Forum

Quoted from AnAkkk

[…]
It’s just a matter of trust. It’s the same problem with any AC or AC staff.

You speak of trust but are unwilling to extend that same courtesy to ETF2L ac team. Of course false positives are an issue in many security systems and sometimes a trade off has to be made depending on a number of factors. But speculating the false positive percentage is simply not good enough to evaluate the effectiveness of this plugin.

Security through obscurity is not necessary the best policy. Take Diablo 3 for example, deciding to go online only so that “it would be more difficult to dupe items” and so on. Before the game is released they have already produced a number of working cheats.

Since when did a wiki become a credible source of information Casual?

Quoted from AnAkkk

[…]
I’ve tried to work with ETF2L staff, and it didn’t work out.

Actually, I approached you about the plugin and all you did was provide a list of detections that flagged up false positives. You didn’t even provide the plugin so applying your logic – you have worked more with the community in this thread than you did with our staff.

So you listed some players and some dates, and made some bold statements about Steam with no evidence to support it.

most people in here forget that its only for triggerbots!

Why aren’t I on that list?

Quoted from HYS

[…]

Since when did a wiki become a credible source of information Casual?

Since sources were available for the information on wiki’s?

I find it hard to take this seriously when you contradict yourself in a crucial way when explaining the basics of your plugin. You firstly state that “it’s just a tool to help you find people that can potentially cheat and you can just check the demos then to confirm that they cheat or not”, then a mere 2 paragraphs later you are claiming it has detections capable of providing “a 100% way to tell if someone cheat [sic]”. When you consider that typically professional developers of anti-cheat programs will tell you there is no method of determining 100% certainty regarding the presence of a cheat, your credibility starts to reach breaking point.

I also find your inclusion of lists of player names pretty bizarre. I’ve read your post multiple times and it still isn’t clear what these lists are supposed to be for. Given this lack of clarity, and given the TF2’s community established propensity for witch-hunts that make the people of 17th century Salem appear like paragons of open-mindedness and rationality, the inclusion of a list of names in a post entitled Triggerbot Detector v1.5 is amazingly irresponsible.

The fact that the plugin is still in a ropey state, judging by the posts here about false positives and broken mice being detected (honestly, this is almost like a parody of a viable anti-cheat system), makes the presence of player names even more unjustifiable.

Furthermore, the premise of the whole system is fundamentally flawed. One person developing a plugin, keeping it closed source and not supplying evidence is a recipe for renegade justice. What’s to stop any random person with a vendetta or other ulterior motive claiming they’ve developed a new wonder plugin, then making unfounded claims about people they’d like to see banished? I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, but the current state of things as you present it allows for that possibility.

Your post may as well have simply said ‘Hi, here’s my new AC plugin, I don’t really know if it works right and I’m not going to let anyone help to check if it does, but here’s a list of people whose reputation I’m going to taint LOL’.

Quoted from Kritzonite

I’ve read your post multiple times and it still isn’t clear what these lists are supposed to be for.

call me stupid, but i’m not sure i understand either

Quoted from Kritzonite

I find it hard to take this seriously when you contradict yourself in a crucial way when explaining the basics of your plugin. You firstly state that “it’s just a tool to help you find people that can potentially cheat and you can just check the demos then to confirm that they cheat or not”, then a mere 2 paragraphs later you are claiming it has detections capable of providing “a 100% way to tell if someone cheat [sic]”. When you consider that typically professional developers of anti-cheat programs will tell you there is no method of determining 100% certainty regarding the presence of a cheat, your credibility starts to reach breaking point.

I wasn’t clear in my post about the two other detections but they are in the readme:
“prediction hacks (nospread/crits) and anti-speedhack bypass exploit.”
And yes, these detections can determine for sure if someone is using these types of cheats or not. Seem like you don’t understand the difference between client side and server side anticheats.

I also find your inclusion of lists of player names pretty bizarre. I’ve read your post multiple times and it still isn’t clear what these lists are supposed to be for. Given this lack of clarity, and given the TF2’s community established propensity for witch-hunts that make the people of 17th century Salem appear like paragons of open-mindedness and rationality, the inclusion of a list of names in a post entitled Triggerbot Detector v1.5 is amazingly irresponsible.

Everybody else seemed to have understood that the first list were people using a triggerbot and the second were people caught by DBlocker. Maybe you are wondering if there is a specific cheat feature that DBlocker catches, well there isn’t, it catches something that some hacks do (not going to go into details for obvious reasons).

The fact that the plugin is still in a ropey state, judging by the posts here about false positives and broken mice being detected (honestly, this is almost like a parody of a viable anti-cheat system), makes the presence of player names even more unjustifiable.

You must have totally missed all the bold parts, read again the first post.

Quoted from Kritzonite

I find it hard to take this seriously when you contradict yourself in a crucial way when explaining the basics of your plugin. […] then a mere 2 paragraphs later you are claiming it has detections capable of providing “a 100% way to tell if someone cheat [sic]”. When you consider that typically professional developers of anti-cheat programs will tell you there is no method of determining 100% certainty regarding the presence of a cheat, your credibility starts to reach breaking point.

I think you’re misinterpreting Anakin here, which is perfectly possible because you acknowledge his limited English by noting the [sic] there. I think he means that this AC can detect certain specific hacks perfectly. If those hacks get changed to circumvent the detection, then they aren’t the specific hacks anymore.

I also find your inclusion of lists of player names pretty bizarre. I’ve read your post multiple times and it still isn’t clear what these lists are supposed to be for. Given this lack of clarity, and given the TF2’s community established propensity for witch-hunts that make the people of 17th century Salem appear like paragons of open-mindedness and rationality, the inclusion of a list of names in a post entitled Triggerbot Detector v1.5 is amazingly irresponsible.

I have to agree here though. Even though I sometimes disagree with the lack of openness from the ETF2L AC team, Anakin might have been a bit too early with calling these players out, and naming his plugin a bit too ambitiously. And I don’t like the cheater witchhunt either.

The fact that the plugin is still in a ropey state, judging by the posts here about false positives and broken mice being detected (honestly, this is almost like a parody of a viable anti-cheat system), makes the presence of player names even more unjustifiable.

If the false positive % is below 50 then stastistical/practical significance already occurs. It has been mentioned countless times that this is just a heuristic, and that we should never abandon STV/pov inspection.

Furthermore, the premise of the whole system is fundamentally flawed. One person developing a plugin, keeping it closed source and not supplying evidence is a recipe for renegade justice. What’s to stop any random person with a vendetta or other ulterior motive claiming they’ve developed a new wonder plugin, then making unfounded claims about people they’d like to see banished? I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, but the current state of things as you present it allows for that possibility.

It has been mentioned countless times that this is just a heuristic, and that we should never abandon STV/pov inspection.

Quoted from HYS

[…]
Security through obscurity is not necessary the best policy. Take Diablo 3 for example, deciding to go online only so that “it would be more difficult to dupe items” and so on. Before the game is released they have already produced a number of working cheats.

Not this coding hippie bullshit again :D … Any type of cheat detector/preventor lowers the actual chances of cheating happening, and increases the chances of cheaters being detected. Even if that % is very small, it is still better than “just” stv/pov inspection. The “security through obscurity” argument is always used in a straw man way, viewing things way too black/white.

edit: hehe, posted this and then saw anakin’s post… so yeah, what he says…