AimIsADickJust another reason why F/OSS games are superior to closed-source proprietary games.
TF2 isn't open source.
Anyway this plugin works flawlessly and the source and plugin should come soon enough, for now here's a taste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-xzuACHzHs
Working on ways to serverside other noises too, maybe with SendProxy or SetTransmit hackery. No progress yet.
Keep in mind - this only fixes decloak atm, no other sounds, including cloak, are touched.
[quote=AimIsADick]Just another reason why [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software]F/OSS[/url] games are superior to closed-source proprietary games.[/quote]
TF2 isn't open source.
Anyway this plugin works flawlessly and the source and plugin should come soon enough, for now here's a taste:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-xzuACHzHs
[/youtube]
Working on ways to serverside other noises too, maybe with SendProxy or SetTransmit hackery. No progress yet.
Keep in mind - this only fixes decloak atm, no other sounds, including cloak, are touched.
stephAimIsADickJust another reason why F/OSS games are superior to closed-source proprietary games.
TF2 isn't open source.
Yeah I know. I didn't ever claim that [in my post].
[quote=steph][quote=AimIsADick]Just another reason why [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software]F/OSS[/url] games are superior to closed-source proprietary games.[/quote]TF2 isn't open source.[/quote]
Yeah I know. I didn't ever claim that [in my post].
AimIsADickYes but it also makes patching cheats easier.
Good one patching a client-side exploit when I can just run my own build of the game, I guess
Anti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity
You're also generalizing the contrived example of TF2 where the developers gave up on the game, us wanting access to the source is a truly desperate measure because the game is just not maintained, it does not apply to any other popular games
ElenaManetta
[ citation needed ]
[quote=AimIsADick]Yes but it also makes patching cheats easier.[/quote]
Good one patching a client-side exploit when I can just run my own build of the game, I guess
Anti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity
You're also generalizing the contrived example of TF2 where the developers gave up on the game, us wanting access to the source is a truly desperate measure because the game is just not maintained, it does not apply to any other popular games
[quote=ElenaManetta][/quote]
[ citation needed ]
[quote=twiikuu]
[ citation needed ][/quote]
https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/apps/valve/Valve_NewEmployeeHandbook.pdf
https://medium.com/@dperciv1/welcome-to-flatland-valves-unique-culture-8372e63d664e
https://medium.com/dunia-media/the-nightmare-of-valves-self-organizing-utopia-6d32d329ecdb
https://www.pcgamer.com/ex-valve-employee-describes-ruthless-industry-politics/
And if you just want a TLDR, here's a video that condenses all of those articles + the handbook:
https://youtu.be/41XgkLKYuic
I know a lot of people don't like McVicker, but it's the best video that summaries everything.
AimIsADicktwiikuuAimIsADickJust another reason why F/OSS games are superior to closed-source proprietary games.
you realize open source makes it easier to write cheats for, right?
Yes but it also makes patching cheats easier. pajarostop posting forever nobody cares about what you say
Actually I care about my posts, so technically it isn't 'nobody'.
i thought of gently telling you to leave because it's obvious you don't understand what this forum is for and why people don't like your posts but you're also kind of a dick go back to posting about porn addiction on reddit
[quote=AimIsADick][quote=twiikuu][quote=AimIsADick]Just another reason why [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software]F/OSS[/url] games are superior to closed-source proprietary games.[/quote]
you realize open source makes it easier to write cheats for, right?[/quote]
Yes but it also makes patching cheats easier.
[quote=pajaro]stop posting forever nobody cares about what you say[/quote]
Actually I care about my posts, so technically it isn't 'nobody'.[/quote]
i thought of gently telling you to leave because it's obvious you don't understand what this forum is for and why people don't like your posts but you're also kind of a dick go back to posting about porn addiction on reddit
you guys are so mean against mentally ill people, while pretending to be toleran..
you guys are so mean against mentally ill people, while pretending to be toleran..
twiikuuAnti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity
Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Also open source only really enables amateur cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.
twiikuuYou're also generalizing the contrived example of TF2 where the developers gave up on the game[, us wanting access to the source is a truly desperate measure because the game is just not maintained, it does not apply to any other popular games]
Where did I ever do this? I never said anything about 'TF2 should go FOSS because we need updates!' I just merely said 'and that's why FOSS games are superior to closed-source, proprietary games' which was half-hearted; of course FOSS isn't superior, these two philosophies are merely different exposures to the source code.
flatlinei thought of gently telling you to leave because it's obvious you don't understand what this forum is for [and why people don't like your posts]
Well this forum is for competitive 6s. mastercoms has been a regular on here and she doesn't get any hate.
flatlinebut you're also kind of a dick go back to posting about porn addiction on reddit
To elaborate I made posts asking 'what is your opinion on porn?'.
sacyou guys are so mean against mentally ill people, while pretending to be toleran..
Yeah. Hypocrites! /genuine
[quote=twiikuu]Anti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, [b]the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity[/b][/quote]
Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Also open source only really enables [i]amateur[/i] cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.
[quote=twiikuu]You're also generalizing the contrived example of TF2 where the developers gave up on the game[, us wanting access to the source is a truly desperate measure because the game is just not maintained, it does not apply to any other popular games][/quote]
Where did I ever do this? I never said anything about 'TF2 should go FOSS because we need updates!' I just merely said 'and that's why FOSS games are superior to closed-source, proprietary games' which was half-hearted; [i]of course[/i] FOSS isn't superior, these two philosophies are merely different exposures to the source code.
[quote=flatline]i thought of gently telling you to leave because it's obvious you don't understand what this forum is for [and why people don't like your posts][/quote]
Well this forum is for competitive 6s. mastercoms has been a regular on here and she doesn't get any hate.
[quote=flatline]but you're also kind of a dick go back to posting about porn addiction on reddit[/quote]
To elaborate I made posts asking 'what is your opinion on porn?'.
[quote=sac]you guys are so mean against mentally ill people, while pretending to be toleran..[/quote]
Yeah. Hypocrites! /genuine
flatlinego back to posting about porn addiction on reddit
New lore just dropped
[quote=flatline]
go back to posting about porn addiction on reddit[/quote]
New lore just dropped
AimIsADickflatlinei thought of gently telling you to leave because it's obvious you don't understand what this forum is for [and why people don't like your posts]
Well this forum is for competitive 6s. mastercoms has been a regular on here and she doesn't get any hate.
bc they arent fuckin weird about it
someone pls ban this guy its the only way he'll learn
[quote=AimIsADick]
[quote=flatline]i thought of gently telling you to leave because it's obvious you don't understand what this forum is for [and why people don't like your posts][/quote]
Well this forum is for competitive 6s. mastercoms has been a regular on here and she doesn't get any hate.
[/quote]
bc they arent fuckin weird about it
someone pls ban this guy its the only way he'll learn
flatlinebc they arent fuckin weird about it
Define 'weird' in this case. What if mastercoms was 'weird' about her posts? What would your opinion be on them in that case?
flatlinesomeone pls ban this guy its the only way he'll learn
I'd just make another account anyway.
[quote=flatline]bc they arent fuckin weird about it[/quote]
Define 'weird' in this case. What if mastercoms was 'weird' about her posts? What would your opinion be on them in that case?
[quote=flatline]someone pls ban this guy its the only way he'll learn[/quote]
I'd just make another account anyway.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/q5DUlN6.png[/img]
aimisadick reply to this post
aimisadick reply to this post
flatlinehttps://i.imgur.com/q5DUlN6.png
(Red herring) answer my arguments!
Also that was before I did proper research on porn. As it turns out a lot of studies on the effects of porn only target a specific demographic (heterosexual, male, female) and have low sample sizes (usually ≤300).
[quote=flatline][img]https://i.imgur.com/q5DUlN6.png[/img][/quote]
[b](Red herring) answer my arguments![/b]
Also that was before I did proper research on porn. As it turns out a lot of studies on the effects of porn only target a specific demographic (heterosexual, male, female) and have low sample sizes (usually ≤300).
AimIsADicktwiikuuAnti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity
Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Also open source only really enables amateur cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.
Being able to see exactly how a game handles a particular thing is 100% going to make it WAY easier for every programmer that wants to make cheats. When you say that "most" cheaters "just use reverse engineered code", what you mean is that they have to reverse engineer executables because they don't have another option... because it's not open source.
Consider that you may actually be wrong once in a while.
[quote=AimIsADick][quote=twiikuu]Anti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, [b]the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity[/b][/quote]
Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Also open source only really enables [i]amateur[/i] cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.
[/quote]
Being able to see exactly how a game handles a particular thing is 100% going to make it WAY easier for every programmer that wants to make cheats. When you say that "most" cheaters "just use reverse engineered code", what you mean is that they have to reverse engineer executables because they don't have another option... because it's not open source.
Consider that you may actually be wrong once in a while.
AimIsADickThen that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Here, you attribute value that you don't define to a hypothetical anti-cheat that does not exist
To my knowledge, there are no anti-cheat solutions that do not rely on security by obscurity, there are also no open source games that manage (or even attempt) to combat cheaters via anti-cheat
Yes, in this case, it is absolutely the fault of making a game open source that makes it impossible to defend using anti-cheat solutions
AimIsADickAlso open source only really enables amateur cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.
Ignoring that you conflate cheaters and cheat makers, here you fail to understand that providing users with the 4 freedoms ascribed by the libre software movement removes guarantees that anti-cheat solutions build upon: when any player can run their own build of the game (as per freedom 1), a specific build *cannot* be established as authentic, and any anti-cheat therefore cannot compare against it to detect illegal behavior
Even if we make the assumption that you did not mean to talk about the libre software movement, giving access to the source code enables a much wider toolset when developing cheats: running static analysis, building the game and debugging it, seeing commits over time. It is simply impossible to argue that the quality of cheats would not raise sharply with that.
It's incredibly bizarre to try gatekeeping cheat making when you're clearly not in any position to talk about that at all
AimIsADickthese two philosophies are merely different exposures to the source code.
You should read the Wikipedia article you linked earlier until you understand that "libre software is when i can read the source code" is not true.
AimIsADickI just merely said 'and that's why FOSS games are superior to closed-source, proprietary games' which was half-hearted; of course FOSS isn't superior
"I was merely pretending"
Please stop posting misinformation! Thank you
[quote=AimIsADick]Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.[/quote]
Here, you attribute value that you don't define to a hypothetical anti-cheat that does not exist
To my knowledge, there are no anti-cheat solutions that do not rely on security by obscurity, there are also no open source games that manage (or even attempt) to combat cheaters via anti-cheat
Yes, in this case, it is absolutely the fault of making a game open source that makes it impossible to defend using anti-cheat solutions
[quote=AimIsADick]Also open source only really enables [i]amateur[/i] cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.[/quote]
Ignoring that you conflate cheaters and cheat makers, here you fail to understand that providing users with the 4 freedoms ascribed by the libre software movement removes guarantees that anti-cheat solutions build upon: when any player can run their own build of the game (as per freedom 1), a specific build *cannot* be established as authentic, and any anti-cheat therefore cannot compare against it to detect illegal behavior
Even if we make the assumption that you did not mean to talk about the libre software movement, giving access to the source code enables a much wider toolset when developing cheats: running static analysis, building the game and debugging it, seeing commits over time. It is simply impossible to argue that the quality of cheats would not raise sharply with that.
It's incredibly bizarre to try gatekeeping cheat making when you're clearly not in any position to talk about that at all
[quote=AimIsADick]these two philosophies are merely different exposures to the source code.[/quote]
You should read the Wikipedia article you linked earlier until you understand that "libre software is when i can read the source code" is not true.
[quote=AimIsADick]I just merely said 'and that's why FOSS games are superior to closed-source, proprietary games' which was half-hearted; of course FOSS isn't superior[/quote]
"I was merely pretending"
Please stop posting misinformation! Thank you
It seems you are talking about trust clients specifically. In these cases I would totally agree with you, but you stated anti-cheats in general, so I'm going to assume you didn't mean just mean a trust client.
twiikuuAimIsADickThen that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Here, you attribute value that you don't define to a hypothetical anti-cheat[ that does not exist]
What value? What hypothetical anti-cheat? I'm confused. Can you elaborate? /genuine
twiikuuTo my knowledge, there are no anti-cheat solutions that do not rely on security by obscurity,
Arguably artificially intelligent anticheat solutions (like VACNet) are really the only way (I know of) to have a working anticheat while being open source. However artificially intelligent programs are expensive to create, so open source isn't always a good idea.
twiikuuthere are also no open source games that manage (or even attempt) to combat cheaters via anti-cheat
I mean technically Source mods have external programs.
twiikuuYes, in this case, it is absolutely the fault of making a game open source that makes it impossible to defend using anti-cheat solutions
Valve open-sourced the Source SDK before the game leaks, so technically it wasn't making the game open source, but rather the engine.
Anyway yeah Valve should have somewhat foresaw this problem.…well unless if they did and the benefits outweighed the cons.
twiikuuIgnoring that you conflate cheaters and cheat makers
Yeah I used the wrong term. Sorry bout that.
twiikuu, here you fail to understand that providing users with the 4 freedoms [ascribed by the libre software movement] removes guarantees that anti-cheat solutions build upon:
These issues are primarily a problem for trust clients, which are merely types of anti-cheat solutions.
twiikuuwhen any player can run their own build of the game (as per freedom 1), a specific build *cannot* be established as authentic, and any anti-cheat therefore cannot compare against it to detect illegal behavior.
Yeah. So the anti-cheat solutions would have to be done purely server side. In that case artificially intelligent anti-cheats would be most optimal here (ignoring expenses).
twiikuuEven if we make the assumption that you did not mean to talk about the libre software movement, giving access to the source code enables a much wider toolset when developing cheats: running static analysis, building the game and debugging it, seeing commits over time. It is simply impossible to argue that the quality of cheats would not raise sharply with that.
"Just hide the anti-cheat part of the program and open-source the rest!" Is what I wish I could say, but then it wouldn't be fully F/OSS.
In these cases server-based anti-cheats would be optimal, but some game companies don't have the man power for extra servers. In that case it'd be better to have the community make an anti-cheat, assuming they are able to mod the game to the point of making a anti-cheat plugin. However that isn't always possible.
twiikuuIt's incredibly bizarre to try gatekeeping cheat making when you're clearly not in any position to talk about that at all
I didn't even try to gatekeep, and sure I don't have any expertise or experience in anti-cheats, but what credibility do you have anyway? I don't ever recall seeing you have actual expertise in anti-cheats.
twiikuuAimIsADickthese two philosophies are merely different exposures to the source code.
You should read the Wikipedia article you linked earlier until you understand that "libre software is when i can read the source code" is not true.
Yes. That's why I stated F/OSS, not just Free/Libre. Come to think of it, I think I did word that argument wrong though…
twiikuu["I was merely pretending"]
Please stop posting misinformation! Thank you
I wasn't pretending at all. I just half-heartedly said a bad statement without much thought into it, so I am sorry for that.
and yes I will try not to post any further misinformation, but it's getting difficult to distinguish misinformation.
It seems you are talking about [b]trust clients specifically[/b]. In these cases I would totally agree with you, but you stated [b]anti-cheats in general[/b], so I'm going to assume you didn't mean just mean a trust client.
[quote=twiikuu][quote=AimIsADick]Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.[/quote]
Here, you attribute value that you don't define to a hypothetical anti-cheat[ that does not exist][/quote]
What value? What hypothetical anti-cheat? I'm confused. Can you elaborate? /genuine
[quote=twiikuu]To my knowledge, there are no anti-cheat solutions that do not rely on security by obscurity,[/quote]
Arguably artificially intelligent anticheat solutions (like VACNet) are really the only way (I know of) to have a working anticheat while being open source. However artificially intelligent programs are [i]expensive[/i] to create, so open source isn't always a good idea.
[quote=twiikuu]there are also no open source games that manage (or even attempt) to combat cheaters via anti-cheat[/quote]
I mean technically Source mods have external programs.
[quote=twiikuu]Yes, in this case, it is absolutely the fault of making a game open source that makes it impossible to defend using anti-cheat solutions[/quote]
Valve open-sourced the Source SDK [i]before[/i] the game leaks, so technically it wasn't making the [i]game[/i] open source, but rather the engine.
Anyway yeah Valve should have somewhat foresaw this problem.…well unless if they did and the benefits outweighed the cons.
[quote=twiikuu]Ignoring that you conflate cheaters and cheat makers[/quote]
Yeah I used the wrong term. Sorry bout that.
[quote=twiikuu], here you fail to understand that providing users with the 4 freedoms [ascribed by the libre software movement] removes guarantees that anti-cheat solutions build upon:[/quote]
These issues are primarily a problem for [b]trust clients[/b], which are merely [b]types of[/b] anti-cheat solutions.
[quote=twiikuu]when any player can run their own build of the game (as per freedom 1), a specific build *cannot* be established as authentic, and any anti-cheat therefore cannot compare against it to detect illegal behavior.[/quote]
Yeah. So the anti-cheat solutions would have to be done purely server side. In that case artificially intelligent anti-cheats would be most optimal here (ignoring expenses).
[quote=twiikuu]Even if we make the assumption that you did not mean to talk about the libre software movement, giving access to the source code enables a much wider toolset when developing cheats: running static analysis, building the game and debugging it, seeing commits over time. It is simply impossible to argue that the quality of cheats would not raise sharply with that.[/quote]
"Just hide the anti-cheat part of the program and open-source the rest!" Is what I wish I could say, but then it wouldn't be [i]fully F/OSS[/i].
In these cases server-based anti-cheats would be optimal, but some game companies don't have the man power for extra servers. In that case it'd be better to have the community make an anti-cheat, assuming they are able to mod the game to the point of making a anti-cheat plugin. However that isn't always possible.
[quote=twiikuu]It's incredibly bizarre to try gatekeeping cheat making when you're clearly not in any position to talk about that at all[/quote]
I didn't even try to gatekeep, and sure I don't have any expertise or experience in anti-cheats, but what credibility do you have anyway? I don't ever recall seeing you have actual expertise in anti-cheats.
[quote=twiikuu][quote=AimIsADick]these two philosophies are merely different exposures to the source code.[/quote]
You should read the Wikipedia article you linked earlier until you understand that "libre software is when i can read the source code" is not true.[/quote]
Yes. That's why I stated [i]F/OSS[/i], not just Free/Libre. Come to think of it, I think I did word that argument wrong though…
[quote=twiikuu]["I was merely pretending"]
Please stop posting misinformation! Thank you[/quote]
I wasn't pretending at all. I just half-heartedly said a bad statement without much thought into it, so I am sorry for that.
and yes I will try not to post any further misinformation, but it's getting difficult to distinguish misinformation.
best derail in history desu
best derail in history desu
Yeah I did not expect that. I should have clarified I was making a stupid joke, Oh well…
Yeah I did not expect that. I should have clarified I was making a stupid joke, Oh well…
AimIsADickYeah I did not expect that. I should have clarified I was making a stupid joke, Oh well…
https://i.imgur.com/50bIrQz.jpg
[quote=AimIsADick]Yeah I did not expect that. I should have clarified I was making a stupid joke, Oh well…[/quote]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/50bIrQz.jpg[/img]
no one has ever played an open source multiplayer fps
no one has ever played an open source multiplayer fps
brodyno one has ever played an open source multiplayer fps
quake went open source and at least one person has played quake
[quote=brody]no one has ever played an open source multiplayer fps[/quote]
quake went open source and at least one person has played quake
[quote=Moist][img]https://i.imgur.com/50bIrQz.jpg[/img][/quote]
no. (BIND)
where can i get these hearing aids to hear spies
where can i get these hearing aids to hear spies
[quote=AimIsADick][/quote]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/knKIj6O.jpg[/img]
ok. Also how's the progress on the anti-spy-cheat mod?
ok. Also how's the progress on the anti-spy-cheat mod?
I forgot about konr's reply. oops
Anyway you seem to be talking about trust(ed) clients. Viewing your arguments in the context of a trusted client, I would totally agree with you, but you seem to be targeting general anticheats, so I am going to assume you were not directly talking about trusted clients.
konrAimIsADicktwiikuuAnti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity
Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Also open source only really enables amateur cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.
Being able to see exactly how a game handles a particular thing is 100% going to make it WAY easier for every programmer that wants to make cheats.
- Turning anticheat code open source does not immediately render the anti cheat useless. What if the anticheat relied on machine learning? Even if the code for the AI anticheat was fully reverse engineered, the anti cheat will still work, and updates can render the reverse engineered code useless.
- This issue is only a problem for trusted clients; moderator-based anti cheats will still work.
konrWhen you say that "most" cheaters "just use reverse engineered code", what you mean is that they have to reverse engineer executables because they don't have another option... because it's not open source.
- Yeah. I explicitly stated that cheaters will commonly use reverse engineered code.
- Well then just keep the trusted client code closed source…
konrConsider that you may actually be wrong once in a while.
I actually question myself commonly; it's a core mindset of critical thinking.
I forgot about konr's reply. oops
[b]Anyway you seem to be talking about [i][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_client]trust(ed) clients[/url][/i]. Viewing your arguments in the context of a [i]trusted client[/i], I would totally agree with you, but you seem to be targeting [i]general anticheats[/i], so I am going to assume you were not directly talking about trusted clients.[/b]
[quote=konr][quote=AimIsADick][quote=twiikuu]Anti-cheat development is an uphill battle in any case, and providing access to the sources help cheat makers way more than it helps anyone else, [b]the majority of anti-cheat solutions depend massively on security by obscurity[/b][/quote]
Then that's more the fault of bad anti-cheats, not really the fault of the open source philosophy.
Also open source only really enables [i]amateur[/i] cheaters; most cheaters just use reverse engineered code, so unless if there's not that many dedicated cheaters, a game going open source is not really going to be the cause of more cheaters.
[/quote]
Being able to see exactly how a game handles a particular thing is 100% going to make it WAY easier for every programmer that wants to make cheats.[/quote]
[olist]
[*]Turning anticheat code open source does [i]not[/i] immediately render the anti cheat useless. What if the anticheat relied on machine learning? Even if the code for the AI anticheat was fully reverse engineered, the anti cheat will still work, and updates can render the reverse engineered code useless.
[*]This issue is only a problem for [i]trusted clients[/i]; moderator-based anti cheats will still work.
[/olist]
[quote=konr]When you say that "most" cheaters "just use reverse engineered code", what you mean is that they have to reverse engineer executables because they don't have another option... because it's not open source.[/quote]
[list]
[*]Yeah. I explicitly stated that cheaters will commonly use reverse engineered code.
[*]Well then just keep the trusted client code closed source…
[/list]
[quote=konr]Consider that you may actually be wrong once in a while.[/quote]
I actually question myself commonly; it's a core mindset of critical thinking.
[img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fmobile%2F000%2F033%2F189%2Ftumblr_33caa6fa2d9060d1ebf32b7f13a3bf38_59ae975d_1280.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
[quote=Wandum][img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fmobile%2F000%2F033%2F189%2Ftumblr_33caa6fa2d9060d1ebf32b7f13a3bf38_59ae975d_1280.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img][/quote]
I can't automute easily; I still feel like posting here anyway, despite the negative reception to me.
Are there any updates on the plugin to patch the spy cheat?
Are there any updates on the plugin to patch the spy cheat?
[quote=AimIsADick]Are there any updates on the plugin to patch the spy cheat?[/quote]
[img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fmobile%2F000%2F033%2F189%2Ftumblr_33caa6fa2d9060d1ebf32b7f13a3bf38_59ae975d_1280.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]