Wine Lands Support For Vulkan On macOS Via MoltenVK

[starshipeleven]

Oh I'm completely against anti-cheat or copy protections in general, just explaining some reasons. All of them can be bypassed, obviously, and it even makes people think there's no cheaters (because there's less of them) which boosts the ego of the cheater even more.

Yeah, fuck people that actually wanted to game with no cheaters right? What matters is not boosting the ego of the few cheaters that can actually bypass the anti-cheat (that can be dealt with by human mods if there is a logging and report system in place)

[Spazturtle]

You can cheat in Warframe by simply altering the system clock to change the speed that timers go up or down at. The anti-cheat is Warframe is very half assed, it consisted of scanning the system memory and checking what programs are running.

[Weasel]

Yeah, fuck people that actually wanted to game with no cheaters right?

No cheaters means ZERO, not "less", but ZERO. That's the problem with anti-cheat: it gives people a false sense of impression that there are no cheaters.

Report what? The guy could just be "super leet" and "owning" all those noobs. Noobs report good players all the time (which don't cheat) so it's not like they can take them seriously, especially if they got an anti-cheat.

"There's no cheaters cause we got the anti-cheat man. It's just (the actual cheater) being good!" is the kind of thing I'm talking about. This is worse than "this game has no anti-cheat it's full of cheaters wtf" because it boosts the ego of the cheaters: they know they got away with it, and they get praised for having leet skillz.

[Weasel]

Graphics-related is easier as DX interface is documented, and in a multiplayer game that's the only thing you care about. RNG Rewards, player accounts and enemy RNG happen server-side so you can't touch them from a compromised client.

Anything that runs in the same address space can hijack the graphics interface and hook it, I still don't get why you think it has to be a "graphics related" hijack directly, as if scanning modules and their import tables is hard... which is what the good "trainers" do.

If you load any DLL or similar, it can scan for relevant modules and hijack the memory directly. Of "graphics DLLs", of the game's code itself, of everything. As far as the CPU is concerned, that's the game's code right there doing all of this (same address space so...) so if the game has access to it, then a DLL has access to it.

[starshipeleven]

No cheaters means ZERO, not "less", but ZERO. That's the problem with anti-cheat: it gives people a false sense of impression that there are no cheaters.

Anti-cheat actually keeps cheater numbers low enough that it is a rare occurrence, so yeah, most people play in a lobby/team/whatever with no cheaters.
Sometimes they encounter one, and it's just a matter of ragequitting and finding another lobby/team/whatever, and they have a high chance of not finding another for a while.

Games that lack such measures tend to become cheatfests pretty quick, and most players stop going in "public" matches at all pretty quick.

Report what? The guy could just be "super leet" and "owning" all those noobs. Noobs report good players all the time (which don't cheat) so it's not like they can take them seriously, especially if they got an anti-cheat.

Lol, everyone and their dog knows that anti-cheat aren't bulletproof but it's only the first layer of defence, meant to weed out the lowlifes. That's why you also need server logging so you can have someone (or an algorithm) look for suspicious actions and/or on reported cheaters.

And again you have to accept that you can't really catch everyone.

This is worse than "this game has no anti-cheat it's full of cheaters wtf" because it boosts the ego of the cheaters: they know they got away with it, and they get praised for having leet skillz.

Who cares about boosting the ego of a small minority if the large majority of players can actually play without cheaters in their current match?

Why the fuck all your "reasoning" is always some insane emotional nonsense? Let some "ceeki breeki slav squat rush B" minority wank on their 1337ness and let the majority play undisturbed. That's the best thing you can realistically do without resorting to draconian self-destructing locked-down gaming systems that make current game consoles look like OpenHardware.

Anything that runs in the same address space can hijack the graphics interface and hook it, I still don't get why you think it has to be a "graphics related" hijack directly, as if scanning modules and their import tables is hard... which is what the good "trainers" do.

No, I meant that to actually know what is going on in-game for a realtime cheat program like aimbots and through-walls-scanners you need to intercept graphics calls, as there is the information about where stuff is in-game.

Trainers should theoretically be impossible on a multiplayer game, but I know not all games actually do it right. Warfarm for example was doing the RNG rolls for enemy spawns and for mission/loot rewards in the client a few years ago, until they migrated that (and the drop tables) in the server component. That's... kind of bad, you know.

[Weasel]

Who cares about boosting the ego of a small minority if the large majority of players can actually play without cheaters in their current match?

Why the fuck all your "reasoning" is always some insane emotional nonsense? Let some "ceeki breeki slav squat rush B" minority wank on their 1337ness and let the majority play undisturbed. That's the best thing you can realistically do without resorting to draconian self-destructing locked-down gaming systems that make current game consoles look like OpenHardware.

Because I don't give a shit of the blissful ignorance of the majority? With anti-cheat, more of the hardcore cheaters get away with it because there's less suspicion around it (due to most players thinking anti-cheat makes it "impossible" and they live in ignorance), and that's all that matters.

Sorry but I don't treat players as just numbers or statistics. In fact you don't even know if the "large majority" play without cheaters in their current match. You just assume that the ones that are good (supposedly) do so with merit instead of cheating, because well you got your anti-cheat up, and clearly a minority are "cheating".

I also never said that disabling anti-cheat is the final solution. It's better to have no anti-cheat, but it's far from ideal. Best is to redesign the game so that such cheats have less impact.

No, I meant that to actually know what is going on in-game for a realtime cheat program like aimbots and through-walls-scanners you need to intercept graphics calls, as there is the information about where stuff is in-game.

But *any* DLL can do that. You don't have to replace d3d11's DLLs at all to do it.

Trainers should theoretically be impossible on a multiplayer game, but I know not all games actually do it right. Warfarm for example was doing the RNG rolls for enemy spawns and for mission/loot rewards in the client a few years ago, until they migrated that (and the drop tables) in the server component. That's... kind of bad, you know.

Most game logic & physics is not done directly server-side due to lag and strain on the server. It's validated weakly, mostly. Speed hacks for example are very prevalent in online games. I only know of few exceptions like World of Tanks that do everything server-side.

[V1tol]

Never heard of such. How would you do that?

The first one I remember is Wallhack in Counter-Strike 1.5

But *any* DLL can do that.

Yes, you can do that from any DLL, byut you will have to write some loader code to find and replace original function with hacked one. And that can be detected pretty easily. For example, wallhack for CS1.5 was called simply opengl.dll and was loaded by the game. You didn't have to write any loader code - just override some methods.

[Weasel]

Yes, you can do that from any DLL, byut you will have to write some loader code to find and replace original function with hacked one. And that can be detected pretty easily. For example, wallhack for CS1.5 was called simply opengl.dll and was loaded by the game. You didn't have to write any loader code - just override some methods.

I don't know about how "easy" it is to detect it, no idea how heuristics and such work. But I don't think it's easier than seeing if opengl.dll is modified or not.

I mean, yeah it's a bit harder to code (well, any non-trivial cheat is not too easy to code) but you guys are missing the point entirely. You think every cheater codes his own tools or what?

99% of cheaters (those that starshipeleven speaks about that an anti-cheat is effective against) just download the cheat tool or anti-cheat bypass or whatever. If the anti-cheat is strong enough, that's actually worse because then the cheat developer will sell his cheats. Now you just created a market for cheat developers and honestly I find rewarding such activity pretty appalling (rewarded with money from the cheaters who pay for it).

Not only does this reward the cheat developers and make the cheaters who pay for it less suspicious (because the anti-cheat is strong so less reasons to doubt/investigate them), it also annoys legit players like in this case -- those on Linux or with DXVK.

You realize they'll just ban Linux outright if they wanted to push on this some more, considering it's open source and any cheat developer can easily modify the kernel and add some cheat module, right? Unless the game comes with its own kernel modules to "detect" this but that's pretty ridiculous, and that's assuming it's even Linux native.

[starshipeleven]

Because I don't give a shit of the blissful ignorance of the majority?

Well, too bad, because that's the game designer goal, getting the most people to enjoy the game as possible. If you want to understand the real world you need to know it, you know.

With anti-cheat, more of the hardcore cheaters get away with it because there's less suspicion around it (due to most players thinking anti-cheat makes it "impossible" and they live in ignorance), and that's all that matters.

Lol you have no fucking idea of the gaming environment. Everyone knows that cheaters can and do exist regardless of the countermeasures.

In fact you don't even know if the "large majority" play without cheaters in their current match. You just assume that the ones that are good (supposedly) do so with merit instead of cheating, because well you got your anti-cheat up, and clearly a minority are "cheating".

The point here is only making sure that cheating isn't a blatant game-breaking thing. Like you know aimbots with 100% accuracy through soft cover, teleporting around, that kind of thing. It's about keeping it in check, not squashing it completely.

And yeah you can catch that with statistics and server logs.

I also never said that disabling anti-cheat is the final solution. It's better to have no anti-cheat, but it's far from ideal. Best is to redesign the game so that such cheats have less impact.

Lol yeah, and it's better to not have seatbelts in cars, as long as the car is redesigned so that crashes have less impact on the occupants. I don't really want to see the shitty code you write, if this is your average reasoning.

As always, you ignore the reality of any human endeavor, the main reason anti-cheat engines exist is because the developers didn't have the time/money to actually do the job right, and adding an anti-cheat engine is cheaper than do the job right, while better than just run the game unprotected. So if you remove the anti-cheat measures the situation is WORSE.

But *any* DLL can do that. You don't have to replace d3d11's DLLs at all to do it.

This thread is about replacing those libs with Wine or DXVK though.

Most game logic & physics is not done directly server-side due to lag and strain on the server. It's validated weakly, mostly. Speed hacks for example are very prevalent in online games. I only know of few exceptions like World of Tanks that do everything server-side.

yeah I know, that's why they need some form of anti-cheat protection.

[starshipeleven]

99% of cheaters (those that starshipeleven speaks about that an anti-cheat is effective against) just download the cheat tool or anti-cheat bypass or whatever. If the anti-cheat is strong enough, that's actually worse because then the cheat developer will sell his cheats. Now you just created a market for cheat developers and honestly I find rewarding such activity pretty appalling (rewarded with money from the cheaters who pay for it).

Lol what is worse, easy free widespread cheats that break the multiplayer experience for everyone or complex relatively expensive cheats that will be used by few only due to cost and ease of aquiring them, so will have a lesser overall effect on everyone's overall multiplayer experience?

Still showing your inability to focus on what actually matters the most, and choosing with your emotions again.