[cod] DMW Anti-Cheat

[Ian mu]

I don't really go along with that philosophy, anything that bypasses PB
gives Evenbalance the incentive to make sure it doesn't in their next
update. I've seen so many cheats that people say get past PB, only to be
squealing when the next day they are banned (from the cheat forums I watch
to see whats out there). That for me is always the test of something thats
kept up to date.
 It's possible a different person/organisation could do better, but given
the amount of resources PB has now its hard to see it. I know I get replies
as a player (not server provider) from PB/Evenbalance which are pretty
prompt and accurate and have fixed my problem each time. There's only "so
much" smaller setups can deal with, and typically I find something has to
give one way or the other. Are they likely to deal with players on an
individual troubleshooting basis like Evenbalance do? Why are they more
likely to succeed? Chances are half of the cheats that are stopped by PB
will suddenly be easily adaptable and work on COD2.
 Naturally all speculation, I just don't really go along with the scenario
where one person can suddenly do better than a long term established setup,
just because they aren't as well known.

 On 11/17/05, James Landi <jim at landi.net> wrote:
>
>  If I was ACTV/IW I think I would consider a new form of AC.
>
>  Now think about it for a second. The hackers already know how to bypass
> BP if they really wanted to. With a new system, they would have to learn all
> over again or we wish they would. I kind of like the idea of a new system.
> Granted we will all have to learn something new but that also means the
> cheaters/hackers will as well.
>
>  What ever they decide I hope they do it quickly
>
>  -Jim
>
> Rudedog
>
> FPSadmin.com
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Mark J. DeFilippis [mailto:defilm at acm.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:29 PM
> *To:* cod at icculus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cod] DMW Anti-Cheat
>
>
> Well, I bought that domain, and I will be happy with any A/C system.
>
> If you think about it, ATCV must have wanted to do something
> they felt was better than PB or it seems it would be easy to have
> done PB. The system by Garetjax sounds promising. There have
> a few options. I would think PB would have been the easiest and
> least costly.
>
> Honestly they have always come through before. They have earned
> the right of some time IMHO. We don't have our first patch yet. (Can't
> count 1a).
> which is a real credit to the job ACTV did, and Ryan of course
> on the Linux binary.
>
> But in about a year, if you still feel this way, you can pick up the
> domain as I don't think I will be renewing it. ;-) lol..
>
> ACTV and IFW have always been open. There has to be some
> reason they don't wish to disclose at this time. Steve, Jay, and a
> few others have written open emails on this list, and there was no
> response (on the list anyway). It is uncharacteristic, so they must
> have a reason. Perhaps to not give the hackers a jump start.
> I saw cheats for COD2 the day the game came out in stores ;-))
> Geez, they had be be modifying their cheats based on picking
> apart the demo...
>
> Mark
>
> At 01:29 PM 11/16/2005, you wrote:
>
>
> If that's right I think it's time to activate the "www.activisionsucks.com<http://www.activisionsucks.com/>"-website
> now.
>
> James Landi schrieb:
>
>
> This is something DMW is doing on their own. Activision has not stated
> who,
> what or when A/C will be implemented in CoD2.
>
>
> -Jim Landi
>
> Rudedog
>
> FPSadmin.com
>
>
> S1,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark J. DeFilippis, Ph. D EE defilm at acm.org
> defilm at ieee.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/cod/attachments/20051117/f7f20eea/attachment.htm>