4 ms·

Detecting superphysiological maneuvers is probably a trivial way to do this, for certain gameplay scenarios. There's established limits on reaction time, for ex

Detecting superphysiological maneuvers is probably a trivial way to do this, for certain gameplay scenarios. There's established limits on reaction time, for example, it's just a matter of differentiating between reaction and preemption which converge at the highest echelons.

ramranch 4y ago
Since it's trivial, I look forward to your proof-of-concept in the near future
- dylan604 4y ago
  they left themself an out with "probably"
- meltyness 4y ago
  You're walking a thin line tempting me with a good time like that.
viraptor 4y ago
There are limits on the reaction time, but you can own all humans by consistently hitting close to that limit and achieving useful things when you do. Adding a bit of delay to all bots would not make them useless.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
Cheating is a lot more sophisticated than the simple aimbots you're thinking of. A lot of cheats focus on giving the player extra information. In the context of big money online tournaments this motivates some pretty extreme behavior, like folks running a PCI card set up to access memory directly and find the game state for player positions, then indicate that to the player somehow. This defeats even kernel level anti-cheat.
- lwansbrough 4y ago
  Well supposedly Riot’s server side interest management was supposed to solve this, perhaps by ray casting to the subjects’ bounding box. But I’m aware that wall hacks do get made for Valorant so it would appear that’s not the case. Which is understandable given the difficulty of juggling peeker’s advantage.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > A lot of cheats focus on giving the player extra information. Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? The server should track players and only push the information each player should have to that player's client. No need to hand every player the locations of other players when they're across the map and behind several walls. Even with no extra data at all, at a certain point they're going to run into the analog hole. Cheaters will be able to point a camera at their screen and have it connected to their mouse/keyboard (real or not) so they can send inputs with speeds beyond what a human is capable of. Maybe it's not feasible to stop every cheater on Earth and the whole concept is incurably broken. There's always the option of letting people host their own servers to play with friends and other people they trust to play the game fairly. It's a hell of a lot more fun to play with people you know anyway. Tournaments can be done in person on dedicated trusted hardware under direct observation.
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    > Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? Performance reasons, usually. Easier to draw an enemy on the screen (and figure out occlusion, etc) than have the enemy pop in from nowhere due to lag. Also prevents lag (or netspeed in the UT days) hacking (used to be a thing, not anymore).
  - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
    > Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? Because FPS games don't run in lockstep. They run in server ticks, which the client interpolates or even extrapolates with prediction for smoothness. This means the server has to send player positions a bit earlier than they would be visible via strict occlusion culling. If you tried to run FPS in lockstep it's atrocious. This is literally why John Carmack originally implemented client side prediction for QuakeWorld. Do you think he was just too stupid to do the obvious simple correct thing? Or maybe the problem is actually a bit more complicated? Again, hnews is anchoring on aimbots when that's by far the least interesting way to cheat.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > Do you think he was just too stupid to do the obvious simple correct thing? Or maybe the problem is actually a bit more complicated? No, but both hardware and software have changed dramatically since the 1990s. We even have cloud gaming services that run games remotely with very little being done on local hardware. They do currently over-promise when it comes to performance, but it's not unthinkable that we're at (or soon will be at) a point where games don't have to depend as much on the random PC at the player's end of the connection even though that's the way things have always been done.
adql 4y ago
Right and how exactly that detects maphacks, wallhacks and a bunch of other non-input related ones ?
- meltyness 4y ago
  That wouldn't need to be detected based on the architecture in use. - Server-side actor occlusion. - Server-side physics with client-side prediction that's been in use since 1996.

ramranch 4y ago

Since it's trivial, I look forward to your proof-of-concept in the near future

dylan604 4y ago
they left themself an out with "probably"
meltyness 4y ago
You're walking a thin line tempting me with a good time like that.

viraptor 4y ago

There are limits on the reaction time, but you can own all humans by consistently hitting close to that limit and achieving useful things when you do. Adding a bit of delay to all bots would not make them useless.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

Cheating is a lot more sophisticated than the simple aimbots you're thinking of. A lot of cheats focus on giving the player extra information. In the context of big money online tournaments this motivates some pretty extreme behavior, like folks running a PCI card set up to access memory directly and find the game state for player positions, then indicate that to the player somehow. This defeats even kernel level anti-cheat.

lwansbrough 4y ago
Well supposedly Riot’s server side interest management was supposed to solve this, perhaps by ray casting to the subjects’ bounding box. But I’m aware that wall hacks do get made for Valorant so it would appear that’s not the case. Which is understandable given the difficulty of juggling peeker’s advantage.
autoexec 4y ago
> A lot of cheats focus on giving the player extra information. Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? The server should track players and only push the information each player should have to that player's client. No need to hand every player the locations of other players when they're across the map and behind several walls. Even with no extra data at all, at a certain point they're going to run into the analog hole. Cheaters will be able to point a camera at their screen and have it connected to their mouse/keyboard (real or not) so they can send inputs with speeds beyond what a human is capable of. Maybe it's not feasible to stop every cheater on Earth and the whole concept is incurably broken. There's always the option of letting people host their own servers to play with friends and other people they trust to play the game fairly. It's a hell of a lot more fun to play with people you know anyway. Tournaments can be done in person on dedicated trusted hardware under direct observation.
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  > Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? Performance reasons, usually. Easier to draw an enemy on the screen (and figure out occlusion, etc) than have the enemy pop in from nowhere due to lag. Also prevents lag (or netspeed in the UT days) hacking (used to be a thing, not anymore).
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  > Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? Because FPS games don't run in lockstep. They run in server ticks, which the client interpolates or even extrapolates with prediction for smoothness. This means the server has to send player positions a bit earlier than they would be visible via strict occlusion culling. If you tried to run FPS in lockstep it's atrocious. This is literally why John Carmack originally implemented client side prediction for QuakeWorld. Do you think he was just too stupid to do the obvious simple correct thing? Or maybe the problem is actually a bit more complicated? Again, hnews is anchoring on aimbots when that's by far the least interesting way to cheat.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > Do you think he was just too stupid to do the obvious simple correct thing? Or maybe the problem is actually a bit more complicated? No, but both hardware and software have changed dramatically since the 1990s. We even have cloud gaming services that run games remotely with very little being done on local hardware. They do currently over-promise when it comes to performance, but it's not unthinkable that we're at (or soon will be at) a point where games don't have to depend as much on the random PC at the player's end of the connection even though that's the way things have always been done.

adql 4y ago

Right and how exactly that detects maphacks, wallhacks and a bunch of other non-input related ones ?

meltyness 4y ago
That wouldn't need to be detected based on the architecture in use. - Server-side actor occlusion. - Server-side physics with client-side prediction that's been in use since 1996.