Can't believe I'm about to say this...

[Rebelliousness 85]

 

1 hour ago, swft said:

Fairfight was poorly implemented/managed and G1 didn't even pay for it for years, as stated by Matt Scott. Also they were essentially only using it on manual mode and banning whoever Tiggs wanted, despite lying about it multiple times. The unbans were managed the same way as well.

 

BE is not working properly and LO is trying to be overly-cautious about banning people. -snip-

Yea but the point is, it was bad under FF and beyond bad under BattlEye a seemingly non-existent anticheat, or at least one which is easily bypassed which is nonexistent for all intents and purposes.  At LEAST FF compiled statistics so that players who were consistently above human in reflexes and target acquisition could be flagged. Now.... if the anticheat is bypassed theres just nothing... at... all..... except a really hacker infested game... which is unfair since only a few cheaters are doing it.  But when a few are doing it relentlessly, without fear of consequences, and playing for hours each day... the perception of the game is bad as people will encounter them every single day, and see nothing at all is done.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Rebelliousness

[CookiePuss 5377]

8 minutes ago, iRawwwN said:

hmm LO employee... friends with cheater... Why would someone risk their "career" for a friend? Then again, GM's should have an actual contract with LO to prevent that. Hopefully not another Byrt thingy, if I recall that correctly. (wasn't much of a Colby person) Maybe have it so that X amount of escalations require X amount of GM's to approve the ban or something.

Ahh yeah, if GMs are actual employees that's prob a lot less likely. Fair point. 

[Fortune Runner 796]

I keep hearing from certain people how BattleEye sucks worse than Fairfight yet not one had a better solution in months now.

Fairfight failed miserably and many innocent people were banned. This thread is about wanting to go back to that?

A good enough analogy would be to burn yourself on the stove again because stove mits are too slow for you?

No thanks little Orbit is doing the best they can with what they have available and its better than the past.

Whether it is admitted or not is another story.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Fortune Runner

[Rebelliousness 85]

3 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:

I keep hearing from certain people how BattleEye sucks worse than Fairfight yet not one had a better solution in months now.

Fairfight failed miserably and many innocent people were banned. This thread is about wanting to go back to that?

A good enough analogy would be to burn yourself on the stove again because stove mits are too slow for you?

No tanks little Orbit is doing the best they can with what they have available and its better than the past.

Whether it is admitted or not is another story.

Just google BattLEye bypass and you will get the picture. FF wasn't used properly by G1.  An anticheat which is easily bypassed as well as might not exist.

[CookiePuss 5377]

Just now, Rebelliousness said:

Just google BattLEye bypass and you will get the picture. FF wasn't used properly by G1.  An anticheat which is easily bypassed as well as might not exist.

Just Google "flat Earth" and you will get the picture. 

[Clandestine 390]

3 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

Yo where can I get these lists of former and current employees?

Yes but that's classified

[Clandestine 390]

1 hour ago, Rebelliousness said:

Just google BattLEye bypass and you will get the picture. FF wasn't used properly by G1.  An anticheat which is easily bypassed as well as might not exist.

True. I had to play with full 180+ degrees snaps, autofire and triggerbot for weeks and ask everyone to report me in oder to get banned (oh and wait for Tiggs to have holiday break to log in and ban manually XD). Playing with closet settings and going full rage only few times resulted with no ban at all.

FF would be good for APB if it was implemented properly.

Idk how hard can it be to detect someone snapping 180 degrees every single mission and not missing a single shot.

[LilyV3 323]

54 minutes ago, Clandestine said:

True. I had to play with full 180+ degrees snaps, autofire and triggerbot for weeks and ask everyone to report me in oder to get banned (oh and wait for Tiggs to have holiday break to log in and ban manually XD). Playing with closet settings and going full rage only few times resulted with no ban at all.

FF would be good for APB if it was implemented properly.

Idk how hard can it be to detect someone snapping 180 degrees every single mission and not missing a single shot.

thats exactly the kind of situations FF was supposed to hook onto, inhuman behavior and when it happens quite often compared to what a random lucky 180 spin can do. But it surely was poorly utilised at some degrees. Yet it did flag a lot people correctly because we had a lot people on the FF banlist and most of them were pretty obvious cheaters or the typically closet that just made a few mistakes here and there handling his little cheat wrong. So FF worked pretty wll at some point and made those pople appear on the banlist quicker than PB did.

[Fortune Runner 796]

1 hour ago, Rebelliousness said:

Just google BattLEye bypass and you will get the picture. FF wasn't used properly by G1.  An anticheat which is easily bypassed as well as might not exist.

here's an example for you. an analogy if you will.

 

so criminals try to break in a store.

doors are pointless if they can be broken into so remove them and get an older door that works less than the one we have.

 

yeah no thanks  ill stick with the better door.....and get a good watchdog for inside the store.

Btw MattScott already said they have other stuff server side as well , a "watchdog"

[IceStreets 11]

I will Stop playing APB now, it got to many cheaters. bye

[Fortune Runner 796]

1 hour ago, Clandestine said:

True. I had to play with full 180+ degrees snaps,

options - camera - look behind

its a bindable key to do that

[swft 356]

1 minute ago, Fortune Runner said:

options - camera - look behind

its a bindable key to do that

 

You realize it's dead easy for an anticheat to differentiate a 180º snap to a target from a 180º key bind or just mouse flick?

[Fortune Runner 796]

Just now, swft said:

 

You realize it's dead easy for an anticheat to differentiate a 180º snap to a target from a 180º key bind or just mouse flick?

That has nothing to do with how it is possible with apb's keybindings  and how the statement I replied to implies it is not possible.

[Nitronik 348]

On 1/15/2019 at 3:01 PM, CookiePuss said:

Rerolling is a thing yeah.

But its also nice to see bought accounts get banned.

At least its money wasted.

bunch of these guys are trainees up to rank 100

10 hours ago, Fortune Runner said:

options - camera - look behind

its a bindable key to do that

you can't use that bind to snap fire 180 unless I'm missing something

[LilyV3 323]

10 hours ago, Fortune Runner said:

That has nothing to do with how it is possible with apb's keybindings  and how the statement I replied to implies it is not possible.

 

sorry, but this is not what a snap is at all.

[Rade 54]

The thing with statistical based anti cheats is they are very capable (and the way forward, analysing behaviour is better and avoids the cat and mouse game) but you got to use the right variables, in the right way.

 

Creating any algorithm to detect snapping would be wrong becuase you can mimick this normally.

 

FF was very capable of detecting trigger bots, so much so that some cheat vendors adapted by adding ranomised fire delays to their trigger bots. However, realistically any random value that goes below a certain threshold would be flagged immediately. So if you are going to randomise the delay you might add a condition so values are above FF's thresholds, the point of a triggerbot becomes less favourable the higher you go above the threshold. Even then, if profiling the data, over time it will stand out.

 

It is impossible to get away using a triggerbot with a stat based anti cheat, and if an aimbot is also firing instantly without delay when it identifies the hitbox, an algorithm detecting trigger bots would pick this up given the behaviour is no different.

 

If Little Orbit are working on incorporating cheat protection into APB, they would be foolish not to have some form of stat/behavioural based detection.

 

 

 

[Similarities 226]

3 hours ago, Rade said:

It is impossible to get away using a triggerbot with a stat based anti cheat

Source?

3 hours ago, Rade said:

they would be foolish not to have some form of stat/behavioural based detection.

There will be, the methods used will be uncommon though. That will be intentional.

[swft 356]

49 minutes ago, Similarities said:

There will be, the methods used will be uncommon though. That will be intentional.

 

I assume they're going with an in-house server sided anti-cheat, that's a good idea but it's gonna take a while to be tested and functional. Only time will tell.

[Speedz 147]

15 hours ago, swft said:

 

You realize it's dead easy for an anticheat to differentiate a 180º snap to a target from a 180º key bind or just mouse flick?

I believe previous hacks of Goat made use of the "Look behind" key bind instead of using normal rotation only.

It honestly isn't even a hard thing to code in aswell...

 

I do agree that we need more server side checks for various types of hacks though.

I still don't understand how speedhacking for example is a thing, I'd assume its a "outdated"-engine problem but who knows...

[swft 356]

1 minute ago, Speedz said:

I still don't understand how speedhacking for example is a thing, I'd assume its a "outdated"-engine problem but who knows...

 

I think it works by exploiting the lag compensation in APB through delaying packets or straight up lag-switching, as in turning your connection on and off to APB for a very short set amount, so that you essentially teleport around. There are plenty of programs that have a legitimate use that can be used to achieve this, so it's impossible to just disallow them through BE. The only way to fix this is through a netcode patch, probably.

[Speedz 147]

8 minutes ago, swft said:

 

I think it works by exploiting the lag compensation in APB through delaying packets or straight up lag-switching, as in turning your connection on and off to APB for a very short set amount, so that you essentially teleport around. There are plenty of programs that have a legitimate use that can be used to achieve this, so it's impossible to just disallow them through BE. The only way to fix this is through a netcode patch, probably.

I am aware of the lag-switching, but as in most other games, the player shouldn't be moved to a position where "he would have probably moved". The server should simply tell the client to roll back to the position at which point the "lag" started happening - obviously this should only be happening when the connection is completly interrupted (no received packets).

[Lokislav 25]

On 1/14/2019 at 9:59 PM, NotZombieBiscuit said:

Daily 'I am silver and got destroyed so everyone must be cheating' thread.

 

Add it to the pile.

I rarely get here, but I often see your CTRL + C, CTRL + V comments, time to self-reflect on your issues.

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

Just now, Lokislav said:

I rarely get here, but I often see your CTRL + C, CTRL + V comments, time to self-reflect on your issues.

I type them each time, putting love in to all of them, thank you very much.

[Shui 225]

16 hours ago, swft said:

You realize it's dead easy for an anticheat to differentiate a 180º snap to a target from a 180º key bind or just mouse flick?

And seems like you scrubs dont get how easy it is to do a 180° snap with a mouse flick?
Gitgud

[Cr0 328]

As I've always said and always say: You need both a server and client side anti cheat at the same time.

Only (a working) Fairfight anti cheat: Inject almost anything you want, as long as your statistics are not completely impossible, you're safe.

Only client side anti cheat: Once bypassed, as long as others can't see the impossible things you do and the cheat remains undetected, you're safe.

Both: You're never completely safe and you can never go full out.

 

The most blatant cheating happens when there's only client side anti cheat. This isn't news to anyone, but a reminder of the old days when there was only punkbuster. The same type (not magnitude) of cheating we see now.

Edited January 17, 2019 by SilverCrow