[[PCC]cyrus]

I do find it funny that for years this community has BEGGED for an anti-cheat. Now that it's here, we are like WTF? I mean, I am glad it is here, don't get me wrong. But a number of us are presented with a difficult problem to solve.
I also know a name on that list... Quite well. 100% well? Probably not. However, for myself, I am looking to this anti-cheat and asking if I trust it more than a friend who already has my trust.
Another problem I have is that most admins are used to needing to see the actual evidence (a demo, for example) and review it before making a final judgement. It has been so for years. Not being able to lay finger to that evidence is a problem for me as an admin - particularly when another long-time admin gets fingered as a cheat.
This is the first we have seen of this. Since it is not clear to me that this is ready to be trusted, I will leave my trust where it is for the moment. I guess that is the beauty of being able to change one's mind.

Count me as officially "On the Fence" at the moment. I have what I believe to be a challenging trust issue to resolve. I think if I did not know a name on that list, I might be all behind this announcement. But the circumstances have made that difficult and I am questioning what I see here a bit more than I usually would.

[/eVo/Divinity]

demos have historically been sought specifically because there was no objective automated AC that was reliable. based on how they have explained the way it works there is virtually no chance for a false positive. I would go so far as to say there is zero chance as long as you are using FS provided client builds.

[FS Frankie V]

cyrus, on 24 August 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

But a number of us are presented with a difficult problem to solve.
I also know a name on that list... Quite well. 100% well? Probably not. However, for myself, I am looking to this anti-cheat and asking if I trust it more than a friend who already has my trust.

The data is empirical evidence and makes no attempt at identifying intent and only says this is what happened and based on observation alone we can apply a set of rules as to the limits of what would be consider cheating or is a sub-component of a cheat.

There is no doubt that the data is correct and can even read it with notepad but what is in question is what rules do we apply where we can not take into consideration the individual and only evaluate the information if the idea that there is such a thing as a little cheating were the intent is to remove the cheat from the game that was used.

For example some would consider camping and spawn fraging as a cheat but some consider these two to be acceptable. The other side of the coin if these two behaviors fell into the envelope as a sub-component of a cheat, as in you could not have camped or spawn frag with out using a cheat, then it would have to be included as part of the rule set and we could have just as easily asked the AC to included these two behaviors as empirical data.

If the question is did someone cheat with intent then there is no way we can tell if anyone intended to do anything which usually leads to a false positive.

[[Sk&Bh]Txc]

Frankie V, on 24 August 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

...

For example some would consider camping and spawn fraging as a cheat

...

Spawn fragging is ridiculous to be considered as a cheat .
Why you mention it at all ? It is stupid to be considered unfair , which it is much often considered , which is still product of smallmindness .
Unless we are speaking for spawncamping , make difference ;) .

There is 1 thing equal about camping & cheats at all , can you guess what it is , Frankie V ?

And by the way it is called exploit , for it is allowed cheat .
(Why is logical to be classified as such is pretty much )
In fact the problem is not in the camping itself , but rather in the blindness of the mappers & some details in the existing until now Urban Terror versions itself taking some skills away . & still it is not clear if we are talking of bugs or features .
(Yes, at first place I mean one (maybe beacause it is the most important here) , I guess it is time to remind you of it )

So it might be is possible to adjust somethings & then keep the camping in more reasonable useless route .

[diRf!Nikki]

If I'm not mistaken, he was just using that as an example of the types of variables they could use...

[diRf!Nikki]

Someone woke up with a hot cup of mad today.

[sneakers]

I wish Oswald were here to check out this thread.
All this banning would make him proud.
And all the cheaters go "waaaaaaaaaa".

Here is my main point. There is some difference between hacking and cheating. Someone that hacks is always considered a cheater by definition, but a cheater is not necessarily a hacker.

For example, in a casual pub match, it is not cheating to spawn frag or to camp (although many people will whine) or even to use game glitches. Lots of people don't like it and some pub servers will kick or temp-ban you for it. But it is technically not cheating.

In comp matches this is different since everyone knows the rules. If the competition rules say you can't use glitches or whatever, and you do it anyway, then you are cheating by breaking the rules. That's not hacking though.

We all know what hacking is. Using any kind of wall, aim, or other kind of code that runs alongside the game client to give you an ability that is not inherently given in the game client.

I really don't get this excuse that people use hacks to catch hackers. What the hell? Record demo and watch with r_shownormals....since when was this method insufficient? Sheesh.

I like this new hack detection method better since I believe it has way less false positives. I've been accused of hacking once, without even a demo to prove it. I never could play on West of Z again because admins would ban me constantly. I'm not even that good. I mostly just soften up the enemy and play the flag hard (CTF).

This post has been edited by sneakers: 25 August 2013 - 01:01 AM

[sneakers]

By the way, I read the message on the forum that Auth is down.

This is curious because when I load the game it says I am logged in (authed), but when I join a server I am not authed.

This post has been edited by sneakers: 25 August 2013 - 01:53 AM

[FS Frankie V]

Nikki, on 24 August 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, he was just using that as an example of the types of variables they could use...

That's OK Nikki I think he just made my point for me. ;)

[spadino]

One question, if one player use cheat's for test in a private srv or local lan, or remote, the AC can find he and he'll be banned?