It’s been a while since I worked on anti cheat stuff, but was shocked to see that the 50 stats cheat was a memory hack. Basic stuff (I know it’s fixed now).
This leads me to think, funcom is not ahead of the game when it comes to cheats and may not have a team who it experienced in this subject.
If you’re going to have data local (client side), you must take measures. Battle eye trying to detect memory access, and programs being run is not nearly enough. These are relatively easy to work around. (hacks will be back, and used till someone posts a video, or someone at funcom gains access to such a tool, and that would only be the public ones ><… but then it’s patch and the cycle continues… meanwhile people get to cheat, with small periods of time where they can’t)
I don’t like the idea that now I wonder if, when someone kills me, was it skill or a cheat.
Now, I have seen some nice measure for dealing with cheats, and yes, they add a little bit to processing overheads (but this is client side as the data is, could also move more of the data and maths to server, but that would cost more, i guess), but is worth it. And one of the best was, when values where verified over a time array, to see if vales where possible, if they were found to be out of bounds… insta-death for the player (and that was an anti cash cheat, that had to take into account all the legit ways cash would change, and only kick in when something was wrong… Conan has a much easier ranges to deal with)
Now, this is a wonderful way to deal with hacks. It puts people off the idea of trying out cheats (no all but a lot). And it does have to be handled carefully. Verifications have to be solid, so false positives don’t happen. Now the only reasons for not using such systems are;
-Process overhead: But –
Really not that bad… I bit of encryption, maybe even a ‘base’ from a key, from the server – so values change each time the key is changed*1. Some memory to create and array of data, and then a check process…
Yes, this can make quite a load in some games, where lots of values are at risk. So, you priorities the main values hackers would go for.
Now you just need to worry about a checksum and I believe steam and/or battle eye deal with that.
-false positives- People getting punished when they were not cheating But –
This should not happen if the team can code well you can also give larger error margins if you’re worried about your math skills… most cheaters will go for extremes.
This is the basics, to deal with low level cheaters… mainly the people that use prepaid trainers and memory editors.
I could have forgiven funcom on current hacks, if it was due to internet traffic capture and decode(*1). That’s a hard one to deal with and need strong encryption and dynamic encryption.
What is funcom doing about memory hacking? Just blocking well knows program? Are the measure underway to improve this issue? Or is it a case of just patching out cheat/hacks as they are exposed?