• CSGO is broken (Anomaly)
    35 replies, posted
[video=youtube;x0B3siLIfXI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0B3siLIfXI[/video]
How mainstream/popular is CSGO still? I feel like in terms of how often I hear it referenced, it pretty much went stealth mode after Overwatch came out (other than the gloves incident/thing). Also, I'm kind of hoping that valve's slowness with getting VAC up to speed has to do with either wanting to finally ship CSGO's poor ass off to Source 2 or something else related to Source 2 development and not because they were busy working on other projects until now.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51801534]How mainstream/popular is CSGO still? I feel like in terms of how often I hear it referenced, it pretty much went stealth mode after Overwatch came out (other than the gloves incident/thing). Also, I'm kind of hoping that valve's slowness with getting VAC up to speed has to do with either wanting to finally ship CSGO's poor ass off to Source 2 or something else related to Source 2 development and not because they were busy working on other projects until now.[/QUOTE] It's still pretty popular. Seems to have the usual playerbase always in it. I have no idea what Valve's thoughts about CSGO could be, but I despise the fact that they monetize it more than they fix/balance things.
CS:GO is disgustingly easy to write hacks for
Videos like this are stupid, all they do is perpetuate the idiotic culture that all of CS's problems are because Valve are too lazy to click their magical "fix _____" button. I highly doubt the average CS player is willing to accept the potential trade-offs in privacy and performance for a more effective anticheat solution.
Not getting banned straight away as soon as a hack is detected is a problem for competitive games like CS though, I mean you let them run rampant for days before VAC finally steps in and bans them.
[QUOTE=xagnu;51801755]Videos like this are stupid, all they do is perpetuate the idiotic culture that all of CS's problems are because Valve are too lazy to click their magical "fix _____" button. I highly doubt the average CS player is willing to accept the potential trade-offs in privacy and performance for a more effective anticheat solution.[/QUOTE] But yet enough people are that they could likely do an opt-in program, similar to Prime Matchmaking, where you install the second piece of anti-cheat and they would have a healthy community of players queuing with it.
[QUOTE=xagnu;51801755]Videos like this are stupid, all they do is perpetuate the idiotic culture that all of CS's problems are because Valve are too lazy to click their magical "fix _____" button. I highly doubt the average CS player is willing to accept the potential trade-offs in privacy and performance for a more effective anticheat solution.[/QUOTE] What about FACEIT banning on the spot?
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;51801765]Not getting banned straight away as soon as a hack is detected is a problem for competitive games like CS though, I mean you let them run rampant for days before VAC finally steps in and bans them.[/QUOTE] But this causes issues with hack detection in itself though. If someone got banned instantly for hacking, they can alert the other hackers using the same hack that it's detected, basically netting very little bans in a short amount of time. However, if they include a delay on how long it takes you to get VAC'ed. Without alerting the user that they are pending a ban, they can catch a fairly moderate amount of customers from a certain cheat provider as a user or cheat developer cannot determine if the hack itself is detected or not. Hence why I believe it takes a week or two for a hacker, blatent or not, to be banned, and why, when that user does get banned, you can see the waves of bans that it has netted.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51801808]your entire opinion on this is based on the fact that its implied to be similar to the other problems people bitch about for fixes all you are doing is accepting valves incompetence regarding the actual #1 issue in counterstrike[/QUOTE] My opinion is based on the fact that effective anticheat is like effective DRM, often invasive and usually still circumvented in a short timespan despite the engineering investments to implement. If this was easy as you seem to imply it to be, I'd ask you why despite the millions of dollars invested into stopping it, does piracy still occur? [QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51801930]What about FACEIT banning on the spot?[/QUOTE] Just makes it easier for cheat developers to test circumvention.
[QUOTE=zeromancer;51801934]But this causes issues with Hack Detection in itself though, if someone got banned instantly for hacking, they can alert the other hackers using the same hack that it's detected, basically netting very little bans in a short amount of time. However, if they include a delay on how long it takes you to get VAC'ed. Without alerting the user that they are pending a ban, They can catch a fairly moderate amount of customers from a certain cheat provider as a user or cheat developer cannot determine if the hack itself is detected or not. Hence why I believe it takes a week or two for a hacker, blatent or not to be banned, and why, when that user does get banned, you can see the waves of bans that it has netted.[/QUOTE] This is true though. I'll admit, I did use hacks once in 1.6 just for fun with a friend, and he got banned in a couple of days or less. The moment he warned me, I stopped using them, and ended up not getting caught. Probably because even with light wallhack, I still sucked enough that people didn't think I was hacking :v: still best decision ever
[QUOTE=xagnu;51801940]My opinion is based on the fact that effective anticheat is like effective DRM, often invasive and usually still circumvented in a short timespan despite the engineering investments to implement. If this was easy as you seem to imply it to be, I'd ask you why despite the millions of dollars invested into stopping it, does piracy still occur? Just makes it easier for cheat developers to test circumvention.[/QUOTE] But as you said, they still get caught. IMO, its the opposite of DRM tbh. Piracy will always be here and DRM will always be made obsolete, and VAC WILL always catch cheaters sooner or later, no matter what changes are made.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51801959]ok well you dont know how an anticheat works then if you actually think cheating in cs is similar to piracy i dont think you know what piracy is either[/QUOTE] Well please enlighten me with your seemingly vast wisdom as to how an anticheat works and why VAC isn't effective. [QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51801968]But as you said, they still get caught. IMO, its the opposite of DRM tbh. Piracy will always be here and DRM will always be made obsolete, and VAC WILL always catch cheaters sooner or later, no matter what changes are made.[/QUOTE] The advantage lays with the cheat developers as they're the ones doing the circumvention, and the logistics are in their favour. There is only one Valve with a limited number of man-hours, there are many cheat developers who can dedicate far more time to engineering new systems of circumvention.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51801534]How mainstream/popular is CSGO still? [/QUOTE] E-League Season 2 just finished on National US Television (TBS) so its doing pretty good.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51802192]hi you watched the video on how easy it is to cheat in it and as a defence you are saying "its hard to make an anticheat" then when faceit was brought up you bring up "Just makes it easier for cheat developers to test circumvention." which isnt the point at all, the point is that faceit detects it quickly and donks you immediately. the problem with VAC which you seem to be oblivious to is all it does is stop shit posted on cheating forums, because they can just scan it and go "ok lets see if anyone runs it" the difference between it and facit/esea/eac/whatever is that they physically stop it from doing anything and remove you from the service, EVEN IF valve still did its delayed banning the detection rates are what matter. so im sorry that you are going 'it 2 hard 4 valve 2 do, ignore how smaller companies have done it without it being intrusive' (esea is a the only thing which is questionable, and thats moreso due to distrusting them rather than what the anticheat actually does) faceit is not intrusive, EAC is not intrusive anyone who says they are is legitimately paranoid or afraid of not being able to cheat[/QUOTE] Do you have any actual statistics to back any of the claims you've made? I'd love to see the relative detection rates of these other anticheats, their false positive rates etc. Do they run with administrator privileges? Are they capable of detecting ring 0 cheats?
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51802248]do you know what a ring0 cheat is or are you saying it just because it was mentioned in the video (and related videos)[/QUOTE] Are you actually capable of answering questions posed to you, or do you just continually evade by ignoring everything and posting insults thinly veiled as questions?
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;51802320]I've asked plenty of questions that you've answered with more questions, if you don't know what ring0 is then you shouldnt be using it as an argument but thats not really the point here. Your main argument was "its too hard to make an anticheat" and its swayed wildly so its not exactly easy to answer a constantly shifting question when each response is "where is proof??? i wont post proof for my point though" we can take it to PMs so we dont keep shitting up this thread though[/QUOTE] I made a reasoned statement that you responded to with a number of anecdotal claims, I asked you to provide evidence for said claims and you've just evaded and keep doing so. You're more interested in weak attempts at character attacks by implying I don't understand the implications of kernel-mode cheats, than giving any more substance to your own counter-arguments. You can forget about PMs, I'm not interested in discussing further with someone whose argument is nothing more than "Well I played some rounds of CS".
VAC, much like the Source engine itself, is literally duct-taped early 2000's technology, saying shit like "there's no reason to improve it because people will still figure out how to get around it" is retarded, let's remove the lock on your front door because if someone really wants to get in they can still just break it open
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;51803664]VAC is literally duct-taped early 2000's technology, saying shit like "there's no reason to improve it because people will still figure out how to get around it" is retarded, let's remove the lock on your front door because if someone really wants to get in they can still just break it open[/QUOTE] If I believe correctly, VAC has had major updates throughout the years warrenting different iterations of it, VAC and VAC2 (and maybe VAC3?). All I have to say gents, point us to an anti-cheat that actually works well nowadays, punkbuster? battleye? fucking GameGuard?
3 points about this video: 1. The quote in the ama was from ido not Gabe. 2. They tried to make VAC more invasive but people cried and bitched so they reverted it 3. People need to stop bitching about VAC until the csgo team implement their "anti-cheat improvements". When they do and it turns out to still be shit, then complain. [editline]10th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=zeromancer;51803677]If I believe correctly, VAC has had major updates throughout the years warrenting different iterations of it, VAC and VAC2 (and maybe VAC3?). All I have to say gents, point us to an anti-cheat that actually works well nowadays, punkbuster? battleye? fucking GameGuard?[/QUOTE] We're on VAC 3 Battleeye seems to be doing pretty well for itself, implemented in Rainbow 6 siege and did well, recently implimtented in insurgency and the ww2 version. It also pretty much killed the mass ArmA 2/OA hacking sprees
[QUOTE=xagnu;51801940]My opinion is based on the fact that effective anticheat is like effective DRM, often invasive and usually still circumvented in a short timespan despite the engineering investments to implement. If this was easy as you seem to imply it to be, I'd ask you why despite the millions of dollars invested into stopping it, does piracy still occur?[/QUOTE] Piracy is impossible to prevent (with the current distribution methods/technical limitations) because ultimately every single user has a copy of the game (or other content) on their computer, and ultimately each (legitimate) user has to be able to run the game on their computer. With Anti-cheat, a remote server inaccessable to a hacker (unless there's some vulnerability, which can still be patched [unlike a vulnerability in the DRM of a game]) is the final authority in a multi-player game and can monitor all actions by each player. Now, I don't know how CSGO's client-server system is setup, but going off the video mentioning shooting through walls, it sounds pretty shit for preventing hackers because the server at the very least should be performing sanity checks to ensure what the client is claiming it's doing would be possible. That though only solves some issues; things like aimbot and wallhacks are harder to detect, but clever anti-cheat systems exist that monitor behavior and can thus catch blatant aimbots. Wallhacking is perhaps the hardest to catch when used by someone with discipline (so as not to be clearly tracking people through walls visually, or instantly reacting to the actions of an enemy they can't see, etc...), which your average hacker probably doesn't have. Now, no anti-cheat is going to be perfect, and it's always going to be a cat and mouse game. However, what a decent anti-cheat system accomplishes is the perception of a relatively hacker free game because hackers are forced to limit their hacks to within what a human can do or be easily detected, and the outright prevention of many hacks. Furthermore, just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile; if that were the case, money wouldn't be poured into security. As an aside, you'll note I'm referring to server-side anti-cheat, which is not invasive at all. Client-side anti-cheat (like taking screenshots) is doomed to the same fate as client-side DRM.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51804100]Piracy is impossible to prevent (with the current distribution methods/technical limitations) because ultimately every single user has a copy of the game (or other content) on their computer, and ultimately each (legitimate) user has to be able to run the game on their computer. With Anti-cheat, a remote server inaccessable to a hacker (unless there's some vulnerability, which can still be patched [unlike a vulnerability in the DRM of a game]) is the final authority in a multi-player game and can monitor all actions by each player. Now, I don't know how CSGO's client-server system is setup, but going off the video mentioning shooting through walls, it sounds pretty shit for preventing hackers because the server at the very least should be performing sanity checks to ensure what the client is claiming it's doing would be possible. That though only solves some issues; things like aimbot and wallhacks are harder to detect, but clever anti-cheat systems exist that monitor behavior and can thus catch blatant aimbots. Wallhacking is perhaps the hardest to catch when used by someone with discipline (so as not to be clearly tracking people through walls visually, or instantly reacting to the actions of an enemy they can't see, etc...), which your average hacker probably doesn't have. Now, no anti-cheat is going to be perfect, and it's always going to be a cat and mouse game. However, what a decent anti-cheat system accomplishes is the perception of a relatively hacker free game because hackers are forced to limit their hacks to within what a human can do or be easily detected, and the outright prevention of many hacks. Furthermore, just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile; if that were the case, money wouldn't be poured into security. As an aside, you'll note I'm referring to server-side anti-cheat, which is not invasive at all. Client-side anti-cheat (like taking screenshots) is doomed to the same fate as client-side DRM.[/QUOTE] By shooting through walls he just means blatantly wallhacking. CSGO wallbanging isn't anything like 1.6. All hit calculations are done serverside with different seed for spread than the one the client is using (which can result in shots hitting on your client but not on the server) in order to prevent nospread. There are basic serverside visibility checks to lower the impact of wallhacking, but those obviously cant be turned up too high because then people will warp around and pop in, which already happens if you have over about 70 ping.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;51804159]By shooting through walls he just means blatantly wallhacking. CSGO wallbanging isn't anything like 1.6. All hit calculations are done serverside with different seed for spread than the one the client is using (which can result in shots hitting on your client but not on the server) in order to prevent nospread. There are basic serverside visibility checks to lower the impact of wallhacking, but those obviously cant be turned up too high because then people will warp around and pop in, which already happens if you have over about 70 ping.[/QUOTE] If I recall correctly though, in Faceit, these values are set damn near perfectly. I believe that even private cheats can't really get a decent wallhack and resort to some kind of Sound ESP (and these are really top end private hacks, the ones you pay a shitton for because FaceIt's anti-cheat is pretty solid) I'm not 100% sure but, I know that players only draw damn near when they are just about to pop out, and I've never really had any problems with players "warping in" to view. Then again, I live in Manchester so internet latency really isn't a problem for EU servers.
[QUOTE=zeromancer;51804310]If I recall correctly though, in Faceit, these values are set damn near perfectly. I believe that even private cheats can't really get a decent wallhack and resort to some kind of Sound ESP (and these are really top end private hacks, the ones you pay a shitton for because FaceIt's anti-cheat is pretty solid) I'm not 100% sure but, I know that players only draw damn near when they are just about to pop out, and I've never really had any problems with players "warping in" to view. Then again, I live in Manchester so internet latency really isn't a problem for EU servers.[/QUOTE] Faceit is really really warpy for me. Also, there are probably more cheaters on faceit than valve mm to be honest.
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7333627/ShareX/2017-02/10T144829.png[/t] jim sterling: bad ending
CS went to shit when GO was released. Shoulda just left it alone.
[QUOTE=zeromancer;51803677]If I believe correctly, VAC has had major updates throughout the years warrenting different iterations of it, VAC and VAC2 (and maybe VAC3?). All I have to say gents, point us to an anti-cheat that actually works well nowadays, punkbuster? battleye? fucking GameGuard?[/QUOTE] battleye is working out real well in r6 siege, theres very few cheaters there
[QUOTE=xagnu;51801755] I highly doubt the average CS player is willing to accept the potential trade-offs in privacy and performance for a more effective anticheat solution.[/QUOTE] i am totally willing to install an anti-cheat like FACEIT's because otherwise even prime matchmaking is hell sometimes
[QUOTE=Chubbs;51804462]Faceit is really really warpy for me. Also, there are probably more cheaters on faceit than valve mm to be honest.[/QUOTE] Faceit has been thick with cheaters for a while, me and friends have been playing on 1700+ elo and every other game there's extremely shady dudes with recent accounts.
[QUOTE=Aetna;51805119]CS went to shit when GO was released. Shoulda just left it alone.[/QUOTE] Not really, but they could had made it better than it is now. Loads of weird decisions in terms of balance and aesthetics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.