Anti-Cheat: Fair Fight

(misspo) #21

Personnaly on the subjet i’m open on every thing. The more effective the anti-cheat is, the more love it. I don’t care if the anti-cheat is very intrusive and act like a virus on your computer. As long as it work and the soft doesn’t seem to mine bitcoin/private informations for selling it, i’m 100% ok. Because guys, you will NEVER have a good anti-cheat with no intrusive methods. You can use punkbuster, fairfight, esl anti-cheat, GGC-Stream and other fancy stuffs, it will not work

(Dwu) #22

Thing is rageaimbots are childs play to detect, you don’t need statistics. Most of the rageaimbots simply overwrite viewangle values in the memory, causing easily detectable viewangle snap. The ones abusing clientside hit detection / lag compensation passing impossible hits are by no means harder to detect either.
Its a matter of if they are willing to commit resources for analysing the data in this case.

(Ghosthree3) #23

Yes.

(sixten) #24

[quote=“robustWonder;45394”]
IMO, the best way to catch cheaters is to use an anti-cheat program flagging people and a GM with good support options double checking then banning manually.[/quote]

So basically, fairfight. As that’s the whole point of using FF.

It flags users who have breached too many different values in order for it to be humane actions.

Anyone against FF has got something to hide. I would’t even call it an anti-cheat (even though it is) its more a middleman between server and the user to track statistics.

(Tomme) #25

[quote=“robustWonder;45394”]
There is a statistical difference between a legitimate player and one who uses cheats. Basically if you want to fool FF while cheating, you pretty much have to set the cheat settings so low you are statistically playing like a normal human.[/quote]

There is a statistical difference between most cheaters and mostlegitimate players. It all depends on how FF is implemented and even then relying wholly on FF is a bad idea even with a review system. If you want wholly rely on FF then you would need to close the gap between cheater statistics and players statistics otherwise you are solely catching the extremely obvious cheaters.

(fubar) #26

Effectively? This is a joke, right?
Punkbuster was utter garbage, abandoned any and all support for ET and hasn’t been updated in 7 or 8 years.
Not to mention the MASSIVE client side issues it introduced with FPS stuttering, to the point where the entirety of the competitive scene decided it’d be better to go without any anticheat at all than with Punkbuster.

Punkbuster, in all my years of using it through out various games (RtCW, ET, Quake, BF) has been nothing but a utter joke.

(B_Montiel) #27

I’ve heard pretty persistent rumours about SD building their own FF like anti-cheat.
One sure thing, something is coming. What and when… I hope we’ll know soon enough.

(Amerika) #28

PB was never amazing at detecting new cheats. This is true. What PB was amazing at was allowing server admins and people inclined to use PB’s tools to collect evidence across a broad range of servers (which wasn’t very easy in the past) and compare to other types of data like IP addresses used in forums, names used with a particular PB ID, client side screenshots where even if you got a black screen, if you got on consistently, there is a good chance they might be cheating, geographic location of where the cheat was detected etc.

So PB, by itself, wasn’t that great. But the tools that it gave people were pretty good.

However, FF sounds like it would be a great system to use to quickly ban people who are obviously cheating and flag others for human interaction and a closer inspection. I would have killed to have access to FF-like statistics back in the day when it was MUCH harder to try and figure out if somebody was cheating or not.

(capriciousParsely) #29

If Dirty Bomb want’s to get really serious within competitions, it will probably be best for them to add a small fee for playing competitive in the first place. Matchmaking is heading to TF2 soon and it will probably require a store-bought item for a small fee so you can start queuing up. This will remove 90% of all the cheaters because it will cost them to cheat if they get keep getting banned.

Problem is that they will now just go over to pubs instead, but that’s a blow we have to take. Cheaters are everywhere and they’re not going away. Atleast in the future server admins will be able to take their own actions- But’s it’s better if they go away from the comp-scene for now.

(subtleDoll) #30

Fair Fight seems good.

(Keldrath) #31

Never liked stat based cheat detection. Detect a cheat program and ban for it. Don’t ban just because someone is very good.

(modernFountain) #32

i played more them 4 000 hours on apb , and it can be a closet cheater paradise , fairfight doesnt do a good job.It just doesnt … and it takes a long time to baan even blatant cheaters.OP has either no idea what he is tlaking about or he just copy pasted something he read somewhere.

(Dark_Neuron) #33

Never liked stat based cheat detection. Detect a cheat program and ban for it. Don’t ban just because someone is very good.

Yeah thats not how it works. They ban stats outside human achievement. When you have massive amounts of data, its pretty easy to see the deviations in the graphs. The blatant hacks look like spikes.

I wonder how many cheaters are in this very topic. Trying to sound reasonable about why something like FairFight shouldn’t be implemented. ^^

… I despise cheaters.

(scrub_lord) #34

So many APB players switching over to DB after the word spread about it.

(TheWalkinDude) #35

…as long as the SD team is up to the task of looking thoroughly into the situation to determine if someone is cheating or not.

If they’re going to go the way of most companies, though, and hire some worthless 3rd party to do their GM work for them (those guys who do nothing but copy/paste responses that were spoken of earlier), then FF will FoiF (Fail on it’s Face)

(robustWonder) #36

sadly I have more hours in APB than you and have been playing since RTW owned the game. I also play on the Russian Innova servers which have a lot less cheating because of their combination of Frost + active GMs.

Fairfight “doesn’t do a good job”?

here you go, since I obviously have no clue what I am talking about…

just in case you can’t read the graph, nearly 140 max rank players (closet cheaters) were banned since last year and over 5000 people were banned using those statistics. Most of whom were caught before rank 40 which is only about 15% max rank progression.

Anyone against the use of FF either does not fully understand how long term statistic work, how FF works, or is a closet trying their best to stop one of the anti-cheat programs that can not easily be bypassed by fooling the program loading checks since it only looks at statistics server side.

(Sinist) #37

I like the idea behind FairFight but I don’t think it was very effective in the games that it was implemented in. At least not as effective as FairFight would want you to believe. I only have experience with It in Battlefield 4 and it was frustrating to see EA’s delayed ban approach to even the most blatant cheaters.

(robustWonder) #38

Even in APB it takes a while but I believe that ban waves are run by the company that owns the game, not Fairfight.

I like the idea that it can take a while to build a solid statistical background before banning. It stops a lot of false bans. Sadly this is why you need active GMs checking for obvious cheaters.

(Aazhyd) #39

I don’t think there should be an autoban based on FF. There should always be someone who checks the outliers.

(Ghosthree3) #40

I am a little concerned with stat based banning. I mean, there are players out there that are so good that it would definitely seem like they’re hacking. People that hit up to 60% tracking on good players and 80% on bad ones.

I’m not one of those players, that’s well out of reach for now, but they do exist despite being very rare. I feel like even if a GM looked at stats like that they’d ban for it.