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

Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

callofduty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 332 posts

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#311

Post by banana_maker »

stikypad wrote: post #297
vpilcx wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it's already ruined the game. There's a type of player that every time they take a bad beat, they'll be like, "Oh, we've got a cheater!" I am not like that. At all. It requires an enormous amount of evidence to accuse someone of cheating. But with Warzone, it was happening so often, I no longer give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I used to run into more than one blatant cheater per day. And now all my bad b…

There are definitely cheaters in (nearly) every match of every game. I should know, because I decided years ago to take the path of "if you can't beat 'em..." Once I did, it became painfully obvious how many people cheat. With x-ray, "wallhacks," or 3D "radar," with bounding boxes around all players, it became readily apparent who's aiming at and/or chasing players who shouldn't be visible, always choosing the route…

So your solution to other people cheating is .... contributing to the cheating problem yourself? Wow.

You know it's possible to choose to -not- play a game, right? There are so many games available that don't have ridiculous cheating problems.

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#312

Post by temporarrry0923 »

yuuu wrote: post #187
temporarrry0923 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>as if it's hard to detect spinbotters Valve couldn't figure it out for years and years. Subtle cheats are absolutely a problem, but far less of a problem for the average new non-prime or fresh trust-factor player than a rage botter

Couldn't figure it out or didn't figure it out? Valve has been notorious for neglecting the development of VAC and letting cheaters run rampant in Counter-Strike for over two decades. As we speak, there are probably public cheats in existence that won't be banned for at least another two years.

>Couldn't figure it out or didn't figure it out?

I've reported bugs to the VAC email and they were patched a few weeks later, so maybe they do try? I really can't think of a reason WHY they neglect VAC willingly..

>As we speak, there are probably public cheats in existence that won't be banned for at least another two years.

Yep, I used to help maintain a free one on github, the traffic was in the tens of thousands. Been UD for 2+ years (and it's a fork of another, which was UD for 2+). All because we use Java and VAC never started scanning the JVM.

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#313

Post by temporarrry0923 »

lifeformed wrote: post #192
temporarrry0923 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VACnet catches the spinbotters and aimbotters! Actually really good at it too; everyone who did that now just cheats less hard. The biggest problem was: It didn't auto ban, just sent to overwatch (players watch a past game and vote for cheater or not, fully anonymized). This resulted in a massive clog when some guys I knew generated around 10k free steam accounts (with $3.5 of proxies), began queueing a few dozen at…

Did you report this person? They ruin the game for everyone else.

Absolutely nothing would happen. I actually did report a few of the accounts just to see what happened and to this day no ban

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#314

Post by temporarrry0923 »

int_19h wrote: post #210
temporarrry0923 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this. Coming from someone who made one myself :p if everyone had to do it to cheat, cheating would be OVER at a casual level, and a minor issue at semipros/pros (even irl tourneys can be hacked! see forsaken).

But why would it cost hundreds or dollars? I can see why a DIY solution might, but if there's demand for it, surely it can be packaged as a plug-and-play device, and manufactured at scale for a lot less?

I can't see that taking off at scale, but certainly in the semipro level it would be used.

Besides, I know like 90% of cheaters are 14 year old kids who used the first google result because it's so easy to. Any resistance and that'll stop a majority

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#315

Post by BillinghamJ »

asdff wrote: post #237
cletus wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a high-level gameplay problem. I'm not sure what you play but in (CoD) Warzone, for example, just based on Twitch streams at least, almost every lobby has one or more cheaters/hackers in it now. This is a bad enough problem that it actually threatens the integrity of the game and the continued support from more casual gamers such as yourself. As for your particular case (running a Windows VM with PCI-e GPU…

Games like Call of Duty are a captured market at this point. They will be preordering next years release no matter what.

Worth noting, Warzone is free

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#316

Post by k12sosse »

BillinghamJ wrote: post #315
asdff wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Games like Call of Duty are a captured market at this point. They will be preordering next years release no matter what.

Worth noting, Warzone is free

3.5 million in revenue a day in skins, kind of free

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#317

Post by bee_rider »

Shish2k wrote: post #284
bee_rider wrote: post #85

These sorts of things always get circumvented, but I wish the CoD players fun during the 1-2 week gap where the cheaters are still figuring it out. I've actually figured out the permanent solution to cheaters. Oddly enough, I worked it out in Pokemon Unite, which doesn't have a cheating problem as far as I know, but does have items that you can buy to boost your character stats. The solution is easy: play a game with…

> The solution is easy: play a game with a good ranking system A lot of games do this, and the cheater’s response is to deliberately lose a bunch of games so that they drop down to the lower leagues, where they can more effectively harass the noobs

This ought to be detectable server-side (freeze a player's rank if you see a sudden dip over more than a couple games, or maybe have a ranking system that is always increasing). It is also a problem independent of cheaters.

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#318

Post by bee_rider »

dTal wrote: post #279
bee_rider wrote: post #85

These sorts of things always get circumvented, but I wish the CoD players fun during the 1-2 week gap where the cheaters are still figuring it out. I've actually figured out the permanent solution to cheaters. Oddly enough, I worked it out in Pokemon Unite, which doesn't have a cheating problem as far as I know, but does have items that you can buy to boost your character stats. The solution is easy: play a game with…

I agree that going to extraordinary lengths to prevent software augmentation of gameplay is attacking the wrong thing. What does it matter, if people are still having fun? But software augmentation doesn't just improve apparent skill, it can also distort gameplay. What if you're really skilled and you get matched with what amounts to a bot? Even if you're good enough to overcome the bot and win the game, it won't be…

I wonder if they could outsource this to the crowd. With things like Twitch, there are already lots of eyeballs on some of the higher-skill games. I mean you couldn't trust the twitch chat to actually do banning, but maybe they could flag things for in-house human review.

Independent of that and completely niche -- a game where they specifically themed it as some sort of 'gladiatorial combat,' and ranked the players based on crowd response could be cool. I definitely wouldn't want that in every game, but it could be a neat spin-off.

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#319

Post by maccard »

munk-a wrote: post #107
maccard wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dealing with human reports is hard. People will report good players for cheating. People will report bad players for cheating. People will brigade reports. There's also a sense of scale; last I heard cod warzone had 100 million players. If even a _mild_ portion of those players actively use report systems, it's not feasible to manually evaluate them (and is also prone to bias and social factors)

You're saying it's not feasible to manually evaluate reports - but really what you're saying is that nobody wants to pay for it. Set up a very modest subscription model (like 2$/mo) to fund report checking for your game, possibly with a free tier that starts with low trust, and nuke people by credit card number.

> but really what you're saying is that nobody wants to pay for it

No, I'm saying it's feasible. It's not uncommon to hear of people being reported by their teammates in team games for just having a bad round, and in games with cross team chat (like LoL until very recently) people would request the enemy team to report for "feeding". The SnR is incredibly low when the report button is just used as "I had a bad game and am blaming someone else". The sheer scale of reports in a game like warzone (where there are 150 players per game, and each session takes ~30 minutes) where there are 100,000,000 people playing [0] isn't feasible. Technically yes, nobody wants to pay for it, but nobody wants to pay for it in the way that nobody wants to pay to send every player the hardware required to play the game.

> Set up a very modest subscription model (like 2$/mo) to fund report checking for your game, possibly with a free tier that starts with low trust, and nuke people by credit card number.

This is a terrible idea, for many reasons. $24/year in the US is much less than $24/year in India, the Phillipines, Brazil (which is where many F2P games are popular. You're also competing against games that _don't_ charge $24/year. There is already a secondary market for video game accounts, this just ensures that a secondary market appears for games with valid credit cards attached to them (and this sounds like _exactly_ the sort of secondary market you want to discourage from your game). Having this sort of protection also doesn't weed out cheaters; CS:GO is absolutely rampant with cheaters, despite having an actual price tag, and requiring a _phone number_ for verification (it's now F2P with a prime upgrade for ranked; it's no better). You're also competing against people who are willing to pay $50/month to cheat [1] in a F2P game, so asking them to pay $2 extra to play the game is not going to stop them.

[0] https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-04-21-call-of-duty-w... [1] https://battlelog.co/store/product/315-mwwarzone-supreme-20-... - This is a cheat site,I make absolutely no claims about what is actually on the site, wouldn't recommend clicking this link.

Re: Call of Duty Adds Kernel Level Driver for Anti-Cheat

#320

Post by somerando7 »

xerxes901 wrote: post #233
somerando7 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Server-side anticheat catches no cheaters...? What is even the point of developing it lol

I think the idea would be to use the server side cheat detectio to decide which players need to be forced to install the client side cheat detection, basically. You're right of course, if there's no $$$ to be made from people who won't buy the game if it has client-side anticheat, then why would they develop a whole second system just for people like me who don't want to run this crap, but want to play the game enoug…

The point is you literally CAN'T make a good decision about this server side.
Post reply on HN