tldr
Account Details | |
---|---|
SteamID64 | 76561198010123351 |
SteamID3 | [U:1:49857623] |
SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:24928811 |
Country | Sweden |
Signed Up | February 26, 2013 |
Last Posted | October 25, 2024 at 6:10 AM |
Posts | 690 (0.2 per day) |
Game Settings | |
---|---|
In-game Sensitivity | 3.9 |
Windows Sensitivity | 6/11 |
Raw Input | 1 |
DPI |
400 |
Resolution |
1920x1080 |
Refresh Rate |
380Hz |
Hardware Peripherals | |
---|---|
Mouse | Logitech G Pro |
Keyboard | Varmilo VEA88 Charcoal V2 TKL MX Red |
Mousepad | SteelSeries QcK+ |
Headphones | HyperX Cloud Alpha Wireless |
Monitor | ASUS XG259QN |
wolsneondkajawolsnesnip
Not really. Most AC software is proprietary and owned by for-profit companies, and these very rarely make software open-sourced. Whether it's more secure or not is not a factor.
Not sure if you're saying that for-profit companies don't make open source software frequently, or that they specifically don't make open sourced anti-cheats, because the former is certainly false.
While there is ways to data mine, reverse engineer, and/or circumvent close source software and this code is not publicly audited, I think we'd both agree that it is probably better than just giving cheat developers the keys to your game.
Having the source code is more like having the blueprints to a lock than the keys. If the lock is a bad lock, then having the blueprints will make it easier for an attacker to bypass it, but if it is a good lock, it doesn't matter whether the attacker has the blueprints or not. Hiding the implentation behind layers of obfuscation is called security through obscurity and is generally considered a bad practice as it allows security flaws to stay present for longer than if the implementation could openly be scrutinised by everyone. Not only malicious hackers can look at the source code and find flaws in the code, anyone can.
As for the open-source discussion. Companies defintely don't frequently develop open-sourced software compared to how often they develop proprietary software. Almost all software I have installed on my computer is proprietary software. The reason for this is simply to make more money and prevent theft of code, not to enhance the security.
wolsneWhile I love the idea of seeing an open source anti-cheat be developed, it's existence brings up problems of it's own. By giving cheaters and/or cheat developers direct access to see exactly how the software works, you're inviting them to create proxies or bypass these catching mechanisms altogether. Regardless, I hope the projects bodes well and you continue to catch disingenuous players trying to get an edge, just some food for thought. This is why most anti-cheat programs are closed source.
Not really. Most AC software is proprietary and owned by for-profit companies, and these very rarely make software open-sourced. Whether it's more secure or not is not a factor.
I think you should ctap as often as possible. No reason not to. If you fail you just need more practice (which you get by trying it as often as possible).
Hogosakiso what do I use on hitscan and projectile?
negligible or no packet loss:
cl_interp 0; cl_interp_ratio 1
non-negligible packet loss:
cl_interp 0; cl_interp_ratio 2
Wizardcl_cmdrate / cl_updaterate: should usually always be at 66 for a stable packets to the server. You can go to 100 if you wish but that's recommend if you have a god tier connection.
Don't spread misinformation. Setting these above the server tickrate (66.666 ticks/second) will not give you any benefits as that is the limit on how many packets can be received/sent. On the other hand, setting these higher than the tickrate can fuck up your other network settings.
hoolihitscan: cl_interp_ratio 2;cl_interp 0.0303
projectile: cl_interp_ratio 1;cl_interp 0
further reading: https://www.teamfortress.tv/52942/
The thread you linked recommends putting cl_interp on 0 so not sure why you are going against your own source. Also, I'd recommend using cl_interp_ratio 1 even on hitscan if you have a decent connection that doesn't drop packets. Higher interp ratios mitigates the effects of packet loss, but if there are no packet losses to mitigate it's not really necessary.
Dr_FezDidn't the crossbow used to not have passive reload, and it was only rarely used because of it?
Nah, it was by far the most used unlock even before the passive reload buff. I think Mirelin was pretty much the only notable medic that primarily used another weapon than the Crossbow.
You can go back to i49 (2013) to see that it was the most used unlock by top medics. Hard to find any information before then as logs were not as detailed.
http://logs.tf/search/log?s=i49
EDIT: For reference, the passive reload buff was added two months after this LAN.
Matthesbeing considered
-crossbow nerf (remove passive reload?)
If you are going to nerf the crossbow I think uber building should be removed (possibly in addition to removing passive reload). It will still be better than all the other med unlocks, but at least abusing arrows in the wrong situation will cause a significant uber disadvantage which good players can recognise and capitalise on.
(arrows used to not build uber and have reload time... it was still the most widely used unlock by far)
ZincondkajaUse an up-to-date FPS config instead. Half of these launch options don't do anything.thanks, is masterconfig the best?
I don't really know what config is the best, but they should not have much difference between them in performance.
Use an up-to-date FPS config instead. Half of these launch options don't do anything.
DoughyEither way, i'm more surprised that tf2 was "dieing" in 2010, when it was smaller than it is now.
TF2 was way bigger in 2010 than it is now. ETF2L used to have an endless amount of D6/D5 teams, now there's like 40 teams in open.
Also possible to check on the tempus website
IGN has a full-game walkthrough on youtube, no commentary and plays objectives. Pretty good if you want to avoid annoying streamers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52VT2A4UZt4
Still wish I had a VR headset though.