PAC 1.0 and then i can think about looking for some more tools.
-
Found some with someone help (hmhm, this is funny btw that helping to find cheats is okay but sending not :) ).
Whoever said that? Assisting someone in finding/obtaining cheats is also bannable.
-
Whoever said that? Assisting someone in finding/obtaining cheats is also bannable.
Well, i'm not going to tell who it was, so will you ban me for some reason to make me tell who it was and reduce my ban time? ^.^
Seriously guys, you should less restrictive, not everyone who have, gives or even use cheats is bad guy. For example some people use ZGH for watching demos, should they get banned? I don't think so.
-
You [...] cannot comprhend anything I gueas.
-
I think there needs to be something on the server to enforce that it is used. Compiling+distributing your own server binaries aren't against any rules. If you keep it client side only, it will probably be bypassed by someone regardless of how sneaky your code is.
This type of anticheat is better because it sounds like it won't let you play if any cheats are loaded. I don't really care for who gets caught or banned a week later, or who cheated on a speed server under a noname account. Good for tournaments and match scene I think.
-
Well, I might as well make a public statement.
I think the problem is that we have different philosophies on how to handle cheating. You want to stop the cheats while I want to stop the cheaters. The end goal is the same (fair play), but it's difficult to say which philosophy is better.
Say we both have a cheat detection system that detects cheats A, B, and C.
Scenario 1 (current cheat detection):
Player decides he's going to cheat, tries cheat A. He plays with it for a bit, then gets banned. Maybe he comes back after he's banned and tries cheat B, but the ban times keep getting longer with each offense.
Scenario 2 (your cheat detection):
Player decides he's going to cheat, tries cheat A. It doesn't work.
What now? Maybe he gives up. More likely, he won't after just one try, so he moves on to cheat B. Still doesn't work. Cheat C? Nope. Maybe that's enough to completely deter some people, but what about the people who keep searching around and finally come across cheat D? That one isn't detected. Now he can freely cheat because the cheat detection does not stop him. Worse yet, what about the people who have some programming knowledge and decide that since they can't find a cheat, they'll make their own and find a way to circumvent your cheat detection in a way you didn't expect?
I hope you're not naive enough to think that you can write a cheat detection system that will completely block every cheat in existence, because I can tell you right now, that won't happen.
You gave the example of speed cheats. Yes, you completely block some methods of speed cheating, such as what's used on what you were testing on your private server (yes, that was detected), but that doesn't get all of them. If you just want to auto-boot speed cheaters, there's already a setting (sv_enforcetime) for that, which is a server-side method of checking for time discrepancies between the client and server. This can detect ANY method of speed cheat, but tends to have some false positives due to lag, dropped packets, etc, so I have it disabled by default.
-
Scenario 2 (your cheat detection):
Player decides he's going to cheat, tries cheat A. It doesn't work.
Well, this isn't in fact how my anticheat works. I tried at first to make my anticheat totally transparent, so you can modify, crack how much you want, my anticheat will just report it to main server. But next i found it's possible to block some cheats easily so i decided to include it in my anticheat. Even if you fail, PAC log it, so it isn't like you got message "you were using cheat A, please stop" but instead it simply doesn't work, and it's also logged. Also, while i block only one type of cheat (which is often used), i have also many many detections which doesn't block, which only log. So i think Jitspoe you doesn't really understand PAC detection.
Of course there are undetected cheats, but if you want i might also tell you about tries that failed and you can ban also those cheaters who failed.
But on the other hand, i think that it's better to block some basic cheats, because newbies might just think "oh look i want to run as fast as [Cheater]Payl so i wanna to get cheats too" and if it fail, then he might give up or try another cheat (which i hopefully will detect).
I think there needs to be something on the server to enforce that it is used. Compiling+distributing your own server binaries aren't against any rules. If you keep it client side only, it will probably be bypassed by someone regardless of how sneaky your code is.
Of course, but i design it only for tournaments. I know that if i want it to be hard to disable it have to be also serverside, but i can do that just if jitspoe decide to help me in making it public.
-
- And how you check, if a dll file is injected?
- What is with Linux?
- You block injected files. What you do if I block your PAC (nice name, stolen from VAC?)?
-
1.And how you check, if a dll file is injected?
2.What is with Linux?
3.You block injected files. What you do if I block your PAC (nice name, stolen from VAC?)?
1. I simply do it with ... [Cannot post detailed information about PAC working].
2. I already said that i don't have time for now to write PAC for linux. I have to first end at least Win version.
3. Name isn't stolen from VAC, but maybe partially inspired by it, as i know about it before i thought about PAC. You bro must never heard that for now it's only for tournaments so i'll see if you won't connect to PAC check server. Go ahead, block it, i don't mind, but you will be suspected for not running PAC while on match requiring it.
-
You bro must never heard that for now it's only for tournaments so i'll see if you won't connect to PAC check server. Go ahead, block it, i don't mind, but you will be suspected for not running PAC while on match requiring it.
Be cool. We will see. You are far away from a server build.
-
Be cool. We will see. You are far away from a server build.
You don't understand that it works already, but well... I don't need server build or anything.
I thought you gonna troll once more, well maybe i was wrong.
I already began beta tries... I contacted some people via IRC to betatest.
-
You don't understand that it works already, but well... I don't need server build or anything.
I thought you gonna troll once more, well maybe i was wrong.
I already began beta tries... I contacted some people via IRC to betatest.
You know that 75% of dp2 servers are linux?
-
You know that 75% of dp2 servers are linux?
And you know that you don't understand 75% things i say? Please, just don't post if you don't know, okay? Thank you.
It will work on Windows clients for now, i think it make majority. And we will think about Linux (ab)users later.
-
And you know that you don't understand 75% things i say? Please, just don't post if you don't know, okay? Thank you.
It will work on Windows clients for now, i think it make majority. And we will think about Linux (ab)users later.
So, the only way this thingie is ever going to work is that the client (me) must install it? Lmao!
-
So, the only way this thingie is ever going to work is that the client (me) must install it? Lmao!
For now, unfortunately, yes. I think i'll talk to tournament organisators to make PAC needed to play in it, so you will have to install it.
I can't do anything with that, until Jitspoe doesn't help me it will be like that.
-
So, the only way this thingie is ever going to work is that the client (me) must install it? Lmao!
What is the difference between this and punkbuster blaa? He mentioned multiple times that this was more focused towards the competitive scene. Makes perfect sense to me. Tournament / League admins just have to say PAC is a requirement for players to allowed to play.
-
When some is suspicious of somebody it is not an issue to form a demo request.. Especially in a scene as small as this. And hackers would eventually get banned anyway. I doubt there will be a 1000$ prize tournament any time soon .).
Maybe payl, you should offer your help to jitspoe in some other areas? I'm sure where your time and effort will actually be rewarded!
-
When some is suspicious of somebody it is not an issue to form a demo request.. Especially in a scene as small as this. And hackers would eventually get banned anyway. I doubt there will be a 1000$ prize tournament any time soon .).
Maybe payl, you should offer your help to jitspoe in some other areas? I'm sure where your time and effort will actually be rewarded!
Demo requests might not show some cheats, you should keep that in mind. I just had enough of "X is a cheater, Y isn't and Z might have cheats". This should show more cheats, at least i think so.
I already offered my help to Jitspoe long time ago, but well, he doesn't seem to be interested for now. You have to keep in mind that i doesn't really know C++ but Delphi/FPC, so it isn't as easy as just tell me to do something in code. Also i think that you should keep in mind that i don't have nice reputation here.
I think i'm already getting too involved again, but what can i do, this game is too awesome while community is too bad.
-
I just had enough of "X is a cheater, Y isn't and Z might have cheats".
This is still going to happen regardless of how good your cheat detection is.
-
I like the idea to use this for cups, if it doesnt make the game more lagy ;)
-
This is still going to happen regardless of how good your cheat detection is.
Well, this is partially fact, but i might at least reduce it. And this is allways good way to improve my programming skill, i learned many new things while developing my anticheat. And if it might also help someone, great.
I like the idea to use this for cups, if it doesnt make the game more lagy
Hm, it is going in separate thread, so shouldn't make bigger lags at all. While testing it i haven't found any lags...
-
Hm, it is going in separate thread, so shouldn't make bigger lags at all. While testing it i haven't found any lags...
i got lost at thread. what?
-
i got lost at thread. what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)