81–90 of 161 posts
>ACE overall is a treasure trove of privacy violations: checking recently used files, uploading files to their servers, banning having reverse engineering tools open, or having used them recently on game files—the list goes on. Microsoft should blacklist these binaries, and revoke developer certificate.
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.
>ACE overall is a treasure trove of privacy violations: checking recently used files, uploading files to their servers, banning having reverse engineering tools open, or having used them recently on game files—the list goes on. Microsoft should blacklist these binaries, and revoke developer certificate.
The screenshot function pointed in the article out will only be able to take screenshots on older versions of Windows with no compositor, i.e. the ones that draw directly to the scan-out framebuffer. That's why he found it's not used anywhere--it's obsolete.
As a connoisseur of online game hacks, I'm utterly stunned at the level of sophistication that both parties partake in with respect to the cat-and-mouse game of cheat/anti-cheat.
Some are technically very interesting, like the hardware DMA device I previously used. The firmware was customized specifically for a subset of users specifically to avoid detection (it eventually failed). Others are very clever, like the hack that was dynamically compiled as an Xbox Game Bar module.
>ACE overall is a treasure trove of privacy violations: checking recently used files, uploading files to their servers, banning having reverse engineering tools open, or having used them recently on game files—the list goes on. Microsoft should blacklist these binaries, and revoke developer certificate.
I wonder, how would you design an anti-cheat protection? Would you fight for the privacy of cheaters?
>ACE overall is a treasure trove of privacy violations: checking recently used files, uploading files to their servers, banning having reverse engineering tools open, or having used them recently on game files—the list goes on. Microsoft should blacklist these binaries, and revoke developer certificate.
I wonder, how would you design an anti-cheat protection? Would you fight for the privacy of cheaters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder, how would you design an anti-cheat protection? Would you fight for the privacy of cheaters?
Cheaters are bad, but it's not worth unreasonably harming everyone else to stop them. I wouldn't advocate for surveillance cameras in everyone's homes to reduce crime.
For the paranoid, dual-booting to a games-only OS image would be a reasonable choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really a problem is all competitors have the same performance hit?
Imagine all Olympic athletes were to start competing with an AR headset on, which added 5ms of lag to their vision. Would it be a problem if they were all forced to use it?
For people watching esports, they need to believe that the game isn't rigged and people aren't cheating. A couple more scandals and the sponsors are going to require cloud-gaming just to keep viewers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheaters are bad, but it's not worth unreasonably harming everyone else to stop them. I wouldn't advocate for surveillance cameras in everyone's homes to reduce crime.
Valorant took a massive amount of market share from CS:GO, in large part because of a very intrusive but highly effective anti-cheat system. Cheating in online games is a hard problem to solve and can make games completely unplayable. Gamers are generally much more bothered about cheating than about the privacy risks of anti-cheat, whether you agree with them or not. For the paranoid, dual-booting to a games-only OS…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that accounts should match one-to-one to GPUs, and that two instances of the game can't run on the same machine at once? These assumptions are unrealistic: what if I upgrade my graphics card? What if my friend wants to play too, and remotes into my machine to do so? And I don't understand which cheating behaviours this restriction is supposed to prevent.
No, there should only be 1 GPU with a specific signature active at any given time. If multiple user accounts are tainted by the same flagged signatures, than you risk getting everyone on that hardware banned. It is usually clearly stated in the EULA expected fair play section, and it is at the admins discretion... Buy that used cheap rtx3090 at your own risk... ;) "two instances of the game can't run on the same mach…
Which is why this is completely unreasonable.