General Discussion

[corbin]

Just wanted to confirm this. I heard the anti-cheat (DT2) isn't going to happen.

[Krash]

Just wanted to deny this.  We have a new server-enforceable anti-cheat framework slated for release with the core RC4 version of the patch, and have basic protection against HM2's modifications on the clientside as of RC2. 

But, yeah... DT2 isn't going to happen (as far as I know).

[Kryand]

What's RC3 going to have?

[Sexy Aphrodite]

bring it!!! 


but why?? no one cheats on tribes..

[Blakhart]

DT has been abandoned by its author for years, and those who are trying to revise dt are pretty much the same folks who cracked dt in the first place. I expect the anticheat in tn will be much more effective than dt ever was.

[Thyth]

The people smart enough to crack DT are smart enough to crack anything I can write.

[Waldred]

Either way, some sort of protection can't hurt.  If people want to put time in to crack it, that's their prerogative.  At least some people will be deterred from cheating.

[Blakhart]

then why bother?

[Waldred]

As I stated in my post, it will most likely deter some people from cheating.  Some is better than none isn't it?

[Thyth]

It's worth bothering because most of the "31337 hax0rs" are really children who happened to find a copy of HM2 on the Internet, and think they are awesome because they can double click. A handful of people try to use modified versions of HM2 as well, because they're insufficiently creative to come up with their own hacks.

Anything that can be built can be broken. Deciphering the T2 and/or DT internals with a disassembler requires a skill set that is rare these days, even among college CS graduates. Even a basic system is enough to stop 99% of hacks like that.

[Blakhart]

The way to stop the worst of the cheats is to prevent the data the cheats need that is normaly occluded from the client, from getting to the cheating client. If they don't have the data, they can't cheat, and nothing clientside will change that. Unhackable. Is there anything being done in this direction?

There's a guy who runs a t1 server who has written a serverside anticheat dll along these lines, it keeps the data from the client untill the client actually needs it as determined by the server. He is constantly updating it, looking to make it work transparently to the clients. For example, you can be standing almost right next to an enemy and not see him unless you're looking directly at him. They appear to spawn out of the ground when your view moves over them, and you have to be within a certain range.

[om]

blakhart, that sounds more like packet loss to me!

[Blakhart]

nope, real deal