Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

areweanticheatyet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 485 posts

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#51

Post by mrob »

63stack wrote: post #32
hastily3114 wrote: post #4

Is there really no way to make anti-cheat on Linux that can't be bypassed? I don't know much about this, but it seems very difficult to make an anti-cheat for a platform where you can make changes in the kernel.

There is no way to make anticheat that can't be bypassed, regardless of OS. All of the anticheat games today have cheaters.

Correct. E.g. you can aimbot by routing the video signal to a capture card on a separate computer and run image recognition software to generate mouse movements spoofed at the hardware level. The only way to reliably prevent cheating is with in-person tournaments played on hardware provided by the organizers.

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#52

Post by bluecalm »

soloridindan wrote: post #13
jsheard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some kinds of cheating can be mitigated that way, but it can't really stop cheats which just play the game more optimally than the user is able to, using the same inputs and outputs that a legit player would use. Aim assistance in shooters, automatic parries in fighting games, economy-breaking levels of automation in MMOs, and so on. There's also practical limits to how much data you can filter out in complex 3D game…

I think anything that relies on reflex alone is flawed design. You can design around this, by for example in Dota2 it doesen't matter how fast you click an entity, because the turnrate of your character is limited, so a person clicking reasonably fast and a bot clicking in 0.01ms both arrive there at the same time. Precision also doesn't matter, because a player can click the icon of the enemy instead of trying to ma…

There is rampant cheating in online chess and poker as well, you know? You can have an opinion about what constitutes a better game for humans: should it be about making better decisions, arriving at them faster or being fast and precise with your mouse but the reality is bots/assistance can make you unplayable in all of those domains.

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#53

Post by DJBunnies »

komali2 wrote: post #36
soloridindan wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After you click, the character will begin to turn, which can take several hundred ms. A delta of couple ms compared to the time it takes to turn is completely negligible and even an inch better positioning of a character, or having a character with items or stats that makes them turn faster (because picks are asymmetric) will make several magnitudes more of an impact. If your game allows your sights to just teleport…

> If your game allows your sights to just teleport on people's heads and take that as the winning condition then that just sounds like bad design, there's no reason to allow infinitely fast movement and omitting strategy even from a shooter This is interesting, because I feel like the fundamental gameplay of an fps is players exposing themselves to each other's field of view, and then trying to click the other's head…

> How would you design FPSs to remove this "bad game design?"

I think we just need to accept that bots will always be better at reaction based KPIs & abusing "knowing" too much game state, we should just remove those conditions.

1) Move most of the application logic to the server, the client should be a fairly dumb terminal that knows how to render and accept inputs, and only receives the state that it needs. No more spying issues.

2) Just give everybody auto aim & immediate/auto controlled firing, etc. No more aim bot issues.

3) Improve the quality of gameplay around the types of interactions which bots are bad at. Decision making, strategy, communication, execution, adaptation.

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#54

Post by lan321 »

Hikikomori wrote: post #50
lan321 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the real solution is back in community servers and votekicking.. It works on old games with no anticheat measures.. Maybe add some blatant detection for people teleporting and doing other absolutely impossible things serverside, but I don't understand why my team has to ruin their 'reputation' teamkilling a cheater so he doesn't ruin the game completely in most current games when the anticheat only catches free,…

I mean not really, as someone that had been votekicked from many games. Servers with admins does solve this, but has it's drawbacks. But you also cannot have the matchmaking type of game that are popular today. Back in MW2 if you were the host you could kick players from your game using a cli tool that adjusted firewall rules.

For lobbied ones votekick is great as long as you remove majority vote from premades. So in a 5v5, a 3 man premade isn't able to kick any of the 2 randoms alone.

I remember the misuse of it but it was better than having your only option be teamkilling, which is now punished in all games via reputation systems.

The only thing I don't see this as a solution for are games like Planetside, with massive lobbies. I know they used to have automated detection and manual review by admins teleporting and flying around, usually invisible to sus players. Once we found a bug and got inside the map able to shoot through the ground and in like 15 minutes an admin came, asked us how we got in there and to get out nicely, before he gets us out forcefully :D

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#55

Post by calgoo »

63stack wrote: post #32
hastily3114 wrote: post #4

Is there really no way to make anti-cheat on Linux that can't be bypassed? I don't know much about this, but it seems very difficult to make an anti-cheat for a platform where you can make changes in the kernel.

There is no way to make anticheat that can't be bypassed, regardless of OS. All of the anticheat games today have cheaters.

The best way is to just make private servers, so people can play with their friends and not have to worry about random players. This also solves the issue of people using.... language thats not acceptable in games.

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#56

Post by theshrike79 »

hastily3114 wrote: post #4

Is there really no way to make anti-cheat on Linux that can't be bypassed? I don't know much about this, but it seems very difficult to make an anti-cheat for a platform where you can make changes in the kernel.

Server-authoritative games. Basically the client does stuff, gives the list of moves to the server along with a checksum/end result. Then the server runs the same commands on the same starting state and checks if it got the same result.

If a==b, then everything moves on as normal. If not, the client gets a synchronisation error and has to rewind back to the last known good state.

Completely unfeasible for anything real-time pretty much.

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#57

Post by Cu3PO42 »

progbits wrote: post #44
Cu3PO42 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also strongly dislike requiring remote attestation for any kind of software I want to run. But what I also dislike is cheaters in my online games and I genuinely do not have a better suggestion on what to do. Personally, I run Windows purely for gaming and don't let it near any important data. For the latter, I boot into Linux with separately encrypted disks.

I'm doing the same but I worry about windows compromise messing with the bootloader so then encrypted linux drive won't save me. Probably too paranoid though?

If you use secure boot and don't let your keys near Windows, you should be fine even if your Windows install is compromised. Unless you don't trust Microsoft themselves, in which case you'd need to re-enroll keys whenever switching operating systems, which is possible, but very tedious.

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#58

Post by SkiFire13 »

RobotToaster wrote: post #35
hastily3114 wrote: post #4

Is there really no way to make anti-cheat on Linux that can't be bypassed? I don't know much about this, but it seems very difficult to make an anti-cheat for a platform where you can make changes in the kernel.

Linux is resistant to rootkits, which is what these things are, and allows you to remove them, yes. The correct solution is to verify everything server side, or actually have humans watch replays and ban cheaters, but both of those would reduce profits, so will obviously never happen.

CSGO has actual humans watch replays to determine whether people were cheating, it's called overwatch. As can be seen, it doesn't actually stop cheating, at most it ensures that blatant ones are banned after the fact already happened.

Re: Games using anti-cheats and their compatibility with GNU/Linux or Wine/Proton

#59

Post by 0xC0ncord »

theshrike79 wrote: post #56
hastily3114 wrote: post #4

Is there really no way to make anti-cheat on Linux that can't be bypassed? I don't know much about this, but it seems very difficult to make an anti-cheat for a platform where you can make changes in the kernel.

Server-authoritative games. Basically the client does stuff, gives the list of moves to the server along with a checksum/end result. Then the server runs the same commands on the same starting state and checks if it got the same result. If a==b, then everything moves on as normal. If not, the client gets a synchronisation error and has to rewind back to the last known good state. Completely unfeasible for anything re…

Having done modding for some older shooter games built on the server-authoritative model, it's still possible to create a "pingless" experience, but it requires more calculations and compromises on client/server trust to make it work. For shooters specifically, you want the client to provide instant feedback when the gun fires, and ideally when they hit an enemy. You can achieve this by telling the server "I was at position A and shot my gun at position B and hit enemy Bob." The server will validate all of this before informing the client who fired and the client for "Bob" that Bob was killed. The compromise here is that the server must trust that the client isn't sending forged data, or the server must do additional computations to validate it.
Post reply on HN