New AntiCheat?

[payl]

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.

[Gamabunta]

You [...] cannot comprhend anything I gueas.

[XtremeBain]

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.

[jitspoe]

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.

[payl]

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.

[ic3y]

- 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?)?

[payl]

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.

[ic3y]

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.

[payl]

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.

[ic3y]

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?

[payl]

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.

[blaa]

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!

[payl]

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.

[SuperMAn]

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.

[blaa]

 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!

[payl]

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.

[jitspoe]

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.

[Morphin]

I like the idea to use this for cups, if it doesnt make the game more lagy

[payl]

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...

[MOFO]

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?