BF3: Confessions of a hacker...

[akahoovy]

Why doesn't Dice/PB do what this guy did to find hackers?

It's a money-mill, man. They have to get the next product ready and out the door.

 

[Arsinek]

The best way to combat hackers is on private servers with active admins...

AND...

Games need to have replay kill cams through the perspective of the person who got the kill and not "what the player is doing after they kill you via 3rd person" kill cam.

 

[ViviTheMage]

I love it when people call me hackers, hell, I love it when I get banned for being hacker ... because I do not hack..they just feed my ego.

 

[Remobz]

I love it when people call me hackers, hell, I love it when I get banned for being hacker ... because I do not hack..they just feed my ego.

So that is your story eh?







Joking

 

[Destiny]

I played a round yesterday and saw a guy going at 20-0 running around. I feel like I am pretty good at the game and on a good game get about a 2-1.3/1 k/d ratio. It seems like they should just enforce something like if the k/d ratio is too high and bullets fired is really low they should investigate that player or something.

Kindof makes me wonder is this is part of the reason EA will let you buy the guns pack. Seems like a better solution to hacking and if they are doing it just to unlock the better equipment.

** A noob with a gun pack is just an overconfident AFK in my opinion**

I go 20-0 or better plenty... heck somone on Anandtech (spanda I think) went 52-1 before I logged into the server and shot him out of the sky... :biggrin:

 

[zerogear]

I think not doing any drastic measures against hackers (like lawsuits) is actually a financial decision, because when you get banned, a lot of those people buy additional copies to play the game with the hack again. (Additional sales)

 

[Markbnj]

I think not doing any drastic measures against hackers (like lawsuits) is actually a financial decision, because when you get banned, a lot of those people buy additional copies to play the game with the hack again. (Additional sales)

That argument is advanced for every single game in which cheating occurs, but I don't buy it. I don't think any legitimate game developer would take the chance of pissing off their entire non-cheating player base, and I also don't think they could keep it a secret. Most developers are also players, and I don't think most of them are cheaters.

 

[Regs]

Nothing I all ready didnt know. As far as it being undetectable, I call BS. The anti cheats scan active memory so they know when the game has been altered. Most of these guys end up spending money or finding new CD keys to keep playing. This "confession" sounds more like an advertisement . go on youtube and you can see how many "undetectable" hacks there. What a crock.

 

[LurkerPrime]

I haven't played a traditional FPS in probably a few years due to hacks (BF2, CSS mostly). Its just not fun to get headshotted from across a map consistently. I get my FPS like fix from World of Tanks now. I haven't noticed any hackers in WoT. Probably b/c its not as popular as the AAA FPS titles, and also b/c an aim hack would only give you a very slight advantage in this game compared to traditional FPS where you can instantly 1 shot headshot someone.

 

[alent1234]

I'll never understand hackers, unless there's money behind it (and note that I'm saying understand, no agreeing). I do know that some hackers "hack" (creators/authors of hacks I mean, not the users per se) because they are actually PAID to hack 'x' software or game, so they do it since there's money to be had if they do it, not because they actually "like to do it just because they can".

Although some do it just because they can and those are the ones I don't understand. I especially don't get why someone would BUY a game legitimately only to use a hack later in its multi-player mode. If you want to or care to "hack" or cheat in off-line games or modes, go ahead, no one gives a damn... but why in multi-player? Is it really ONLY because they would really, really suck otherwise? For all we know, the people using hacks (not the ones creating them, I'm talking about the ones USING them) might actually be good legitimate players if they cared to try playing legitimately.

Anyway, I'll never get the whole scheme of things regarding hacks and cheating in on-line games. The whole mentality behind it is beyond me. I can "understand" the reasoning behind... say... cracking something like Windows because you're too poor to buy it. I don't agree with it, but I understand the reason behind it (money). But I just can't understand the reason(s) behind going on-line in a game and holding a 100% perfect aim on some random Joe's toon's head to get 1-hit kills all the time only to get bored of it after 'x' time. What do someone get FROM doing that? Do they save money? Time? Is it really JUST for virtual "pride"? I just don't get it.

If there's ANY "advantage" coming from that specific case that the guy talks about in that post, is that he himself used the hack to specifically kill another hacker (not at first as he said but eventually he went full hunting mode on that other hacker). Now if all hackers could only kill other hackers on-line we might be on to something. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if a hacker would KNOWN that I'm not hacking and would therefor AVOID me exactly because I'm legitimate. That would mean that hackers would start developing a certain sense of honor out of their misery. I think I'm starting have delusions now.

basement dwellers who want to be noticed

 

[walkur]

I think Wot manages more of the work on the server thus making it harder to make effective cheats for it (and it already has an autoaim function built in)

 

[thespyder]

I think not doing any drastic measures against hackers (like lawsuits) is actually a financial decision, because when you get banned, a lot of those people buy additional copies to play the game with the hack again. (Additional sales)

Probably correct assumption (it is all financial) but wrong reason. Bringing legal action against a hacker costs money. And it gives bad press. And, depending on where the hack came from and where the consumer (player) is located, it could cost a LOT of money. The publishers are all about getting the most money they can out of the transaction. So tracking down individual infringers isn't very cost efficient.

Sure there are the roadside accident gawkers who will think 'Hey, that's cool' and want to find and install the hack as well, but it is probably not anywhere near as big a market as you might think.

 

[Silverforce11]

Hacking in online games, been around since online games started, nothing new. A lot of people are surprised to know how frequently it occurs, don't be. It in fact is the "norm". The truly good hackers have always made their actions undetectable and not "sus" ie suspicious.

I stop caring about stats in FPS and just have fun. There's always a few in a server thats "sus" but meh.. can't be perfect when its a no subscription game.

 

[QuantumPion]

Hacking in online games, been around since online games started, nothing new. A lot of people are surprised to know how frequently it occurs, don't be. It in fact is the "norm". The truly good hackers have always made their actions undetectable and not "sus" ie suspicious.

I stop caring about stats in FPS and just have fun. There's always a few in a server thats "sus" but meh.. can't be perfect when its a no subscription game.

As I said before, there is no way to distinguish between a good player and a mediocre player using non-suspicious cheats such as map/radar hacks. 99% of cheater accusations are just whining about losing to someone better. If someone cheats enough to give them a substantial advantage over their skill level, it will be blatantly obvious to anyone with experience in FPS's.

As far as aimbotting goes, I've only seen it once or twice and I have about 200 hours played so far. The blogger's claim that there are multiple aimbotters in every server is I believe false - my guess is either the aimbot program was not working right or the guy was misinterpreting what that aim percentage stat was actually indicating.

 

[Arsinek]

As I said before, there is no way to distinguish between a good player and a mediocre player using non-suspicious cheats such as map/radar hacks. 99% of cheater accusations are just whining about losing to someone better. If someone cheats enough to give them a substantial advantage over their skill level, it will be blatantly obvious to anyone with experience in FPS's.

As far as aimbotting goes, I've only seen it once or twice and I have about 200 hours played so far. The blogger's claim that there are multiple aimbotters in every server is I believe false - my guess is either the aimbot program was not working right or the guy was misinterpreting what that aim percentage stat was actually indicating.

I used to see aimbotters in COD all the time. Which is why I say you need the replay through killers perspective kill cam. You can see the cross hair snapping all over the place. One thing COD does right is their kill cam.

 

[Anonemous]

I used to see aimbotters in COD all the time. Which is why I say you need the replay through killers perspective kill cam. You can see the cross hair snapping all over the place. One thing COD does right is their kill cam.

So the aim botters just program smooth sweeping motions and also add in some programming to miss the first few shots.

 

[Anonemous]

http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2012/04/02/extravagant-cheating-via-direct-x/

 

[DeadFred]

I used to see aimbotters in COD all the time. Which is why I say you need the replay through killers perspective kill cam. You can see the cross hair snapping all over the place. One thing COD does right is their kill cam.

Aimbots can be tweaked to avoid consistent headshots and even have random misses thus avoiding the tell tell "snap". I agree that CoD's killcam is tops and can definitely tip you off to bots and wallhacks. If nothing else DICE needs to implement a spectator mode for admins.

Ive played with a few that always and I mean ALWAYS know exactly where everyone is and you cannot sneak up on them EVER! Those radar hacks annoy me more so than the aimbotters, because if they are used judiciously they are impossible to prove.

 

[Markbnj]

http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2012/04/02/extravagant-cheating-via-direct-x/

Great article. Thanks for the link.

 

[Anonemous]

From the article I posted:

Flagrant aimbots can instantly snap from enemy to enemy. To avoid trivial detection the simulated input can be smoothed over time. Even more realistic aimbots overshoot the target intentionally before narrowing in. Other variations don’t move the crosshairs but do auto-fire when they are over an enemy target.

 

[Anonemous]

And as aluded to in the OP:

André Braun
Collapse
I don't think Warden does a better job than PunkBuster, I think PunkBuster just has worse enemies. I might be wrong as I don't know much about Warden, so feel free to correct me.

Some time ago cheaters either wrote their own cheat and kept it secret to stay undetected as long as possible, or they could try some publicly available cheat and get detected very quickly. But nowadays there is a commercial cheat scene, which sells cheats to subscribers who pay a monthly fee for their cheat. The cheat has a permanent online connection. As soon as ANY connected cheat client detects that PunkBuster is updated, ALL cheat clients are disabled until the cheat programmer has investigated the PB update and adapted the cheat to stay undetected.

This is what makes detecting cheats so hard today. The problem isn't any more: How can I detect the cheat process - the problem is: How do I get the detection routine to the client without the cheat noticing that and deactivating itself before it can be detected?

Unfortunately there seems to be no way to attack these parasites legally. Blizzard once sued a bot programmer successfully, but IIRC that was only possible because the bot included parts of the WoW program code. A well written cheat for a modern shooter doesn't need to do that. Still I think publishers should invest more time and money into this fight, I think if there would be a will, there might be a way...

 

[PingSpike]

In the first place, this scenario would be HIDEOUSLY labor intensive and simply unmanageable, not to mention prohibitively expensive to implement. You can bet your horse that they would pass that cost on to the consumer.

In the second place, there are lots more reasons to want anonymity than the desire to cheat or steal. I choose to remain anonymous for the very simple reason that I don't want the production companies to then take my information and use it to further market me.

And finally, people would absolutely balk about any process that slowed down delivery (i.e. having to "Prove" identity) prior to use. Considering how easy it is to get false credentials today, the process would have to be significant and thorough and not quick. Consumers wouldn't stand for it.

Not to mention that this would very probably go against privacy laws.

Yeah, I've never cheated in an online game and I wouldn't buy that game. I play games to relax, if there was even the tiniest possibility that I could be accidentally sued due to incompetence of your average game company I would opt out myself and ban anyone from playing that game in my house. Its a $60 game, not a heart transplant. Plus I don't think hacking is a big enough problem for such extreme measures. Regardless, it wouldn't be worth the cost, horrible publicity and sales failure for any company to do that.

 

[PingSpike]

So the aim botters just program smooth sweeping motions and also add in some programming to miss the first few shots.

LOL, well who cares then? At that point you're just playing with a crappy AI player. That's still fun enough.

 

[PingSpike]

This is what makes detecting cheats so hard today. The problem isn't any more: How can I detect the cheat process - the problem is: How do I get the detection routine to the client without the cheat noticing that and deactivating itself before it can be detected?

I thought Valve's answer to this was to delay the ban response by some random amount of time rather than making it instant which robs the developers of the feedback necessary.

I think they still use a signature based system but one dude with a subscription to the hack on valve's payroll should be able to get them zero day access to that.

 

[Anonemous]

LOL, well who cares then? At that point you're just playing with a crappy AI player. That's still fun enough.

LOL, are you serious?