| Forum Index > SC2 General |
You have to provide some kind of evidence/proof (screenshots/replays etc.) if you are going to accuse somebody. Additionally, a supporting comment of what people should be looking for and when will be necessary if you are posting replays/evidence. | ||
|
Kaitokid
Germany1327 Posts
On May 29 2012 22:56 Skullflower wrote: There have been rumors of Nerchio maphacking before thats just bullshit as Nerchio performs pretty well in offline tournaments.. he doesn't enter many tournaments but he played well in the tournaments he's played in. | ||
|
Wroshe
Netherlands1051 Posts
On May 29 2012 22:56 Skullflower wrote: There have been rumors of Nerchio maphacking before There are also rumors that I play on Code S level but keep declining the seed. Is there any truth to base the rumors on though or is it pure bullshit? | ||
|
Kaitokid
Germany1327 Posts
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/u9n77/psa_if_you_suspect_someone_is_maphacking_please/ Anyone who actually believes what he's saying is simply ignorant. He says he is "realistically a low GM or high masters" but at the same time he says he won half of his prize money (over $1000 with just online tournaments) without maphacking. It is simply impossible as a low GM or high masters to win this amount of money without maphacking as he claims. Even small cups with little prizemoney are full of established good progamers and Koreans. You might beat one or two as a low GM player but its impossible to consistenly win those cups when you are not extremely good. just a retard seeking for attention | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet. | ||
|
KeeN
Canada82 Posts
http://twitter.com/#!/BlizzardCSEU_EN | ||
|
diddLY
United States215 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote: I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them. Not like I've read it, but if it's anything like how WoW works, the account is Blizzards regardless of what you paid. | ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
That apparently this has already started while Blizzard is still actively supporting SC2 is pretty damned depressing. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote: I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them. Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet. This is probably the one time that the notion that players buy a 'license to play' rather than the actual game is helpful. Regrettably, Blizzard only seems to exercise that definition to secure profit rather than clean up the game. | ||
|
Wroshe
Netherlands1051 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:12 Kaitokid wrote: I just read all posts of "zergthrowaway" in this reddit post http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/u9n77/psa_if_you_suspect_someone_is_maphacking_please/ Anyone who actually believes what he's saying is simply ignorant. He says he is "realistically a low GM or high masters" but at the same time he says he won half of his prize money (over $1000 with just online tournaments) without maphacking. It is simply impossible as a low GM or high masters to win this amount of money without maphacking as he claims. Even small cups with little prizemoney are full of established good progamers and Koreans. You might beat one or two as a low GM player but its impossible to consistenly win those cups when you are not extremely good. just a retard seeking for attention Yeah, upon reading his shit it looks very unlikely that the post is actually genuine. More likely is that it's a butthurt fan of another Zerg player (first guess: IdrA, he simply has the most fans) that once lost to Nerchio and now wants to start a Destiny/Orb like witch hunt. | ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote: I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them. Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet. Blizzard can definitely ban whoever they want, for what they want. On May 29 2012 23:19 Wroshe wrote: Yeah, upon reading his shit it looks very unlikely that the post is actually genuine. More likely is that it's a butthurt fan of another Zerg player (first guess: IdrA, he simply has the most fans) that once lost to Nerchio and now wants to start a Destiny/Orb like witch hunt. While your speculation may be true, you shouldn't throw people like Idra under the bus for no reason with no proof. | ||
|
Wroshe
Netherlands1051 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:20 Holytornados wrote: Blizzard can definitely ban whoever they want, for what they want. Exactly. The EULA's are normally worded in such a way that they can even claim ownership of the unborn child your girlfriend is carrying, provided you met her through SCII (or a barcraft that streamed SCII). :p | ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:21 Wroshe wrote: Exactly. The EULA's are normally worded in such a way that they can even claim ownership of the unborn child your girlfriend is carrying, provided you met her through SCII (or a barcraft that streamed SCII). :p Yeah, you don't own the account, I believe the EULA gives you a license to run the account that Blizzard owns, or something legally similar to this. | ||
|
Wroshe
Netherlands1051 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:20 Holytornados wrote: Blizzard can definitely ban whoever they want, for what they want. While your speculation may be true, you shouldn't throw people like Idra under the bus for no reason with no proof. I don't throw IdrA under the bus and resent the accusation of doing so. The guy I am throwing under the bus is "zergthrowaway" who I deduce to be a butthurt fan of another zerg player. Considering the fact that IdrA is the Zerg player with by far the most fans it is most likely a fan of IdrA. My source on the amount of fans is the size of the fan club thread combined with the amount of twitter followers. Having established a theory that it's a fan of a zerg player does not mean in any way, shape or form that said zerg player has any influence on him. The only way that would be the case is if he had actually directly encouraged the guy to try and create a witch hunt with that reddit post. I never claimed that was the case and hence I resent the accusation. Also I highly doubt a person such as IdrA would be stupid enough to direct someone to create that mess, especially as he has seen up close what the match fixing scandal did with pro gaming. I consider it far more likely that the butthurt fan decided to take action in his own hands and decided to start this smear campaign with the aim of hoping to eliminate a competitor of his favorite player. | ||
|
thebig1
248 Posts
On May 29 2012 17:02 Inori wrote: What I care about, and what I meant about when I said "client needs to be stateless" is completely different issue. The way it works right now is that units, buildings, are rendered and updated in real time. Rendering a unit for first time is expensive, btw. But it's not such a big issue because it's only done once in a lifetime of a unit, then it's just recalculation of unit positioning. Same for anything else. Buildings, mineral patch sizes, whatever. That's called stateful client. A client that relies on previously inputted data, updating it with newly sent (which is only updates to previous state). The way you and bunch of other clueless people suggests is only achievable when client becomes stateless as far as FoW goes, i.e. stops depending on previous data and creates everything on the fly based on full game state data that is sent from server (rather than just updates to existing). This is the only way to solve maphacking issue, because then there's nothing to read from memory, since it's created on the fly each tick. What this results in is that your PC will have to create/render/recalculate every single unit each time it comes out of your FoW, then destroy each time it goes back in and so on. This is a major overhaul for any system. (remember than first time render is expensive.. well now it's each time first time). If you're seriously going to argue with this again, before that, I'd really want to ask for a favor - just do a couple of experiments - run a big replay on 8x, create a custom map and suddenly drop 200/200 units, make some other sudden game huge change you can think of. I dare you to tell me your PC won't lag. And then image it will lag like this each time opponent steps out of FoW and tell me it's a question of couple of bytes. About GH/SO - I only brought it up because you immediately assumed I'm highschool level without even trying to dive into the points I was making. To get away from that assumption I provided proof I'm not and thus in response I also wanted same from you. Btw I also work in corporate sector (in fact, people that don't are very tiny % of total developers), sorry but that's a stupid excuse not to take part in OS world. But that's a completely different subject, so whatever. Running a replay on 8x doesn't have anything to do with things... In order to run the game at 8x you either need to run the game logic at 480fps (60*8) and then drop frames... Sure there are tricks you can use to help with this, but it's still not going to be great. So yeah, if people can only manage 70fps running the game normally, they are only going to get like 9 at 8x speed. You don't need to dispose a unit every time it leaves the fog of war. You would try to keep as much in memory as you could... Y could just ou do something like get the server to stop sending info and send a hide bit, then the units can be completely kept in memory and not updated on the map. That gives you the same result of it being compeltely stateless. Both ways you could get total count of units, and their last position. If you were really worried about memory in team games you could send death messages globally to tell clients when to dispose units when they died. However, on modern computers that shouldn't really be an issue. Most of the memory is taken up by things like assets anyways. I am in a rush to type this post (like always, life too busy), but programming in games (and other projects tbh) is all about taking shortcuts. You very rarely do it the "correct" way, such as trying to make your stateless game. The correct way is too slow. You get something that works nearly as well, but is way faster and use that instead. | ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On May 29 2012 07:22 rotegirte wrote: Out of curiosity, the general consensus I have gotten on the web is that Blizzard isn't particularly sophisticated at shielding their game. Technically speaking, is there even a theoretical way to mitigate the compromise of an online multiplayer RTS? I mean, could they have designed it any (significant) way better on code level? I ask this, because it would be pretty much an eternal problem for every future RTS for any company Sorry for the late reply -- No, Blizzard could not have done a better job, in fact, it's VERY easy to code an anti-cheat software for your game(s), as of now the problem is "eternal", I'm afraid. I know enough about coding to tell you how this is a problem and what Blizzard can or cannot do, but I'm not even sure that the technology is here yet, to even start thinking about the future. | ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On May 29 2012 07:23 HansK wrote: You're wrong in the fact that internal hacks are detected almost instantly. As of right now, the warden has no preemptive systems in place. Internal hacks get released, so many months later blizzard decides to add it to the the list of signatures to ban for and then they do a ban wave. From this point on, that certain hack version will be detectable by Warden and then get you a near instant ban. The thing is even when they do this internal hack authors are able to see how they banned it(for example, one hack the warden targeted did so by detecting a message function the hack used from the game, "xxx hack loaded" to flag the user for a ban). By removing that it forces the current way they use warden to re-ban it pretty much and that is what currently goes on. Internal hack released, X months later it's banned, X weeks later it's updated and safe again. Now, on to the preemptive measures. It's entirely possible prevent maphack from even being possible at all, how ever not with the current SCII game design where the map data needs to be shared with each client. It's also possible to make internal hacks very very hard to use even with the current warden but not much effort is put into that.. We're basically in a situation where unless blizzard makes some drastic changes maphack and other related hacks will always 100% of the time be running wild even in the highest of GM and lowest of bronze. They could for sure make it impossible to maphack. They could also next to get rid of completely internal hacks, combine the two and you would only have some weird hacks like auto-blink and stuff like that. I wasn't speaking about Warden exclusively, and I forgot to mention the part about recognizing a signature before Warden takes action. I agree, but it's much more complex than that. When you explain it that way, you make it sound like there's little to no difference between internal and external hacks. We've heard the "Blizzard needs to change stuff"-argument so many times now, but the problem remains; Blizzard have no clue how to do this. And to be honest, I can only think of Riot Games who're up-to-date with their security, so I can't blame Blizzard, really. No matter the game design, hackers become smarter (the authors anyway) as more complex security is developed. | ||
|
wimpwimpwimp
171 Posts
| ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On May 29 2012 23:52 thebig1 wrote: Running a replay on 8x doesn't have anything to do with things... In order to run the game at 8x you either need to run the game logic at 480fps (60*8) and then drop frames... Sure there are tricks you can use to help with this, but it's still not going to be great. So yeah, if people can only manage 70fps running the game normally, they are only going to get like 9 at 8x speed. You don't need to dispose a unit every time it leaves the fog of war. You would try to keep as much in memory as you could... Y could just ou do something like get the server to stop sending info and send a hide bit, then the units can be completely kept in memory and not updated on the map. That gives you the same result of it being compeltely stateless. Both ways you could get total count of units, and their last position. If you were really worried about memory in team games you could send death messages globally to tell clients when to dispose units when they died. However, on modern computers that shouldn't really be an issue. Most of the memory is taken up by things like assets anyways. I am in a rush to type this post (like always, life too busy), but programming in games (and other projects tbh) is all about taking shortcuts. You very rarely do it the "correct" way, such as trying to make your stateless game. The correct way is too slow. You get something that works nearly as well, but is way faster and use that instead. One problem with stateless clients is that someone has to know the full game state, ie run the full game simulation, and if it isn't the client it has to be the server. I think you can pretty much forget Blizzard running the full game simulation for all the thousands of games going on at every moment. The second problem with stateless clients is the bandwidth. Every time a user clicks on the minimap the server would have to send information about potentially hundreds of units in that area. That amounts to at least kilobytes of data, which would have to be sent in one game tick. Not viable. The current implementation only sends user input, ie essentially mouse and keyboard commands. No unit positions are sent. The amount of data in this case is negligible in comparison. | ||
|
Bellazuk
Canada146 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Spring Champion…
OSC
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs Percival
SHIN vs ShoWTimE
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Maestros of the Game
Clem vs Lambo
Zoun vs SKillous
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Solar vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
