[|it|Nexu]

Quote

My only regret in this is that it took 2 years to get here. I wish it could have come much sooner, but let's move forward. I'm really looking forward to seeing this in action too.

Well i'm glad you finally picked up that project and decided to give it to the entire community rather than what you told me earlier over a year ago.

[/eVo/CRIMENY]

Quote

No, it is up to the community and the server admins to be a part of the Passport system. We are not forcing anybody to use it. Servers admins who do not wish to participate in this program, though I would seriously question why, will have the ability to disable Passport. At that point, the Anti-Cheat will not run because it is reliant on the Passport infrastructure. Bottom line: it's up to you.

don: Thanks for the plug. I'm not trying to show anybody up, I've always been clear that I'm simply not going to release something that is easily defeated. It makes no sense. Now we have the system in place to protect my investment. My only regret in this is that it took 2 years to get here. I wish it could have come much sooner, but let's move forward. I'm really looking forward to seeing this in action too.

Would it be possible for the anti-cheat to still run and kick/disconnect cheaters without the option to be disabled by admins?  I'm worried that people will make false or sheepish claims that it runs poorly on their servers or causes lag or something.  PunkBuster had its flaws in the beginning, but the sheepish following of clueless admins and players still, to this day, don't run it because they're reciting the first few months' complaints of lag when it makes minimal, if not zero, impact on gameplay.  Over all these years, the telephone-game-effect has played a huge part in corruption, and there's plenty of hearsay from people that haven't necessarily played a game with PB enabled, or incorrectly claim that they have...like people that blame PB for lag when the server isn't even running it.

I'm really looking forward to a boat load of perma-banned cheaters!  =]

[s.e.t.i.]

Quote

Well i'm glad you finally picked up that project and decided to give it to the entire community rather than what you told me earlier over a year ago.

dont remember what i told you, you dont have to be cryptic. my original goal was to build an STA Client and Anticheat. but considering the little control that can be had over an executable (on any platform) without direct integration, i shelved the project and waited for the right circumstances to present themselves.

[s.e.t.i.]

Quote

Would it be possible for the anti-cheat to still run and kick/disconnect cheaters without the option to be disabled by admins?  I'm worried that people will make false or sheepish claims that it runs poorly on their servers or causes lag or something.  PunkBuster had its flaws in the beginning, but the sheepish following of clueless admins and players still, to this day, don't run it because they're reciting the first few months' complaints of lag when it makes minimal, if not zero, impact on gameplay.  Over all these years, the telephone-game-effect has played a huge part in corruption, and there's plenty of hearsay from people that haven't necessarily played a game with PB enabled, or incorrectly claim that they have...like people that blame PB for lag when the server isn't even running it.

I'm really looking forward to a boat load of perma-banned cheaters!  =]

I originally tested the anticheat code on an amd2400+ with 1G memory. the game ran fine and I never experienced any kind of lag like i did when i had punkbuster. i have a much faster system now, so we'll be performing stress and performance tests on older systems.

if the admin is running his server and not participating in passport then there will be no ban enforcement. there are simply too many ways to get a round a ban. passport bans are based on your passport, not your IP. what's the point of kicking a user that will just reconnect? that's about as useless as the votekick.

[*NRG|ThePoopsmith]

I am sure this question has been answered already somewhere, somehow, so I apologize in advance.

Why couldn't somebody just cheat-> get banned-> create a new passport-> repeat?

[{C9}Wolverine (old)]

Quote

I am sure this question has been answered already somewhere, somehow, so I apologize in advance.

Why couldn't somebody just cheat-> get banned-> create a new passport-> repeat?

If I recall correctly they'll have to sign up for a new passport. It will be easy to weed them out that way. After all, the average cheater doesn't want to have to jump through hoops. Otherwise he wouldn't take the easy way out by cheating anyway.

A question I have though is this. If they figure out a way to create a new cheat that isn't detected will the passport creators keep it up to date?

[Qster (old)]

Just a thought - If the passport project will be live at the same time of the release for 4.2 - I'd like to see in the server menu in game servers that were running passport and those that were not.

just wondering if it were possible (and ofc i appreciate this is not a passport question in total)

Kudos on the project so far guys. wd.

[/eVo/CRIMENY]

Quote

I originally tested the anticheat code on an amd2400+ with 1G memory. the game ran fine and I never experienced any kind of lag like i did when i had punkbuster. i have a much faster system now, so we'll be performing stress and performance tests on older systems.

if the admin is running his server and not participating in passport then there will be no ban enforcement. there are simply too many ways to get a round a ban. passport bans are based on your passport, not your IP. what's the point of kicking a user that will just reconnect? that's about as useless as the votekick.

Sounds good.

Well, if they get kicked shortly after joining a server, or shortly after they fire up a hack mid-game, I would think they'd give up if all they can do is join for a couple of seconds and not even have an opportunity to ruin the game.  The votekick, I agree, isn't always helpful since it depends on votes first and foremost, can take 30 seconds to execute if it gets enough votes, and also relies on someone to come to the conclusion that a player is cheating.  They're effectively stopped even on servers not running passport, because they don't even have an opportunity to do anything if they get kicked by an automated system.  Not every cheater has a noticeable impact on the game and I'm sure plenty of low-scoring players get by admins, but a cheater is still a cheater even if they're an awful player.  I don't see how always having the anti-cheat enabled it could do any harm, and see much potential in hindering cheaters if they only have a few seconds to try and play before being kicked, and repeating the cycle.  I think having a game-wide anti-cheat would be very effective, because an anti-cheat doesn't hinder or stop and cheaters if it's not being used, and we can't expect everyone to use it, especially once people make false assumptions about performance, which is bound to happen--even if a placebo executable was distributed and fake feedback given that the anti-cheat was functioning, there would be admins AND players whining that their performance has sufferred.

Even passive security measures have a significant impact, like a police force in real life or admins, but an active security measure like your anti-cheat can really lay down the law, but only if it's actually used =]

[s.e.t.i.]

Quote

If I recall correctly they'll have to sign up for a new passport. It will be easy to weed them out that way. After all, the average cheater doesn't want to have to jump through hoops. Otherwise he wouldn't take the easy way out by cheating anyway.

A question I have though is this. If they figure out a way to create a new cheat that isn't detected will the passport creators keep it up to date?

yes we will be.

[Despair (old)]

Nice job dev team. Also, good job to Seti for not letting us down with the anti-cheat. I will be looking forward to seeing it put into action.