MACRO cheats? No Recoil etc

[Felon]

If you captured the right data it would be so obvious, especially for an existing account tracking damage and kd. Next level would be rapid movement/input, etc. Machine learning could work at another level for anomaly detection.

This is similar to how a lot of the successful anti-cheat works, it's not only able to detect people cheating - but it can detect things like boosters and Smurfs, which in some cases will totally destroy a game just as badly as somebody using a full-blown rage-hack.

The problem is it costs a lot of money, you need a large number of people to build it and operate it and those people need to know what they're doing and understand that they're getting into an arms race, it's not a cheap business to be in if you want it to be effective but it can be done, you just have to be serious about it.

The main problem is that these games have a lifespan and they’ll milk it at the expense of those who just want to play.

A lot of it comes down to business strategy, games like Battlefield and COD - have a lifespan of a year or two, then everyone moves to the next title - where the company makes money through selling games traditionally, not as much with micro transactions - so they can tolerate people leaving the platform due to cheaters, because they've already made most of the money from them.

The more Esports based titles (which are often free), (Valorant, CS, LoL, Data, etc) they treat their titles more like a sport - games like CS:GO go on for years and years relatively unchanged - so it makes much more sense to have a proper anti-cheat strategy and spend money on it.

As the company is making money through in game purchases, and everything else - by keeping players happy on the platform, those players will continue to spend money, because they're more likely to enjoy the game and (hopefully) be kept away from 360 spinbots and rage-hackers.

 

[Mesai]

A lot of it comes down to business strategy, games like Battlefield and COD - have a lifespan of a year or two, then everyone moves to the next title - where the company makes money through selling games traditionally, not as much with micro transactions - so they can tolerate people leaving the platform due to cheaters, because they've already made most of the money from them.

The more Esports based titles (which are often free), (Valorant, CS, LoL, Data, etc) they treat their titles more like a sport - games like CS:GO go on for years and years relatively unchanged - so it makes much more sense to have a proper anti-cheat strategy and spend money on it.

As the company is making money through in game purchases, and everything else - by keeping players happy on the platform, those players will continue to spend money, because they're more likely to enjoy the game and (hopefully) be kept away from 360 spinbots and rage-hackers.

You'd hope that were the case.

I played OW since the beta and only recently stopped, picking up Apex instead. I love the gameplay but holy hell, the management and general technical implementation is one of the worst I've ever experienced - say what you want about Blizzard but they're God-tier compared to EA.

 

[Begbie]

Why there's aim assist in games (on PC at least) when using a pad v m+k is beyond me.

All about lowering the skill level so everyone can feel like their amazing :/

Equivalent to participation trophies.

 

[Felon]

I love the gameplay but holy hell, the management and general technical implementation is one of the worst I've ever experienced - say what you want about Blizzard but they're God-tier compared to EA.

Yeah Blizzard got a lot right with OW, OW had some of the best net code and online performance of any game.

Comparing Blizzard to EA though - they are worlds apart.

EA is all about maximising profit over absolutely anything else, whereas Blizzard is all about maximising player experience, two completely different philosophies - two different companies operated in completely different ways.

I've done a lot of work in the games industry over the years, both with a large Esports studio and with EA, and the difference between both companies - they're like in two different universes.

 

[Neil79]

Some good viewpoints from people!

 

[Neil79]

***Removed due to swearing***

" I'm not cheating "
" I don't cheat "
or the usual *** I come across in games " Get good "

People like this really grate! Making people think they are damn good at the game, insulting others who are playing normally and struggling because of said cheats but don't have the balls to admit they are cheating. How can someone get good if they are playing against a cheater who using software to help them get good?

 

[Kyo]

" I'm not cheating "
" I don't cheat "
or the usual *** I come across in games " Get good "

People like this really grate! Making people think they are damn good at the game, insulting others who are playing normally and struggling because of said cheats but don't have the balls to admit they are cheating. How can someone get good if they are playing against a cheater who using software to help them get good?

Make sure you watch all the way through, thats just the start. The cheaters actually gives in and then explains why he doing it for cash, boosting and how he has 30 spoofers lined in case he banned. He cheating because he getting paid for it

 

[Mesai]

Yeah Blizzard got a lot right with OW, OW had some of the best net code and online performance of any game.

Comparing Blizzard to EA though - they are worlds apart.

EA is all about maximising profit over absolutely anything else, whereas Blizzard is all about maximising player experience, two completely different philosophies - two different companies operated in completely different ways.

I've done a lot of work in the games industry over the years, both with a large Esports studio and with EA, and the difference between both companies - they're like in two different universes.

It definitely prevents me from spending money but there's a large group who don't consider these things and will happily pay ridiculous sums for cosmetics, which keeps the trend alive.

The Finals has been an interesting release - plenty pricey cosmetics but the developers are responsive, they have a good feature set for an early release, and the infrastructure has been stable.

 

[Felon]

How can someone get good if they are playing against a cheater who using software to help them get good?

The psychology of cheaters is weird, there's often a lot of denial.

Often a player will end up being in a lower skill group than their friends (who they want to play with) - but they can't because the matchmaker won't put them in the same game together - think CSGO where friend 1 (silver 2 player) and friend 2 (LE) want to play in the same game in comp.

They can't, the matchmaker shouldn't and won't ever put them into the same game, so often - the lower skill player will use cheats in solo-queue to try and boost their MMR (match making rating) with the hope that once they get to the right level (the same as their friend), they'll turn the cheats off. (because in their mind, the system has failed them and they're not really a Silver II player, they're actually a global-elite, the system has unfairly penalised them by giving them a low MMR and placing them with the scrubs)

Then to add to that - there are people who do this for a living, take an account with a low MMR - login to it, and boost it to a high MMR by stomping games.

 

[StrongSad]

One of the issues is programs like Razer Synapse that include macro mapping as part of the package but also K&M settings.

So if you were to start banning players for using specific programs, then you would be banning players using "legit" manufacturer software.
I use Synapse and Macros in GTAO, however, I never play with randoms.

 

[Felon]

So if you were to start banning players for using specific programs, then you would be banning players using "legit" manufacturer software.
I use Synapse and Macros in GTAO, however, I never play with randoms.

I think the argument, is that if you make a skill based FPS game, or an eSports title - it needs to be the natural reflexes of the player, vs the natural reflexes of another player - nobody buys tickets to watch a robot play the piano.

It's quite easy to detect if people are using scripts based on their behaviour - it's just down to how much it matters to the people making the game, EA likely aren't going to give a ****, but Valve, Riot or Blizzard absolutely are, because their core business is putting on huge shows (eSports tournaments) for huge audiences.

 

[Rroff]

Yes - to a well designed system, they’ll still look like a real player and not a cheater.

It’s almost always the case, that somebody who is cheating plays completely differently to someone who has legit mastered the game, and it’s easy to detect, using data.

(Which is why it’s such a successful anti-cheat method)

I've seen some very clever attempts at it but I've never seen one which doesn't produce, for my liking, an unacceptable amount of false positives. For example there is a distinct difference between the way most legit players micro-refine their aim using small amounts of movement changes and the way even very clever smooth aimbots work which has a detectable pattern disconnect between aiming and moving, but then a tiny number of players legit fall within where you can't distinguish the difference. Sure it can flag up suspicious players with a high degree of accuracy but "almost always" IMO isn't good enough.

 

[Felon]

I've seen some very clever attempts at it but I've never seen one which doesn't produce, for my liking, an unacceptable amount of false positives. For example there is a distinct difference between the way most legit players micro-refine their aim using small amounts of movement changes and the way even very clever smooth aimbots work which has a detectable pattern disconnect between aiming and moving, but then a tiny number of players legit fall within where you can't distinguish the difference. Sure it can flag up suspicious players with a high degree of accuracy but "almost always" IMO isn't good enough.

Nah, it's been done - it just needs a company with a strategy that wants to actually solve the problem and is willing to pay for it, and this problem has mostly been solved in the games where it matters.

The type of super-careful cheater you describe is also like 1% of all cheaters, when I used to play CS comp, I used to do the Overwatch system - where I'd get cases to review where you get a demo of a suspect cheater, and it was a complete waste of my time - because 95% of them were blatant spinbots and people stood aiming at walls, having a human being review those was stupid - give that job to a machine:

 

[~>Dg<~]

Nah, it's been done - it just needs a company with a strategy that wants to actually solve the problem and is willing to pay for it, and this problem has mostly been solved in the games where it matters.

The type of super-careful cheater you describe is also like 1% of all cheaters, when I used to play CS comp, I used to do the Overwatch system - where I'd get cases to review where you get a demo of a suspect cheater, and it was a complete waste of my time - because 95% of them were blatant spinbots and people stood aiming at walls, having a human being review those was stupid - give that job to a machine:

the main reason you wont see companies fully go after cheats is money and business. first you got a customer who you ban = less generated income cheating or not. 2nd you got anticheat upkeep. as soon as you ban people its updated so you constantly have to add influx of cash to keep up. which obviously companies work on profit which is why its normally always been farmed out to third party anticheat .

big companies could stop most of the cheats they wont though. as it = loss of money business. so it wont happen. period.

big companies log all the data apex battlefield cod all know what you doing shooting.its logged. its easy to see who cheats who doesnt. algorithms will show percentages of what you do and its not hard to see. they just wont ban you. its getting worse as this is spreading amongst games to be able to cheat as people want more money earned. so why ban a cheater when he adds cash to the pot.

 

[Rroff]

Nah, it's been done - it just needs a company with a strategy that wants to actually solve the problem and is willing to pay for it, and this problem has mostly been solved in the games where it matters.

The type of super-careful cheater you describe is also like 1% of all cheaters, when I used to play CS comp, I used to do the Overwatch system - where I'd get cases to review where you get a demo of a suspect cheater, and it was a complete waste of my time - because 95% of them were blatant spinbots and people stood aiming at walls, having a human being review those was stupid - give that job to a machine:

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying a bit especially the last bit. I was saying that stats could be used with a high degree of accuracy to sample for certain things even to the extent where people are being super-careful - but that doing that via stat analysis is far from, IMO, capable of not producing an unacceptable level of false positives. Sure you can almost 100% catch that way people who are blatantly using insta-head snapping, following people precisely through walls, etc. kind of cheats but there are a large number of people who are somewhere in between - especially the almost passive use of ESP - there are a lot of people, more than many will probably think, who do their own aiming and shooting but rely on the edge of ESP.

I've seen it so many times over the years where people have developed very clever software approaches to it and declared it done and it hasn't held up under sufficiently extensive real-world testing - though these tools can be incredibly useful and necessary in flagging up potential cheaters.

Reminds me of a problem I had with Battle Field 4 - for some reason I always had some kind of "netcode" issues with that game, except with the Glock 18 which for some reason had perfect (normal) registry - never ever figured out what the **** was wrong, but it made for interesting results on the site which analysed players stats and flagged up my Glock 18 stats as possibly cheating :s

 

[Felon]

first you got a customer who you ban = less generated income cheating or not.

The opposite is true.

People cheating on the platform, results in less generated income - because cheaters trash games, large numbers of people disconnect and they ultimately lose confidence and even move to another game. Valve, Riot and Blizzard know this - which is why they've invested insane amounts of real money into stopping cheaters, and have ended up successfully stopping cheaters for the most part, in the games where it's really needed. (competitive FPS an MOBA)

This happened with PUBG early on, it had a cheating epidemic and it almost killed the game.

I was saying that stats could be used with a high degree of accuracy to sample for certain things even to the extent where people are being super-careful - but that doing that via stat analysis is far from, IMO, capable of not producing an unacceptable level of false positives.

It works fine for the most part - it's impossible to build a perfect system, especially with the numbers of players involved (tens of millions) but a system that works very well, will always be fairer overall and result in a better player experience for everyone.

 

[Rroff]

the main reason you wont see companies fully go after cheats is money and business. first you got a customer who you ban = less generated income cheating or not. 2nd you got anticheat upkeep. as soon as you ban people its updated so you constantly have to add influx of cash to keep up. which obviously companies work on profit which is why its normally always been farmed out to third party anticheat .

big companies could stop most of the cheats they wont though. as it = loss of money business. so it wont happen. period.

big companies log all the data apex battlefield cod all know what you doing shooting.its logged. its easy to see who cheats who doesnt. algorithms will show percentages of what you do and its not hard to see. they just wont ban you. its getting worse as this is spreading amongst games to be able to cheat as people want more money earned. so why ban a cheater when he adds cash to the pot.

As Screeeech mentioned earlier shadow banning is much more effective in terms of resources and PR, etc. than outright bans, though not without cost itself. Also why a lot of companies would do intermittent ban waves rather than real-time bans, except for long standing known cheats.

Community run servers though actually don't have to be that expensive if done right (for some reason the big companies can't seem to get it right) many collectives of players will happily fund their own instances, and the admins given the tools to identify likely cheaters, sure there will be some mad power trip admins, etc. but overall it works out far better for producing areas of a game people can go with a low chance of encountering disruptive players. EDIT: One aspect I think companies don't like there is it makes it harder to shift players on to their newer IP by stick when the community can provide new and compelling experiences to their older game, rather than using it an an opportunity and actually making compelling newer IP which players would jump onto :s

 

[hyperseven]

New monitors with AI 'radar' for enemy detection

MSI's AI-powered gaming monitor helps you cheat at 'League of Legends,' looks great doing it

MSI's MEG 321URX QD-OLED uses built-in AI to flag enemy positions for you.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[~>Dg<~]

The opposite is true.

People cheating on the platform, results in less generated income - because cheaters trash games, large numbers of people disconnect and they ultimately lose confidence and even move to another game. Valve, Riot and Blizzard know this - which is why they've invested insane amounts of real money into stopping cheaters, and have ended up successfully stopping cheaters for the most part, in the games where it's really needed. (competitive FPS an MOBA)

This happened with PUBG early on, it had a cheating epidemic and it almost killed the game.



It works fine for the most part - it's impossible to build a perfect system, especially with the numbers of players involved (tens of millions) but a system that works very well, will always be fairer overall and result in a better player experience for everyone.

no it doesnt really. can give loads of eg to. cod battlefield whatever fps has been roughly the same amount of cheaters for past 20 years ! 10 - 15 percent of the player base. pubg is also a prime eg of how it doesnt matter how many cheats. in one month they banned 1 million players. the game has generated billions. apex is a joke for anticheat but people as said still will play regardless. people just generally swallow it not quit. why ? because what else are you going to play ? nothing ? no so you continue to play even though knowing that cheating is mainly just not looked as as important.

you mentioned pubg early on so i mentioned the 1 million players banned in 1 month. last month 100000 players were banned in pubg. a 6th of the player base. it doesnt change. the companies could change it but they wont. its all to do with money simple.

 

[Kyo]

Why there's aim assist in games (on PC at least) when using a pad v m+k is beyond me.

All about lowering the skill level so everyone can feel like their amazing :/

Equivalent to participation trophies.

That's the sad reality, all these kids and jocks particularly in NA actually believe its their own skill when AA overrides their stick half the time and pulls for them in the right direction. Its sad af and Respawn has normalised it. Their justification is to make it fair for those that not in Controller? Why cant all PC players be forced to use mnk and leave rollers to console then? there no need to narrow the skill gap just because someone isnt good enough or too lazy to improve mnk and like all things abuse AA which in its current state is absolutely broken to a point most if not all of the best mnk has made a switch (Imperialhal). Why make an artificial medium that destroys the skill ceiling and makes a mockery for competitive integrity?

Simple answer - Respawn / EA dont give a toss, all they care about is keeping it popular and making money. Even if it has to appease the masses to maintain cash flow. Money to be made for them and the cheaters/hackers.