Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

Post by rishabhjain1198 » Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 2:12 AM UTC

eddd-ddde wrote: post #47

hypeatei wrote: post #26

I know there's nothing that can or will happen about it (for various reasons) but the whole model around multiplayer games is flawed. You're giving someone code to run on their PC and hoping your anti-cheat code can catch their code doing bad things. I believe there are AI anti-cheats being developed and used in China so maybe we'll end up with a Recall-esque anti-cheat everywhere in the future :)

Just today I was thinking about the theory of making untrusted hardware run trusted software. Imagine all the things that would be possible. Truly decentralised servers, where the end user can run server side logic.

Post by Joel_Mckay » Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 2:14 AM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #35

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #18

Nothing ruins the fun faster than lag-switching lamers. Accordingly, one can never trust client side security enforcement, or you just create a tit-for-tat economy with cheat-code authors. The better solution is often live admins with a cheat-report button, server-side physics reconciliation trip-wires/audits (no time-travelers), and using clipped areas for character buffering (x-ray vision attempts floods buffers an…

> The better solution is often live admins with a cheat-report button, server-side physics reconciliation trip-wires/audits (no time-travelers), and using clipped areas for character buffering (x-ray vision attempts floods buffers and crashes the client.) A lot of these mitigations are table stakes, even cs1.6 had server-side physics reconciliation. Aimbots are a type of cheat that cannot be detected by the above and…

Post by tiagod » Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 2:25 AM UTC

maximus-decimus wrote: post #36

hypeatei wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would definitely stop most cheating but at a huge cost: performance. You're not running on bare metal anymore and that would be a non-starter for competitive games.

Is it really a problem is all competitors have the same performance hit?

Post by Joel_Mckay » Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 2:26 AM UTC

eikenberry wrote: post #49

nemothekid wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The better solution is often live admins with a cheat-report button, server-side physics reconciliation trip-wires/audits (no time-travelers), and using clipped areas for character buffering (x-ray vision attempts floods buffers and crashes the client.) A lot of these mitigations are table stakes, even cs1.6 had server-side physics reconciliation. Aimbots are a type of cheat that cannot be detected by the above and…

Isn't a solution to this to frame the game around communities of some sort, teams, parties, squads, bands or whatever. Basically a group you can trust. You can then play with them without worry of cheating. This works best for co-op games but some competitive games could be modeled in a way to make this work.

Post by hipadev23 » Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 2:31 AM UTC

andrewflnr wrote: post #52

Dalewyn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if game streaming will become one way of kicking off cheaters if this arms race gets really bad. All of the code is stored and executed on trusted systems, you would only need to sanitize control inputs which is a significantly easier task.

> you would only need to sanitize control inputs I'm pretty far from the multiplayer game dev scene, but isn't this close to how a lot of multi player sync works anyway? Just* distribute everyone's control inputs and have them all run a deterministic simulation. And then I guess you would run the same input cheat detection on all the honest clients, which are hopefully the majority... Is this impossible or did I just…