FOLLOW UP ON ANTI-CHEAT

Elvis · Post by **Elvis** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:06 am

clown, is it too hard for you to post a normal reply?

There has been stated several times that there can be exceptions? how hard is it too understand this?

Post by **Clown** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:08 am

It's easy. Don't tell people to download pirated material here and I won't ban you. I only posted in the .pt forum because I was bored, so don't give me that shit about only turning up here because I couldn't 'make my ideas stand' there. I posted what I thought and left the thread to be, only for you to try and blame my computer for it not working.

Post by **Clown** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:10 am

Exceptions won't stop people turning their noses down at you because you can't get it working. People like Wraith will probably just say you're lying or blame an antivirus or something.

Just for clarity, I voted number 2.

Post by **dudemcpek** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:10 am

NRGizeR wrote:
AssKick3r wrote:Would you spend so much more time on making a linux vesion so that minority can use ac too? It's way easier and less time wasting to make a command for exceptions
I find this kind of funny actually; how you first argue that everyone has to use it, that it needs to be forced everywhere, and then in the next sentence, state that it doesn't really need to work for everyone... Doesn't anyone else see the problem with that reasoning?

I didn't say everyone should use it. Everyone who CAN use it, definately should, those with problems, different OS than windowns, should appeal for an exception. You've played the game since the beginning and have never cheated, why would it be so hard to ask for an exception then?
And hey, if cheaters are up for going through so much hussle just to cheat, let them have it. I rather see that happening than not having anticheat at all and simply let it be anyone's choice to cheat or not.

Wr4i7h · Post by **Wr4i7h** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:14 am

It's YOUR computer. Of course I blame you for not knowing how to use it. Oh, and to hell with this. I was ok with removing the link, but I don't appreciate having the meaning of my posts changed. This is my last post outside the PT forum because you can't have a rational debate here.

Post by **Clown** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:16 am

Tell people to download warez in the .pt forum and I'll ban you there too. Rational debate? I debate that you're a retard if you can't see why I changed your post.
You can blame me for not knowing how to work my computer, but R1CH had a go at working it too and you would have thought that he certainly knows his way around a PC.

Elvis · Post by **Elvis** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:17 am

CAN WE PLEASE STOP THIS PERSONAL ARGUMENT.

I am still waiting for nrgizers response since he came with the arguments.

and for clown

'Exceptions won't stop people turning their noses down at you because you can't get it working. '

it's so damn easy to put that one dll in your dir, I can hardly believe someone is incapable of getting that to work, and therefor find it an invalid argument.

Post by **Clown** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:20 am

I put the .dll in the right directory and it stops my client from even loading. I'm not going to go through the whole problem here since I spent the last few hours of my AQ2 life trying to fix this anticheat problem.
If this counts as an invalid argument then I guess I'm not getting an exception eh?

Let me just say that I'm not the only one with the problem. Some bloke on IRC had the same too.

Elvis · Post by **Elvis** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:24 am

well, no-one is gonna be able to help you set it up if you don't ask.

Maybe explain what it does a bit better and people might actually give you comments how to fix this.

Post by **Clown** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:27 am

Not now. I'm at work. I've already gone through this with the person who actually coded the .dll though. Is that not good enough?

NRGizeR · Post by **NRGizeR** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:29 am

Elvis wrote:so basically what you're saying nrgizer.

Since anticheat isn't 100% waterproof with the exceptions, we shouldn't be using anticheat at all, and just use nothing at all?

Isn't this a bit of a weird reasoning?

It's like saying....a plane doesn't need backup systems, because these also can fail. So we don't put up any backup systems at all, even though they stop 99% of the failures.

I would like to see your explanation why NOT using it at all, is better then using it with exceptions.

No, what I'm saying is that, in my professional opinion, a system that has several unsolved problems as big as these ones, and that allows for people to cicumvent it shouldn't be forced on 100% of the population. You shouldn't sacrifice honest players for this cause.

To use your aeronautical analogy it's more like not letting some people on the plane just because they cannot prove they don't bring bombs, because they aren't allowed to use the x-ray machine. This while others may just walk past the x-ray machine onto the plane carrying whatever just because a guy with the airline said so.

AssKick3r wrote:You've played the game since the beginning and have never cheated, why would it be so hard to ask for an exception then?
And hey, if cheaters are up for going through so much hussle just to cheat, let them have it. I rather see that happening than not having anticheat at all and simply let it be anyone's choice to cheat or not.

It's not hard, point being that if I can ask for it, so can the cheaters. Old or new ones. This is why "Exceptions are baaaad, mkay?".

Wr4i7h wrote:NRG, do a reality check... piracy IS a viable option, there's no point in denying that. And i didn't say "change your OS". I meant something like "dualboot until the AC is on all major OSes" or perhaps "use your Windows box for games".

You mean to tell me that you can just stand there saying: "if this doesn't work for you, then steal software and use that?".... Please note that I put great effort into this reply just to resist the urge to call you names... Because it really was hard to avoid.

Post by **Clown** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:33 am

Please note that basically what Mister GizeR is saying, is that he's a cheat and should stick to making beautiful trees in maps.

Elvis · Post by **Elvis** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:39 am

NRGizeR wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that, in my professional opinion, a system that has several unsolved problems as big as these ones, and that allows for people to cicumvent it shouldn't be forced on 100% of the population. You shouldn't sacrifice honest players for this cause.

I don't see how we're sacrificing anyone? they can try to setup anticheat, and if it's really not working or they have other problems why they can't run it, they can ask for an exception.

And I get your point that cheaters can also apply for exceptions and that they can fake it very well...but still I think this is better then nothing at all..

To use your aeronautical analogy it's more like not letting some people on the plane just because they cannot prove they don't bring bombs, because they aren't allowed to use the x-ray machine. This while others may just walk past the x-ray machine onto the plane carrying whatever just because a guy with the airline said so.

So to stick with your example?

You suggest letting everyone aboard a plane without x-raying anyone at all.

NRGizeR · Post by **NRGizeR** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:39 am

Clown wrote:Please note that basically what Mister GizeR is saying, is that he's a cheat and should stick to making beautiful trees in maps.

Yes, that's me, or at least that's what I bet I'll hear when I stand in the same line where all the cheaters have been forced to go...

Because this is what this system will accomplish (afaik) atm, you get perhaps 95% of players that you will "know" are clean, up to the point in time where AC gets hacked. Then you have 3% that are honest players, but for one reason or the other can't use AC. These are bunched together with the last 2%, the cheaters, and as such, these honest players will also be taken as cheaters.

I seriously doubt that you would be able to prevent cheating this way, maybe reduce it somewhat, but my bet would be that it wouldn't be reduced by much.

NRGizeR · Post by **NRGizeR** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:41 am

Elvis wrote:
To use your aeronautical analogy it's more like not letting some people on the plane just because they cannot prove they don't bring bombs, because they aren't allowed to use the x-ray machine. This while others may just walk past the x-ray machine onto the plane carrying whatever just because a guy with the airline said so.
So to stick with your example?

You suggest letting everyone aboard a plane without x-raying anyone at all.

Well think of it like this: If you're going to let everyone go on the plane one way or another anyway, what's the point of having an x-ray machine, and make people go through all that hassle in the first place?

That is, if this module doesn't do what it's supposed to do (keep cheaters away), what's the point in forcing it to only make it harder for regular users?

This is the thing I don't get.